# Can I re-download some songs I purchased?



## Carson (Jun 8, 2008)

Is it possible, without paying for them? I reinstalled on one of my computers and it had quite a few iTunes songs on it.


----------



## spitfire1945 (May 17, 2008)

I am sorry but whats the encoding format for iTunes files? I never downloaded on I am just curious.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Carson said:


> Is it possible, without paying for them? I reinstalled on one of my computers and it had quite a few iTunes songs on it.


No. I just realized this myself a short while ago.

Frickin' retarded... 

If you lost your iTMS purchases and have no backup, you're SOL.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

spitfire1945 said:


> I am sorry but whats the encoding format for iTunes files? I never downloaded on I am just curious.


I believe ACC.


----------



## spitfire1945 (May 17, 2008)

Lars said:


> I believe ACC.


yes but whats the bit rate etc


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

AAC with FairPlay DRM (AAC is a compression format only and doesn't have to be locked) iTMS songs are encoded at 128 bit, iTunesPlus content is at 256 IIRC. 

You can plead with Apple to give you a one-time download of your purchased songs. 

It does remind you to back up every time you purchase a song... 

Also, don't forget to de-authorize a machine before you reformat or get rid of the drive/machine. You get 5 machine installations (authorizations) for each song.


----------



## spitfire1945 (May 17, 2008)

you guys are pretty daft to be paying for music at 256 bitrate. Sorry for hijacking the thread.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Lars said:


> No. I just realized this myself a short while ago.
> 
> Frickin' retarded...
> 
> If you lost your iTMS purchases and have no backup, you're SOL.


Really? Damn... I don't see why they wouldn't allow for this. I could see how it could gum up the system but they could probably manage somehow. Here's my dirty little admission: the only time I ever use P2P is if I've already purchased the CD once and it gets stolen or damaged (rare, since I take good care of my CD's and use mostly digital now). I would also have no guilt over DLing music to replace all my paid iTunes songs if all of my backups failed.

SF1945: regardless of the bitrate the real draw to iTunes Plus is no DRM (and it's only 40¢ more.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

spitfire1945 said:


> you guys are pretty daft to be paying for music at 256 bitrate. Sorry for hijacking the thread.


??? 256 AAC is pretty darned close to the original. Most people can't hear the difference between 128 AAC and original. 

Keep in mind that AAC is higher quality than MP3 -- 128 AAC = roughly 160 - 192 MP3 in subjective quality.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

spitfire1945 said:


> you guys are pretty daft to be paying for music at 256 bitrate. Sorry for hijacking the thread.


256 kbps is the same price as 128 kbps AAC. I really don't understand your point? Is your point that we shouldn't buy lossy-compressed music at all?

Even CD audio quality has been compromised. Unless you hire live musicians to come play for you every time you want to listen to music, your standard of audio quality is only slightly higher than someone who is fine with iTMS tracks. And iTMS tracks are compressed from masters much higher quality than your CD, so in some cases, actually sound better than CD.

Sorry, got off on a tangent there. What was your point again?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

If you guys have iPod you can use iPod Access to get all your music off of your ipod or iPhone. My hard drive failed and I am a 5 hr plane ride from my tm backup. So I had to buy this programme for 20 bucks and got all of my music back except for some random songs never got taken back.

Also, you can take the drm lock off by burning the songs to a disc and then reimporting them.


----------



## TheBat (Feb 11, 2005)

hayesk said:


> Even CD audio quality has been compromised. Unless you hire live musicians to come play for you every time you want to listen to music, your standard of audio quality is only slightly higher than someone who is fine with iTMS tracks. And iTMS tracks are compressed from masters much higher quality than your CD, so in some cases, actually sound better than CD.


I have noticed that iTMS songs sound way better than when I rip my cd's (to the same AAC bitrate as the iTMS). I also buy from eMusic, and I am unhappy with the 192 VBR MP3 compression. It's okay for a noisy environment, but awful through a decent sound system. eMusic claims to use the LAME encoder.

Am I correct to believe that analog (vinyl) is not compressed?

While many contend that most cannot hear the difference between 128K and a CD, I bet most _will_ hear the difference through a decent sound system.


----------



## Details (Mar 28, 2008)

Yes, you are correct... analog vinyl recordings are not compressed, and will give you the closest thing to hearing it live.

On an iPod, it's difficult to hear the difference between the bit rates you are talking about (especially with the cheap earbuds that come with it), but on a HiFi system, yes... you'll hear the difference.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

hayesk said:


> 256 kbps is the same price as 128 kbps AAC. I really don't understand your point? Is your point that we shouldn't buy lossy-compressed music at all?
> 
> Even CD audio quality has been compromised. Unless you hire live musicians to come play for you every time you want to listen to music, your standard of audio quality is only slightly higher than someone who is fine with iTMS tracks. And iTMS tracks are compressed from masters much higher quality than your CD, so in some cases, actually sound better than CD.
> 
> Sorry, got off on a tangent there. What was your point again?


Don't bother trying to make sense of that post. It could either mean people are idiots for paying too much for a crappy low bitrate, or too much for a high bitrate people can't usually detect without high end equipment. Depends on if he's an audiophile or a pragmatist.


----------



## DrewNL (May 23, 2005)

Lars said:


> No. I just realized this myself a short while ago.
> 
> Frickin' retarded...
> 
> If you lost your iTMS purchases and have no backup, you're SOL.



If you buy a cd at Wal-Mart and you lose it, Wal-Mart won't give it to you again for free.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

DrewNL said:


> If you buy a cd at Wal-Mart and you lose it, Wal-Mart won't give it to you again for free.


Neither would I feel entitled to go in a shoplift a CD. But I'm just saying if Wal-mart's piece of garbage CD player scratched up my CD I wouldn't exactly lose sleep over copying a friends disk to replace the one destroyed. If you look at it that way then Wal-mart is saved the hassle of an irate customer looking for their money back on a damaged CD (which wouldn't exactly be covered under warrantee).

If someone stole my music collection the money would come out of insurance to replace, which could make everyone's premiums go up. Once again, P2P doesn't seem like such a bad alternative.

In the case of digital it would be extremely rare that both song and backup would fail, but if it did, we are talking about buying the music from the same people who sold you the computer you trusted it to and the backup scheme they provided you (possibly even the Time Machine you are storing it on). So it'd be nice if they had you covered instead of covering their butts by saying "sorry, please buy again." They have your account, you can't play them on unauthorized machines, who cares if you have to DL it twice instead of once in a lifetime.

Anyways, I don't support P2P because people abuse it. Some people think music should be free, I don't. I do think there are valid reasons for not having to pay for the same song twice.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

hayesk said:


> Unless you hire live musicians to come play for you every time you want to listen to music, your standard of audio quality is only slightly higher than someone who is fine with iTMS tracks.


Oh. My. Gawd.

I just realised that people living in the 17th century (and before) got BETTER fidelity out of their music than I do today.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

chas_m said:


> Oh. My. Gawd.
> 
> I just realised that people living in the 17th century (and before) got BETTER fidelity out of their music than I do today.


chas_m, there is hardly a chasm of time between the live-music hiring persons of the 17th century, and us.

It's more like a valley of cash.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/fashion/sundaystyles/20ACTS.html?pagewanted=all

When any 12-year old girl whose parents have a few million to spare can hire Aerosmith or the Stones to play at their birthday party, times really haven't changed. The definition of spare change might have, though.

When money's no object, rent a rocker

Why music stars are playing private parties - Times Online


----------



## DrewNL (May 23, 2005)

I don't want to be misunderstood here. What I intended to say above is that I don't think Apple (or Wal-Mart) should be on the hook when media they sold is lost or destroyed. At the same time, this has happened to me and I certainly do not think twice about re-acquiring my music by other means, seeing as I already supported the artist.

I recently lost a large chunk of my Tragically Hip collection. I replaced it via torrents and/or P2P. I'm sure Gord Downie is cool with it, since I already gave him all that money. No one else is availing of my original copies, they were destroyed, so I hardly consider it stealing.

D


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> In the case of digital it would be extremely rare that both song and backup would fail


I'm more concerned about someone stealing all my backed up music through a burglary or some such.


----------



## celep (Mar 9, 2005)

It would be great if iTunes allowed you to re-download music that you had already purchased. My interpretation may be wrong here, but my thinking is that with iTunes you pay for access to the music rather than a physical cd... so I don't really agree with the WalMart-replacing-lost-or-damaged-CD analogy. Luckily, nothing has happened to me that would make me need to re-download past purchases, but it would be great if it wasn't an issue if I ever needed to!

I have a subscription with emusic.com, and they track your purchase history. They let you re-download music you have already purchased whenever you need to, which is really nice.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Details said:


> Yes, you are correct... analog vinyl recordings are not compressed, and will give you the closest thing to hearing it live.


??? Analog recordings are most definitely compressed at the mastering stage. Back in the day, the debate was how much bass you could get away with - while avoiding physically jumping the needle out of the groove of the LP. 

Compression is also inherent in the analog recording process, as each tape machine imposes its own built-in compression characteristics.

Every LP is recorded using a drastic (40dB) pre-equalization, post-equalization curve (the RIAA curve), and the LP itself introduces various types of distortion and crosstalk - including an increasing rate of distortion as the tracks spiral toward the centre of the disc. Interesting article here

Fair to say that analog LP reproduced sound is more FAMILIAR to us, but not necessarily more ACCURATE -- and that the over use of compression on CDs is the result of poor production choices, not inherent in the medium.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

celep said:


> It would be great if iTunes allowed you to re-download music that you had already purchased.


It would be ever greater if people stopped blaming Apple/iTunes for conditions the RECORD COMPANIES put on them.


----------



## spitfire1945 (May 17, 2008)

Ok I am sorry, who is calling AAC the best lossless format and who thinks 320 kbps let alone 256 kbps is the best quality out there. Do you realize that the CD that you buy from HMV has a hidden ~1000 kbps format in it? Every studio sends you two formats a simple 320 bitrate music and then there is this ~1000kbps format. 

Some of you guys don't have the proper hardware to tell the difference don't you? Hell most of you are running on analog speakers, I bet. I won't blame you. I am an audiophile. I had to put linux on my iPod just so I don't have to work with the ****ty 128/192 bitrate.

Oh here is another nice fact. An LP or a Vinyl has 10x the bitrate than your average CDs. Part of the reason why a lot of bands now are releasing Vinyl versions of their albums.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

spitfire1945 said:


> Ok I am sorry, who is calling AAC the best lossless format


*EDIT*: _I did not understand that Spitfire was responding to someone ELSE who claimed AAC was a lossless format, thus my original answer to Spitfire was inaccurate. I apologised to him in a PM for my confusion and repeat that apology here. Spitfire did not claim AAC was a lossless format and I am sorry for my confusion on this point._

It's the best LOSSY format in my opinion.



> Do you realize that the CD that you buy from HMV has a hidden ~1000 kbps format in it? Every studio sends you two formats a simple 320 bitrate music and then there is this ~1000kbps format.


????

What are you talking about? The music on a CD isn't "hidden." Stick a commercial CD into a Mac and double-click on the disc to "reveal" the "hidden" uncompressed AIF files.



> I am an audiophile.


_[deleted by user, see above]_

You're an audiophile who thinks the uncompressed files on a CD are hidden? That thinks that all CDs come with low *and* hi-bitrate files??

You're an audiophile who (completely mistakenly) thought you had to put Linux on your iPod to listen to higher-than-256kbps files??

Yeah right. You're not an audiophile ... you're a n00b with overpriced speakers.


----------



## spitfire1945 (May 17, 2008)

chas_m said:


> Nobody.
> 
> AAC is a lossy format. Therefore it cannot be lossless.
> 
> It's the best LOSSY format in my opinion.


buddy, I am not quoting myself here I am reading this hither and thither ok? I know my formats. Hence my baffled comment.



chas_m said:


> What are you talking about? The music on a CD isn't "hidden." Stick a commercial CD into a Mac and double-click on the disc to "reveal" the "hidden" uncompressed AIF files.


OK since apparently you know everything why don't you teach me how to rip/encode a FLAC off a CD. And trust me that bitrate is available in there. I would always like some advice. 



chas_m said:


> You're an audiophile who doesn't know that AAC is a lossy format?


Please re-read and learn to recognize the concept of referencing. 



chas_m said:


> You're an audiophile who's never heard of Apple Lossless or other LOSSLESS formats?


 I am very familiar with ALAC and the Mpeg 4 audio format for Apple. 



chas_m said:


> You're an audiophile who thinks the uncompressed files on a CD are hidden? That thinks that all CDs come with low *and* hi-bitrate files??


Why do you sound so desperate? I am not talking about some hidden treasure here. When you are ripping off a CD in iTunes or Windows Media Player it will always encode it to 320 kbps. Hence, they are incapable of encoding the music to any bitrate higher than 320kbps. 



chas_m said:


> You're an audiophile who (completely mistakenly) thought you had to put Linux on your iPod to listen to higher-than-256kbps files??


Right then, why don't you tell me to achieve ~900kbps 44.1Khz audio onto my iPod. I would be glad to have a listen. I am serious.



chas_m said:


> Yeah right. You're not an audiophile ... you're a n00b with overpriced speakers.


Do you know what hardware I have?

Don't judge.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

chas_m said:


> Yeah right. You're not an audiophile ... you're a n00b with overpriced speakers.


Baaaahahaha!

You took the words right out of my mouth!


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

spitfire1945 said:


> OK since apparently you know everything why don't you teach me how to rip/encode a FLAC off a CD.


Sure! Glad to help!

To encode from an audio CD to FLAC format, you could use this (free) or this (free) or this (free, but not yet universal/intel native). 

To make FLAC files play in iTunes, you need this, though this and this and this can play FLAC files without having to fire up iTunes at all.

You can also tag your FLAC files using this or this.

But if you want iPod support, you need to forget FLAC and use Apple Lossless (or native AIFF, or WAV) instead. All iPods apart from the Shuffle support both rip/encoding and iPod transfer in Apple Lossless, WAV and AIFF. If you don't like highly-compressed music, you don't have to use lossy codecs like AAC or MP3. Obviously you can't fit as MANY songs on the iPod as you can with more compressed formats, but if audio QUALITY is your priority than the three supported lossless formats are the way to go.



> I am very familiar with ALAC and the Mpeg 4 audio format for Apple.


Then you must already know that all iPods except the shuffle support AIFF, WAV and Apple Lossless, which don't have bitrate limits.



> When you are ripping off a CD in iTunes or Windows Media Player it will always encode it to 320 kbps. Hence, they are incapable of encoding the music to any bitrate higher than 320kbps.


Incorrect. See above. 



> Right then, why don't you tell me to achieve ~900kbps 44.1Khz audio onto my iPod. I would be glad to have a listen. I am serious.


iTunes -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Importing -> select AIFF Encoder, WAV Encoder or Apple Lossless Encoder.


----------



## spitfire1945 (May 17, 2008)

chas_m said:


> Sure! Glad to help!
> 
> To encode from an audio CD to FLAC format, you could use this (free) or this (free) or this (free, but not yet universal/intel native).
> 
> ...


hmmm now that is interesting. I always encoded from CD to FLAC on the PC and never actually thought Mac would have support for FLAC.

Thank you

PS. I still don't have expensive speakers just for the record. Just the Z5500s and the M-Audio Studio monitors.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

spitfire1945 said:


> When you are ripping off a CD in iTunes or Windows Media Player it will always encode it to 320 kbps. Hence, they are incapable of encoding the music to any bitrate higher than 320kbps.


If you are an audiophile, I'm a porn star. Really! I am!

Good gawd man. If you are going to strut around spouting BS like that, you deserve to be knocked down a few pegs.

Learn how to use your computer, iTunes, and CDs, and then you MIGHT be qualified to say you are a guru (but still nowhere near an audiophile).


----------



## spitfire1945 (May 17, 2008)

guytoronto said:


> If you are an audiophile, I'm a porn star. Really! I am!
> 
> Good gawd man. If you are going to strut around spouting BS like that, you deserve to be knocked down a few pegs.
> 
> Learn how to use your computer, iTunes, and CDs, and then you MIGHT be qualified to say you are a guru (but still nowhere near an audiophile).


So what qualifications do you have? I am curious. A degree in physics perhaps? or a degree as a sound engineer?

You failed to notice what I said above. I encode all my music on my PC. I maybe have been wrong about iTunes in some ways however, it is true that iTunes cannot encode to FLAC (at least not out of the box). As far as putting AIFF on iPod. I haven't tried that yet.

Another thing. You people sometimes need to read **** carefully because there is a reason why threads like the ones in the Everything Else! section sprout up telling how much one user wants to find and murder another user and eat his/her whole family up or some nutty thing like that.

Cheers!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

spitfire1945 said:


> You failed to notice what I said above.


This is what you said:


> Do you realize that the CD that you buy from HMV has a hidden ~1000 kbps format in it? Every studio sends you two formats a simple 320 bitrate music and then there is this ~1000kbps format.


Completely wrong.


> When you are ripping off a CD in iTunes or Windows Media Player it will always encode it to 320 kbps. Hence, they are incapable of encoding the music to any bitrate higher than 320kbps.


Completely wrong.


> Some of you guys don't have the proper hardware to tell the difference don't you? Hell most of you are running on analog speakers, I bet.


All speakers are analogue. It's how they work. If you are running "digital speakers" you either have a) Analogue Speakers marketed as digital, or b) Some really old technology that doesn't work - Digital speakers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Oh here is another nice fact. An LP or a Vinyl has 10x the bitrate than your average CDs.


Vinyl doesn't have a "bitrate" - Analog sound vs. digital sound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



spitfire1945 said:


> listen buddy
> 
> if you have a problem you talk to me through pm. Its better to settle beef here.
> 
> you people think just because you guys are sponsoring members you can prance around attacking other people over the internet for personal satisfaction.


No beef here. Personal satisfaction? Sure, maybe a little. Because I'm a sponsoring member? Not at all. It's because YOU prance around with your elitist attitude spouting BS like "vinyl bitrate".


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

This is one of the myths about analogue sources:



Details said:


> Yes, you are correct... analog vinyl recordings are not compressed, and will give you the closest thing to hearing it live.


The people engineering the recordings may be using limiters and/or compressors during the mixing and mastering process to obtain a certain sound, for artistic purposes. Still, there are lots of recordings out there where this isn't done.

However, vinyl records are cut using the RIAA preemphasis curve (or one of the other curves that existed during the early LP days) which cuts the bass and boosts the treble. The phono preamp applies a complimentary bass boost and treble cut when you play back records so that ideally what you hear should be flat as far as frequency response goes. Essentially, what this process is a frequency sensitive compression/expansion expansion/compression scheme covering the audio spectrum that's designed to skate around several technical annoyances with records such as surface noise and excess groove excursions when something like a symbal crash is riding on a loud bass note happens etc.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

This is probably the biggest hi jack of a thread in history.

Spitfire, I think you should have a little more respect for people who have been here a lot longer than you. I haven´t been here that long so I try to maintain a good amount of respect for the ehmac elders ( :lmao: ). A heated argument is cool but the personal shots are un-called for. I have taken a lot of knowledge from GT and he puts in a lot into this community from what I can tell so try and show him some respect.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Amiga2000HD said:


> The people engineering the recordings may be using limiters and/or compressors during the mixing and mastering process.


Oh yeah. Google "groove cramming" or pick up a Sally Ann thrift-store copy of any "K-Tel" recording and tell me that's better than CD. Um, not so much.

PS. Not saying that every record did this, just citing a particularly egregious example that I have first-hand experience with. Damn I'm old.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

This thread is turning into junk...

The OP was asking about re-downloading lost music.

If one wants to remain entirely legal, then they will have to contact Apple to see if they can get a one time download to restore their library. Otherwise they are going to have to buy all of the tracks once again. It would be a good idea to burn these tracks to CD/DVD media for backup purposes so it doesn't happen again.

In the grey zone, if the tracks are downloaded again but not from iTunesPlus, one can strip the DRM off of the files in order to make backups. I am not talking piracy here, I am just talking about backups, and stripping off the DRM is entirely legal until the passage of the new copyright bill that is now in Parliament. So it is a grey zone, but really, these tracks should have been backed up.

In the illegal zone, it is entirely possible to replace the tracks, though probably not from the iTunes Store, and probably not without the audio quality of something that is from the iTunes Store.

So in reference to the OP, yes it is possible, but until you call Apple, you will not know if it will cost you money or not.



> You failed to notice what I said above. I encode all my music on my PC.


No wonder why you have such a predilection with bit-rates and oddball file formats. Windoze converts all formats to it's own proprietary internal format, and when you create a file through this method, many artifacts of the multiple conversions are left over. Windoze itself internally can not handle AIFF, AAC or any other of the standard formats; formats that for the most part are inherent in the core audio library of OSX (and most other *Nix systems so equipped). It does have conversion routines which cause the quality of conversion to be quite variable, so it does a better job on their own formats like WMA and a worse job on AAC, and it can't do FLAC, OGG or any other open standard format because, well, it's the Evil Empire, and they don't do open standards.

CDs are recorded at 22kB/s, and are "oversampled" to 44kB/s for error correction and antialiasing purposes. And not only that, DVD Audio and DAT are recorded at that rate as well. For all intents and purposes, this bit-rate is "studio quality". Any talk about crazy 1000kb/s bitrates from HMV is bunk because no manufacturer would bother making non-standard disks that no player can play and that has a bit-rate many magnitudes higher than what is considered to be studio quality in the first place. (Though bats may be able to listen to such recordings, if they ever did exist.)

HMV disks are also the worst quality disks in the industry, using the oldest obsolete machinery cast off by every other CD maker, in order to crank out the lowest possible cost disks of the worst catalog of artist wannabees to maximize their fat profits.

Some CDs are "non-standard"... On a regular CD, each sample is represented as a 16-bit number; but some CDs use a special feature that allow for 24-bit numbers that can be read by special 24-bit players for "high resolution" sound, while still being playable by regular 16-bit players.

Some CDs have more than 99 tracks (and some players can not handle more than 49 tracks), and hence, this can become a "feature", since a track can be numbered up to 255 on any given disk. Some CDs have been made with these "bonus tracks" that can only be played with special software that would ignore the 99 track limit. Even on a Mac, the tracks numbered above 99 are considered "absurd" - though one can actually access the files through Finder (though they will not play on iTunes unless they are dragged to the desktop, and thus, "renumbered".

FLAC/OGG is not inherent in any OS - mostly because they are open source software that the writers do not wish to license. This way, they can continue to make it available as a free and open system, unlike every other "standard" that has been submitted to the perversions of the Evil Empire. Thus, you will have to have some kind of add-on or plug-in on every OS to use these formats. However, these plug-ins are entirely free and open, and when the components are installed, iTunes can entirely handle them.

FLAC/OGG take quite a bit of processor to decode, and would probably be too process intensive for the ARM processor of the iPod. But iTunes can entirely handle the streaming conversion to AAC/AIFF format for the iPod. One can go back and forth as needed. FLAC does have an advantage in that it also encapsulates the error correction codes, making playback error recovery a simpler exercise than on an AIFF file.

There seems to be a misconception... AAC, otherwise known as the MPEG-4 standard, is both lossless and lossy, depending on the setting of compression. Apple Lossless is an AAC (or in other words, and audio only M4P), and is data compressed. Upon decompression, the data stream is identical to the original. With more compression, the file size is reduced at the cost of audio quality.

However, AAC has more advanced algorithms for determining "what you may not be able to hear", and hence, an AAC at 128kb/s will sound better than an MP3 at 196kb/s. Remember that MP3 is a fairly old format that had to do the job on much less processor power, while AAC is newer and more advanced and needs much more processor power. It isn't that MP3 is "bad" and AAC is "good", it is just that MP3s employ a different strategy. So MP3s will sound like AM radio, while an AAC will sound like FM.

At home, on a decent stereo, I wouldn't bother with MP3s if I can use AIFF or lossless AAC - but if I am using an iPod, sitting on a smelly bus going to work, MP3s or lossy AACs will entirely be adequate if they have not been overcompressed into sounding like abad AM radio...

As for audiophiles - really, they don't do digital - and if they do, they are more likely to buy expensive gold master disks, use exotic players that have separate A/D converters, and bulk up on 24-bit disks or SACDs. Audiophiles will probably run a tube amp (like I do, even though I am not an audiophile), or a high quality amp like a Marantz, MacIntosh, B&O, or maybe even a Nakamichi from the 70's. Audiophiles rarely do the 80's, and never do the 90's...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> This thread is turning into junk...
> 
> The OP was asking about re-downloading lost music.


You are correct.

Re-downloading lost music is usually a no-go.

A bricks-and-mortar store won't give you a new CD if you lose your original.

Same goes for online stores.

Backup, backup, backup!


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

chas_m said:


> Oh yeah. Google "groove cramming" or pick up a Sally Ann thrift-store copy of any "K-Tel" recording and tell me that's better than CD. Um, not so much.
> 
> PS. Not saying that every record did this, just citing a particularly egregious example that I have first-hand experience with. Damn I'm old.


There's a good article about that practice on Wikipedia as well. It was named "Loudness Wars" and had some excellent plots of waveforms at each stop along the way as a sample recording was reworked several times to increase the perceived loudness. With LP records, it meant processing the music through a compressor limiter cranked way up and then cutting the record as hot as possible on the mastering lathe.

It's pretty much the same process for CDs and tapes except instead of cutting a disc hot, the duplication master is recorded with program's peaks well above the tape's nominal operating level and with any digital format like CDs, the program material's mastered dangerously close to full scale. Some CDs even have digital clipping due to peaks exceeding full scale and these sound brutally awful.

The "make it louder' crowd in the music business is something else. Then radio stations take those recordings and further mess them up with on air processing to make them even more loud and in a lot of cases bass heavy as a gimmick to attract listeners.

What it comes down to though is that the poster I was replying to was wrong about records being uncompressed, because that's a function of the RIAA pre-emphasis during mastering and de-emphasis during playback. I figured I'd try to clear up the record issue when I read that post. I hadn't yet seen what some people had written about CDs at the time otherwise I'd have tried to explain a bit about the Red Book standards for audio CDs.

Edit: Now that I'm discussing mastering records, I'm feeling old too!


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

All digital content is only digital until it comes time to actually observe the content. 

All recording medium, digital or analog, has some type of loss from the original, there is no such thing as a truly perfect copy when it comes to crossing that bridge between digital to analog, or analog to digital. Loss can be in forms of degradation, noise, compression, fidelity, dynamic range loss. 

Its just like the argument from the photographic people that film has infinite resolution, and that scanned negatives contain no noise at all (yet scanners can create artificial noise from trying to recover from an underexposed negative, let alone silver halide crystals can only be so small). 

Being an audiophile just means that you're willing to spend a couple hundred dollars on gold plated braided speaker wires to get marginally less resistance than 50$ set of "monster cables".


----------



## spitfire1945 (May 17, 2008)

oh for pete's sake


----------



## boxlight (Mar 20, 2008)

Carson said:


> Is it possible, without paying for them? I reinstalled on one of my computers and it had quite a few iTunes songs on it.


I've read that Apple will let you re-download all of your purchases once, but I've never looked into it in detail:

Digg - Itunes Lets People Re-Download all Your Music Once!


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

boxlight said:


> I've read that Apple will let you re-download all of your purchases once, but I've never looked into it in detail:
> 
> Digg - Itunes Lets People Re-Download all Your Music Once!



When it comes to digital content, and the means of delivery, I'd imagine the price of the songs also takes into account a price of bandwidth used to download that song. Bandwidth might get sucked to hell if they were allowed to redownload freely. 

It's like istockphoto.com you make a purchase on an image, you have the first 24 hours to complete that download, after that you get charged again. (bandwidth was their reason for this, besides the possible abuse...)


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Moral of this thread: *BACK UP YOUR ITUNES PURCHASES!*


----------

