You know what iTunes needs?

[asterroc]

Genre tags.

Is this even something that mp3's can do? Maybe could do some finangling like have it recognize that "-/-" means "these are separate tags" so if I wanted to mark something as being BOTH 80's and Dance, I'd type "80s-/-Dance" and it'd know that on my iPod the file should appear under both, and not exclusively under the hybrid genre (as it does now).

Comments

[gemini6ice.livejournal.com]

There's some functionality called "groupings." IDK exactly how it works though.

[l0stmyrel1g10n.livejournal.com]

i agree. the closest i get to that is creating a Smart Playlist of songs whose genre includes a certain phrase, "Rock" for example, and then that will give me Alternative Rock, Punk Rock, Classic Rock, Pop/Rock, etc.

[marquiswildbill.livejournal.com]

Actually I think iTunes needs a lot more than better classification. Mainly fair pricing and a nonpropietary format would top my list. AAC (and VBR MP3) are fairly lossy formats when compared to 16bit CD audio, which is itself a somewhat lossy format (average human hearing is slightly better, good hearing can discern a clear difference between 24bit HDCD and 16bit CDA, and perfect pitch hears something like 32bit sound or better), yet buying all the tracks from a CD on iTunes costs me almost as much as a CD, and they only work with certain players. The extra cost of a CD can at least be written off as manufacture and distribution costs, whereas iTunes has no significant overhead other than bandwidth, so the profit margin is vastly superior to a CD. Also once I have purchased my cd, provided I have disabled autorun on my computer, I can rip the tracks into whatever format I want at whatever quality I want, wether it is 64kbit .wmv, or an opensource lossless format like .flac or .shn, or whatever lossless format my mobile media player of choice supports.
/rant

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

I'm a little curious about something... There is a slightly noticeable difference between listening to a lossy sound file and a lossless one, if you have good hearing. But does it affect your enjoyment of a song? Does that slight deterioration in quality mean you don't like it as much? Personally, even when I can tell the difference between an mp3/aac and a more high fidelity recording, it doesn't necessarily mean I like the hifi version more. The difference isn't great enough to distract me, and moreover, I've found that high quality speakers make much more of a difference than the quality of a digital recording. And the advantage in space-savings is important. It means more songs fit on your mp3 player, for one thing.

I feel like that part of the debate has been hijacked by audiophile snobs. The DRM issue is entirely different, but the RIAA won't sell music online without DRM, so what can iTunes do?

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Hey, it's you! :-P

I would have to say that I can't tell the difference between CDs and mp3's, or even records for that matter. The speakers and acoustics of the room make a big difference though.

Ooh, reminds me, my audiobook arrived at the library. Time to pick it up. :)

[marquiswildbill.livejournal.com]

I totally agree that without good stereo equipment, the difference is overridden. But what angers me is that they want nearly the same money from me for an inferior product, that has a higher profit margin. Personally on most equipment, VBR mp3 is good enough for me to not be irritated (if only the loss of AAC/MP3 could have character like old vinyl I would never care).
DRM is easy enough to get around that I really don't care, for every advancement the RIAA makes, someone will counter it in a matter of days. The RIAA needs to understand that it could make a great deal more money by lowering costs per song and thereby ioncreasing the volume of sales (look at the business done by allofmp3.com).