U2 Live from the Brooklyn Bridge - EP on Itunes.
 

4 Tracks from the Show a couple of weeks ago
Sometimes you can't make it on your own.
I will Follow
Vertigo
All Because of You

i'd like a cd

Amen.

Screw this mp3 - or whatever it is they use over there - shit..

I am 99% certain U2 will be releasing Mp3's of each show on the tour on Itunes. So Mp3s for u2 are probly the future

Is anyone actually surprised after U2's endorcement of the iPod?

Not that I mind, while having an actual cd in hand is nice, it is nice to have the choice to download individual songs.
Esp if they release mp3s of all the shows, you can pick and choose the best song from each date and make your own live cd. That is unless they make it so you have to buy the entire cd and can't buy each track seperate.

Whoa! Is this an artist backlash against the music record labels?

A music artist that is releasing live music of their concerts? No bootlegs!

I've noticed that The Who have cds of their concerts, and Queen is coming out with the best "bootlegs" of their concerts. Of course can't forget Pearl Jam who previously released their concert cds.

I wonder who will be next..

iTunes uses AAC, which is a noticable improvement in sound quality over MP3.

Unfortunately the iTunes songs are encoded at such a low bitrate that they sound worse than a low-watt radio station broadcasting from several states away.

in the most recent spin magazine, bono said that the arrangement between apple and u2 involves no money. the ipod add was done for free. apparently, each side figures that their respective exposure is increased by involving the other.

kms

That's a drastic overstatement. iTunes encodes at 128 kbs, just like everybody else.

...which is quite sad, as 128kb mp3 is a pitiful music format. I didn't even know that Itunes used that until I just read about it. I figured they'd give you several "quality" options, but knowing that makes it even that much less appealing.
Jon

Wow, that's too bad. I'm used to 192 or VBR that goes up to 256 and beyond when necessary.

You're right, which is why iTunes doesn't use MP3. As I posted earlier in this thread, iTunes uses AAC, which sounds better than MP3 by a wide margin.

I would prefer a higher bit rate than 128 kbs, (I rip my AAC files at 160 kbs), but in AAC it's probably a decent enough compromise between sound quality and file size.

I'm actually happy my ears aren't as sensitive to sounds as yours. I think their ACC files sound great, so I don't mind not having the physical cd. To each his own...

Ah, thanks for the correction, I didn't look close enough. I'm a bit picky about having the highest quality possible for archival purposes, so I can't stand compressed formats. CDs were the standard and now we have regressed to a far lesser format and opened the door to music "fans" who aren't really interested in music other than they can whore it out for free. This discussion always brings out the "can't tell a difference" crowd that listen to music on cheesy headphones or computer speakers. I encourage those people to compare some mp3s to vinyl or cd's on my full JBL MPro/Crown-powered club PA system and then say they still can't hear the difference.
Jon

I agree with your post completely. I suspect the point you make is exactly why SACD and DVD-Audio haven't been embraced by more people. Many people I know think an expensive boombox qualifies as a nice stereo.

I rip my CDs for my iPod as AAC files at 160kbs, which seems to be a nice compromise between sound quality and file size. I may make adjustments if my brother comes through for me with a pair of Shure E3c earbuds for Christmas.

But I'll never give up listening to my actual discs when it comes to sound quality.

Guess what, the "can't tell a difference" crowd might not care. I like music that has good lyrics because that's my thing. I don't care about the intricacies of the music. I don't care if I hear the snare as clearly as your stereo plays the snare. I don't care if the bass is as deep on my Sony as it is on your JBL.

That's what you "audiophiles" don't seem to get. People like music for different reasons. I'm not bothered by having a music file that isn't perfect. I think that the majority of people don't care to, or can't, tell the difference between a 128 ACC file and a WAV file on their everyday stereo. We like it for the music, not the perfection of the sound.

I understand that there are some people who love the perfect sound. If your are one of those then you probably shouldn't care that a live concert is encoded in ACC. It's not like that'll be as perfect sounding as something that comes from a studio recording anyhow. If you love the perfect sound in music than stick with CDs and DVD-A's. iTunes probably isn't your thing.

128kb AAC doesn't not equal the same quality as a 128kb mp3.

What? With the double-negative I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Care to expand?

If you're saying 128kbs AAC doesn't equal 128kbs MP3, you're right. The AAC file will sound way better than the MP3.