Reader Comments

Nice move. Bravo, Apple and EMI.

So I can get full albums at 256kbps AAC with NO DRM for just ten bucks. Hell yes! I also like how Jobs answered the reporter who asked: "Now that the iTunes/iPod link is broken, do you see sales of the iPod declining?" Apple can finally prove that the iPod has sold well because it's simple and easy to use and well designed - not because iTunes locked people into it.

And the same people who complain when Paul writes about XBox love it when he talks about iTunes. I'm sure Windows IT pros have more to do with iTunes than with the XBox.

@bdk: "Apple can finally prove that the iPod has sold well because it's simple and easy to use and well designed - not because iTunes locked people into it." Actually, my complaint is the other way around. The iPod locks me in to iTunes. I can't use Urge, Napster or any of the others with an iPod. Apple used their monopoly with the iPod to lock people in to iTunes.

Well, the reporter basically asked a stupid question. Opening up iTunes won't affect iPod sales. Opening up the iPod so that it works with other music stores may affect downloads on iTunes. Basically, iTunes is popular because of the iPod and not the other way around.

in other "news": www.google.com/tisp like most of Google's offerings, it belongs in the toilet. Google: "treating our users like sh1t since Bubble 1.0" XP

" I'm sure Windows IT pros have more to do with iTunes than with the XBox." Most assuredly, sharky. I've seen plenty of copies of iTunes on computers in corporate environments. OTOH, I have yet to see an xBox at any of the same businesses.

Bravo. Much like Waethorn's mother, music is now open wide for everyone to enjoy.

....much like your mouth. XP

Jersey72: The fact that Napster or Urge do not work with the iPod is not Apple's fault nor its concern. If those services follow iTunes' lead and abandon DRM, then the music you purchase there will certainly work with your iPod. Take it up with Napster and Microsoft.

@bdk: "The fact that Napster or Urge do not work with the iPod is not Apple's fault nor its concern. If those services follow iTunes' lead and abandon DRM, then the music you purchase there will certainly work with your iPod. Take it up with Napster and Microsoft." First, let's not go applauding Apple on this. EMI still owns the music, and it's EMI's decision that matters. Apple is simply following EMI's lead. Second, if Apple supported WMA's, or licensed FairPlay that would open the iPod up to more services. Remember - Microsoft opened up PlaysForSure for licensing. Apple hasn't opened up FairPlay. They want to keep their iPod/iTunes monopoly.

"I've seen plenty of copies of iTunes on computers in corporate environments. " Of course. Companies also regularly download songs from the iTunes music store. I was talking about the store, and not the player.

"Second, if Apple supported WMA's, or licensed FairPlay that would open the iPod up to more services. Remember - Microsoft opened up PlaysForSure for licensing. Apple hasn't opened up FairPlay. They want to keep their iPod/iTunes monopoly." Why would they? Honestly I'm sorry but something that affects maybe 1% (5% at the most) of the iPod owners who buy music online is not a good enough reason to open up FairPlay or license WMA. If it's REALLY that big of a deal to the point you want to throw down "monopoly" around like it paints Apple up to be Microsoft, burn the CD and rip it into mp3. Windows users are already used to multiple steps to accomplish a simple task, what's a few more clicks going to kill you?

*sigh* iTunes + iPod is NOT a monopoly because of Fairplay, Jersey. The reason Apple doesn't license Fairplay is the same reason it doesn't license OS X - Apple is only Apple as long as it controls the entire user experience. That's simply the cornerstone of the company. It's WHY the iPod works so well and Macs are so seemless. You're asking Apple to abandon that philosophy and adopt Microsoft's "Platform Ecosystem" philosophy. Then, all of a sudden, Apple would be getting calls from people saying, "Hey, my iPod won't sync with Napster. What the hell man?" And Apple would have to call up Napster and say, "Would you mind making your software a tad easier to use? You know, like iTunes." Ugh. That's just rubbish.

And moreover, if Fairplay were licensed then every time something went wrong, people would call Apple. Even if the problem was with Urge or Rhapsody people would still blame Apple - just like they blame Microsoft when the problem is really some 3rd party driver. Yea, I can definitely see why Apple would want to adopt your approach, Jersey.

"Windows users are already used to multiple steps to accomplish a simple task" You're right. To access this page, I had to double click on the FF icon to open it, enter the address on the address bar, click on "log in" to sign in, click on the textbox to enter text, click on the rating to rate the article, click on the text input box to enter the verification characters and finally click on "Submit". On a Mac, it takes just one click. That's all.

It's the iPod that locks you in to iTunes, not the other way around. Simply opening up FairPlay would not free up the iPod. I misspoke there. Opening FairPlay would open iTunes. (I hadn't had all my coffee yet.) Having said that, I'm locked out of the iPod market because the iPod won't work with WMA's. I like the rental model (as I've said ad nauseum), and that prevents me from ever being able to use an iPod. I don't expect Apple to change. Apple is a monolithic corporation and I (and the others in the same boat as me) mean little to Apple and their bottom line. Having Apple rule everything makes it easier for Apple products to work together. They don't have to support 3rd party vendors (iPhone), they can disregard standards (AirPort), and their users stay happy because "it just works." I understand why they do it. It doesn't mean I have to like it, or can't disagree with the model.

Giving people the option to burn DRM-less music is a great idea. Bravo, Apple.

"iTunes + iPod is NOT a monopoly because of Fairplay, Jersey. The reason Apple doesn't license Fairplay is the same reason it doesn't license OS X - Apple is only Apple as long as it controls the entire user experience." (i think that's the stupidest argument i've heard all day. i'll wait for your response though, cuz i'm sure it's a real hum-dinger.) that's completely wrong, at least until now. Apple was involved in monopoly abuse tactics with iTunes. the iPod is the dominant player on the market (a monopoly), and users HAVE TO use iTunes if they want to legally purchase your music and use it with the iPod. that's also called vendor lock-in and they're only leveraging it to increase sales on iTunes. dispute it all you want but it's the truth. Apple could've licensed an "open" system such as Windows Media technologies, but instead they chose to use their own proprietary format. riddle me this, Batman: why do you think they decided to build a custom firmware for the iPod if PortalPlayer already supports Windows Media (with AND without WMDRM)? somehow restricting media formats is better for the user experience? XP

"On a Mac, it takes just one click. That's all." That's nothing. If you want easy, Waethorn's mother just requires a smile.

*On a Mac, it takes just one click. That's all.* Well half truth, first I have to phone into the mothership and drink the latest daily kool-aid like I'm from Jonestown. Then I have to stop by the tattoo parlor and re-color my Steve Jobs potrait that now covers my old Jesus tattoo. After the CPUID check when booting up, I'm good to go with one click. I was being sarcastic if anyone here lacks the abilitiy to sense these things.

"Apple could've licensed an "open" system such as Windows Media technologies, but instead they chose to use their own proprietary format." You're calling Windows Media Audio open? Hah, right and George Bush never did cocaine. The only "open" format is OGG and hell would have to freeze over for anyone to offer that as their main format and be sucessful.

"like most of Google's offerings, it belongs in the toilet." Aw I guess someone didn't get approved of an AdSense account, that's to bad because I rather enjoy the extra money it brings in. What's Microsoft's online offering? Oh wait, it's a joke in terms of market share and is in the toilet along with TISP ;)

"You're calling Windows Media Audio open? Hah, right and George Bush never did cocaine. The only "open" format is OGG and hell would have to freeze over for anyone to offer that as their main format and be sucessful." Open != Open Source Open != Zero Licenses By open I simply meant that Microsoft made it available for vendors who wished to license it. Apple won't even do that.

As usual, Apple leads where others follow. Using other products, like Microsoft Windows, feels like traveling back in time.

If Apple licensed Mircosoft's priortery DRM then todays break through would have never have happened. We would all be stuck to the low sound quality music DRM'd in a priortery format offered by Microsoft and their partners. Vista (SP1)

Let's all stop tripping over ourselves to congratulate Apple here. Apple is not the driving force here. "EMI announced that Apple's iTunes would be the first online music service to sell these unrestricted files starting in May." EMI is the driving force behind this. EMI is the property holder. EMI is the decision maker. If EMI says "No" this does not happen.

"You're calling Windows Media Audio open?" when Microsoft offers the Windows Media format for mass consumption to the music "ecosystem" and the majority of online music stores pick it up, i call that pretty open, yes! "I guess someone didn't get approved of an AdSense account" sorry, but i don't wast users' time with advertisements for other stores (slight conflict of interest there, but i'm sure you took Business 101 right?). imagine if your iTunes TV shows had commercials in them, or you couldn't fast forward through commercials on your TiVo.... *POP* oops, another bubble burst....there goes your advertising revenue. "Microsoft Windows, feels like travelling back in time" don't worry - you'll FINALLY get that ability with Leopard. just wait another few months or so....we've already had that functionality for the last 8 years now. don't go too far back in Time Machine or you'll be back in the dark ages of System 7 (YIKES!). i'm sure you'll always feel like a baby when you use your Fisher Price Mac though. "If Apple licensed Microsoft's proprietary DRM then....we would all be stuck to the low sound quality music DRM'd in a proprietary format" until EMI released this news, that's exactly where iTunes users were. they still are to an extent though, because they STILL can't get subscription music, nor is 256kbps AAC very efficient or even close to audiophile-quality. hmmm....$1.29US per DRM-less song on iTunes, or subscription content for $15/month?....oh wait, iPod users need not apply - your "choice" is already made for you. and finally: behold stevejobs in all his glory: a childish, egotistical motherf_cker! (funny how true that is) losta, bdk - this is your leader??! AHAHAHAHAHA! XP

"$1.29US per DRM-less song on iTunes, or subscription content for $15/month?....oh wait, iPod users need not apply - your "choice" is already made for you." HEAR HEAR!

"subscription content for $15/month?" Subscription is a niche within a niche. While I think it has its place, it certainly hasn't been successful enough to make the market leader rethink its position to not offer it. However, if you're into renting your music, there are certainly options available. No need to get smarmy or insulting about it. Just move on.

"I was talking about the store, and not the player." Then you should have referred to the "iTunes Music Store", and not "iTunes". I'm sure you recognize the difference now.

Waethorn: The only child I see around here continues to be you. I step away for a month and I see you haven't matured one bit. Good to know some things will never change. As for subscription-based plans: I don't like them. That's a personal choice. If you and Jersey do like them, then don't buy an iPod. It's that simple. You don't have to whine about it.

And Jersey: We *should* applaud Apple here. Even though it was EMI that approached Apple about selling songs with no DRM, Apple said, "Sounds like a great idea!" That fact proves that Steve Jobs does not see DRM as a key to the iTunes+iPod Juggernaut. And that proves many, many people wrong, from Paul to Waethorn to bloggers everywhere. Apple is competing based solely on the merits of its product and that deserves at least a little applause.

@"Waethorn/PC-Bonch": "why do you think they decided to build a custom firmware for the iPod if PortalPlayer already supports Windows Media (with AND without WMDRM)?" That's just ridiculous. Windows Media with DRM requires a license. "Portal Player" won't support it out of the box without one. And your contention that Windows Media is "open" is just ridiculous. Unlike Windows Media, AAC does not require a license. From Wikipedia (I know, I know...you hate Wikipedia): "In contrast with the MP3 format, which requires royalty payments on distributed content, no licenses or payments are required to be able to stream or distribute content in AAC format. This reason alone makes AAC a much more attractive format for distributing content, particularly streaming content (such as Internet radio)." Sorry, "Waethorn/PC-Bonch", but that's just the way it is. DOS

@bdkjones: "We *should* applaud Apple here. Even though it was EMI that approached Apple about selling songs with no DRM, Apple said, "Sounds like a great idea!" That fact proves that Steve Jobs does not see DRM as a key to the iTunes+iPod Juggernaut." There's been 4 posts applauding Apple from the pro-Apple people on this site. There have been ZERO posts applauding EMI. I'm not saying Apple doesn't deserve some form of kudos. I'm just saying that EMI (again, the owner of the product) deserves a ton more credit than Apple (the reseller).

Jersey: Oh, sure, I completely agree that EMI deserves most of the credit. They're taking a huge leap. But I think it's wrong to say that Apple is just following their lead. I think it's a team effort.

Bdk: I give Apple some credit for this move. However, I don't see how this really exposes them. It's the iPod that drives people to iTunes, not the other way around. This still doesn't change the fact that if I use an iPod I'm pretty much locked into iTunes. As you've said, Apple will never (nor are they under any obligation to) have the iPod work with another service. I like my $15/mo. ;-) I like being able to play all sorts of music and not a 30 second trial. I like having access to millions of tracks without having to spend $.99 a pop. I like having tens of thousands of tracks without having to have spend $.99 on each. I understand this locks me out of an iPod. But until Apple decides to open up the monopoly, I'm stuck with my Zen.

"That fact proves that Steve Jobs does not see DRM as a key to the iTunes+iPod Juggernaut." that fact proves nothing! it only proves that Apple (Steve Jobs, Inc.) is looking at their bottom line. "AAC does not require a license. From Wikipedia...." eat your words losta! from wikipedia (only a couple lines further down): "AAC requires a patent license, and thus uses proprietary technology." ""Portal Player" won't support it out of the box without one." actually they already have the license to manufacture it that way for any hardware OEM. whether or not the OEM chooses to take it that way is another matter. while you're down there, eat it again! me: "Sorry, losta, but that's just the way it is." XP

Jersey, Your right EMI deserves a lot of credit here. As such I will reward them by buying their products from iTMS. This new is great for all whom buy their music. Its a plus for Zune and other AAC music phone and music players as well. The question remains would this have happened if Mircosoft was in Apples position? We will never know. Look at the fight over ODF vs OOXML. I can understand were Microsoft is coming from as the ODF targets one of it crown jewels. Today is a small win for music buyers. Thank you EMI, may the other big 3 follow. Vista (SP1)

@ Waethron As I recall Microsoft signed a 20 year agreement on license on their DRM use on the Windows platform. For someone to use it on another platform would cost $$$. I don't have time to look it up right now, but it is mentioned in an article about the time when Microsoft and Real hooked up and played around with Helix. Vista (SP1)

"There have been ZERO posts applauding EMI" What we have here is a bit of ignoring history... EMI started offering DRM-Free music via Yahoo in Q4 of last year. This was a no-brainer for Apple as stats released by Yahoo indicates the DRM-free music significantly outsells the DRM'ed versions. I'm guessing that other stores will start coming online with DRM-free offerings once the infrastructure is in place. Also, EMI isn't currently offering up the whole catalog. Nothing new with the exception of a few test albums. You can find WSJ, USA Today, and numerous other articles about EMI's plans dating back for months. "Subscription is a niche within a niche." Which is why XM + Sirius have something like 12 million subscribers. It is an extremely viable model (more so than standard purchasing) if you make content simple to acquire. I like the concept, but the existing online services seem to think people have 4-hours per night to manage their tunes. They need to break them into sets prepared by professional DJs and then give you the ability to flag material if you hear something and want the album. "I'm stuck with my Zen." Not a bad choice. From a component perspective Creative seems to have the best hardware in regards to audio quality. Audition the players with a nice pair of Sennheisers (HD 650) and a portable amp and you'll quickly discern component differences. Most people don't use gear of that quality, thus capacitor quality, harmonic distortion, etc, becomes a non-issue. This is odd... I go away for 3 months and everyone is still having the exact same conversation. Until July I suppose...

"more so than standard purchasing" And just to clarify, I mean that XMSR+SIRI's yearly sales is more than online vendors of music (perhaps all stores combined, I don’t have the numbers in front of me, nor do I care to research them, but it doesn’t seem far-fetched). Obviously truly "standard" purchases at a brick and mortar completely eclipses anything in the online realm or that of sat-rad.

"For someone to use it on another platform would cost $$$." there really are only 2 other "platforms" available - OSX and Unix-derivatives (including Linux), both of which are not partner platforms, and both of which do not command enough of the marketspace to make a big deal to them. so what if Microsoft favours partners? Apple does it all the time! also, hardware OEM's all pay the same price for licensing regardless of the target OS platform that their device is compatible with. Microsoft does however offer incentives if they choose multiple products from them. for instance, Windows Mobile device developers will get huge discounts on Windows Media licensing because the support is already an optional component of Windows Mobile. Microsoft isn't a charity organization, but they know how to treat their customers well - discount volume orders are a major part of their customer service. "the more you buy, the more you save" XP

@Weathron Most likely why Apple (licensed or bought) their own DRM. Notice were not talking format just DRM. As for format Paul has posted a nice little article on his internet-nexus site from Mircosoft David Caulton. A better read is from Caulton blog where he has to adress his snarky comments: http://www.zunester.com/2007/04/more-than-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about.html A few out-takes from Caulton: Yes, aac is supported on some other devices (you forgot HDDVD and blueray). But the only way to really ensure your files will work well is to buy apple. For example, they use their own proprietary tagging standard that isn't documented or licensable. For the files to work, you must go reverse-engineer and build your device, and then apple can change it anytime. But I'll concede my flip comment was too black and white. id3 is not part of the official aac spec. Unless your device uses this apple extension, you'll lose tags like artist and album. Zune supports apple's aac extensions due to specific work beyond the AAC spec to make it work. Ditto Sonos & others. But a device that says it supports AAC won't necessarily support itunes AAC metadata. I agree many non apple products support aac - I have a sonos and a roku that do. But a GREAT many products in this category don't support AAC and do support mp3. Creative, Sandisk, etc... Nag, nag, nag. Let's get past the aac tag point (which wasn't even in the origial post and is off topic imo) by saying that I can't point to an example today. Please, let the silliness end. Agree AAC will get more popular with this - though only slightly given that service content is a tiny % of the total. ... I should recuse myself from further discussion of this topic. His and his readers comments make for a good read. Vista (SP1)

Why not release the songs as 256K MP3 files so that we can all buy them and enjoy them on whatever MP3 player we choose to buy?

"Why not release the songs as 256K MP3 files so that we can all buy them and enjoy them on whatever MP3 player we choose to buy?" Eventually it will. I'm sure that Jobs wants DRM-less music in all formats available to all online music stores. Otherwise users would be 'locked in' to a music store in a parallel fashion to DRM 'lock in' to your PC/device. We all know how Apple hates DRM, so I'm absolutely positive they wouldn't do anything to impede EMI's obvious course (should this 'trial' succeed). >.>

Alan: AAC is an inherently better format than MP3. The same audio track encoded at the same bitrate will sound better and be slightly smaller in size when you use AAC. And, when there's no DRM involved, AAC is just as "open" as MP3 - virtually every major music player (except, of course, Windows Media Player 11) natively supports the format. For WMP 11 you can download codecs to add AAC support. Try it yourself: grab a CD and use iTunes to encode the same song at 128kbps in both MP3 and then AAC. Listen to them and see which one sounds better. Then compare the filesizes.

Caulton writes: "But the only way to really ensure your files will work well is to buy apple. For example, they use their own proprietary tagging standard that isn't documented or licensable. For the files to work, you must go reverse-engineer and build your device, and then apple can change it anytime." What a load of FUD. That's simply not true. The files will "work" just fine, perhaps with a couple missing tags. But as far as playback goes--which is the key here--there will be no problem. Caulton knows this, of course, but he's the "Zunester", so I expect him to be full of "truthiness".

@will84: You are locked into iTunes at the moment. Not saying that might not change, but at the moment I have an MP3 player that is shock horror not an iPod. Therefore AAC is no use to me. There are a lot of people like me out there and I just wish for a 256K MP3 release instead. @bdkjones: thanks for the hint, but I'll give it a miss for the same reason outlined above, I want stuff in Mp3, not AAC because of my MP3 player. To you all, don't take the p*ss because I haven't got an iPod. My MP3 player holds 5GB, sounds great and does me fine - why should I cough a load of money I don't have?

"But as far as playback goes--which is the key here--there will be no problem." obviously you have no clue as to what happens when you have a meta-tag header (ala ID3), in a format that a player doesn't recognize, nor in the proper size. Quicktime-exported AAC files don't play in several RCA players that are AAC-compatible, nor in a couple Creative players that i've seen. Sandisk Sansa players that are also AAC-compliant (and even use the same PortalPlayer SOC) also have trouble with some. that's some "open-standard" right thar! "To you all, don't take the p*ss because I haven't got an iPod.... - why should I cough a load of money I don't have?" cough cough, waste of money, cough cough.... XP

Should really take Balmer's penis out of your mouth Waethorn, then you wouldn't be coughing so much.

@Reflections & Stevejobs Quit with the stupid personal attacks. They are boring, predictable and really reflect badly on your intellect or apparent lack of.

"www.google.com/tisp" I am sure that this is thier attempt at an April Fools joke...or a ploy to gather more personal data from unsuspecting "fools" --tayme

@Alan wah wah wah

"wah wah wah" al, that's where his intellect stands. XP

Alan: Well, Apple isn't going to release music on iTunes in the MP3 format for the same reason most studios don't bother releasing VHS tapes anymore: the world has moved on. AAC is a superior format. So I would argue that you need to upgrade your hardware - not necessarily to an iPod, but at least to something that can support newer formats.

"AAC is a superior format." It's not. It depends entirely on your criterion. Formats have little bearing on quality. A format is an empty bucket. The encoder chooses what bits go in the bucket. The benefit of the newer formats is that they sound more musical at *lower* bitrates (<= 128) than do older offerings. However, this is an aural trick (called perceptual encoding) and doesn't necessarily have any bearing with a faithful PCM representation. Older codecs have a cotton-sounding effect when the bitrates came down. The newer codecs alleviate that problem by falsifying a sense of expanded-headroom (tricks with harmonics), but suffer from inherent bit-deprivation and thus don't fully represent the uncompressed PCM data. In many cases the newer encoders are less accurate because the aural tricks can consume more than their fair share of bits and miss sounds represented in competing codecs. 128kbit music with a newer codec will sound fine with inexpensive consumer equipment (bundled phones, etc). As soon as you cross a threshold into high quality listening gear you should (ears being the wildcard) be able to discern many of the acoustical tricks. Sometimes it takes practice. In the end a person should chose the format that most closely fits their need. Space starved devices would be fine with AAC/WMA, etc. If you have no limitation on space then 256kbit MP3 or high quality VBR (averages >= 180kbit) with the LAME encoder will provide digital archival quality. In blind tests with exceedingly accurate equipment these compression settings yield music indistinguishable from the master (but still exhibit some PCM variation as bits lost during encode are gone forever). None of the newer AAC/WMA encoders have been capable of the LAME MP3 quality level. The only deciding factor should be space. Licensing burdens are already included in the product thus “open” or “new” is rarely a logical argument since it makes the format choice arbitrary.

"None of the newer AAC/WMA encoders have been capable of the LAME MP3 quality level." you obviously haven't heard Windows Media Audio 10 Pro in VBR if you say that. there are very few codecs that can accurately reproduce 24-bit audio at higher sampling rates (ie. up to 192KHz in stereo, or 96KHz in 5.1) with perceptual algorithms at respectable bitrates, but WMA 10 Pro does an awesome job! XP

"you obviously haven't heard Windows Media Audio 10 Pro in VBR if you say that." I have. My prior comments stand. WMA is a highly perceptual codec, thus very "lossy", although advanced perceptual codecs are good at fooling a person into thinking they aren't nearly as lossy. 5.1 codecs discard a lot of signal. As an example, if you get a Dolby 5.1 mix (admittedly an old codec) and flatten it to stereo, then compare that to uncompressed PCM of the original source you'll be stunned at how much the encoder discarded. The modern lower-bandwidth 5.1 codecs are similar but less glaring. DD+ is much better when talking 5.1… But then again that format isn’t intended for content at Internet bandwidth as the max bandwidth is more than the encoding rate of many DVDs (video + audio). It is hard to make "format" comparisons as a generalization because formats like AAC/MP3 have multiple encoders available, some not as good as others. WMA is admittedly a really good format, but if they opened it up a bit there could be third parties that had the potential to create some outstanding compressors. More importantly they have a lossless variant. I’m personally teetering on doing a lossless WMA encode of all my CDs to replace my MP3 collection. Granted the perceptual argument becomes moot. Also, in regards to higher sampling rates... It is ultimately pointless as 99.99% of music will be delivered at CD resolution for quite some time. On good equipment a 44khz MP3 with careful compression settings is going to sound cleaner than a 5.1 mix downloadable from online. Most 5.1 content online is “good enough”, but far from an audiophile grade. Part of this has to do with targeted listening equipment. Very few people are going to be using a PC with digital out attached to a high quality Pre/Pro. Perhaps there are some audiophiles compressing SACDs, but I just don’t see that as being logical.

@bdkjones That is as maybe, but the one thing you cannot argue with is that MP3 is the universal constant here. EVERY player plays MP3 files. Until the songs are release in that format you are still pretty much locked into Apple. Why should I have to upgrade my player? It sounds fine to me, I don't have any pretension to being an audiophile and to be honest wouldn't hear the difference. Anyways, not going to happen I suspect. Ho hum.

"WMA is a highly perceptual codec, thus very "lossy"" actually, every current codec on the market that is lossy is also perceptual, except for the old-school codecs like IMA 4:1, which only performs linear bit reduction. i wouldn't say WMA is "very lossy" either because upon decompression, you still maintain more of the original PCM audio than AAC, and even moreso than a decompressed AC-3 5.1 stream at twice the bandwidth. "On good equipment a 44khz MP3 with careful compression settings is going to sound cleaner than a 5.1 mix downloadable from online. Most 5.1 content online is “good enough”, but far from an audiophile grade." two things are wrong with that statement: for one, the standard Fraunhofer MP3 codec only has a response frequency of up to 16KHz (only customized codecs support higher, but most don't go any higher than 20KHz), whereas AC-3 supports full-spectrum 48KHz response frequencies, even down to 384Kbps bitrates for 5.1. the second is that 5.1 internet bitstreams are near non-existant (recompressed DVD Rips just don't count). the only online 5.1 streams i've heard are from Quicktime movie trailers, either in AAC (for HD trailers) or QDesign Music 2, and are nowhere near the same fidelity as high-bitrate MP3, or in some of Microsoft's Windows Media Video HD videoclips, which are, in stark contrast, noticeably better. "I’m personally teetering on doing a lossless WMA encode of all my CDs " try Windows Media Audio 10 Pro instead. it features upsampling to >CD sampling rates and higher bit-depths (it supports up to 24-bit, 96KHz 7.1 or 24-bit, 192KHz Stereo). it'll save you a lot of space. i use 24-bit, 88.2KHz in Stereo @ 75% VBR for CD's, and it's noticeably sharper and punchier sounding (thanks to the upconversion) than lossless, and meanwhile saving about 40% of the space required. XP