iTunes Match Now Available

[The Computer Audiophile]

Apple has officially released iTunes Match. You'll need to download version 10.5.1 to purchase the service.

 

http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/

 

 

 

[Christopher]

Here is an interesting article called...

 

“Dealing with iTunes Match's 25,000 track limit”

 

http://www.macworld.com/article/163599/2011/11/dealing_with_itunes_matchs_25_000_track_limit.html

 

 

 

 

[Mister Wednesday]

Greetings all,

 

For those of you interested in using iTunes version 10.5.1 which now incorporates the iTunes Match functionality here are a series of articles on the Macworld website about using the new functions with your Apple devices:

 

http://www.macworld.com/article/163219/2011/11/apple_releases_itunes_10_5_1_with_itunes_match.html

 

http://www.macworld.com/article/163604/2011/11/hands_on_with_itunes_match.html

 

http://www.macworld.com/article/163606/2011/11/check_your_musics_icloud_status.html

 

http://www.macworld.com/article/163607/2011/11/toggle_between_itunes_match_and_local_syncing.html

 

http://www.macworld.com/article/163599/2011/11/dealing_with_itunes_matchs_25_000_track_limit.html

 

Regards,

 

Mister Wednesday

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

So far iTunes Match is a disaster. I'm testing a whole bunch of stuff for an in-depth article. No Lossless support or sample rates above 24/48. Match uploaded a Lossless 24/48 album and converted it to 256 lossy AAC (VBR). I can't tell the bit depth yet (16 or 24 bit). Much more to come.

 

 

 

[Sik_Lescinovid]

Match uploaded a Lossless 24/48 album and converted it to 256 lossy AAC (VBR).

 

As far as I have understood Match doesn't upload or convert your files. Rather it looks for the given album in the iTunes store (via metadata) and then downloads their copy of the album which is present in 256 AAC DRM-free. Hence it probably even changed the mastering of your files, if you catch my drift

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi sik - iTunes Match uploads files. iTunes clearly says "Uploaded" in the iCloud Status column. If a match is not found an upload takes place. This is part of why libraries of over 25,000 non-Apple-purchased music can't be used with Match.

 

 

 

 

 

[Sik_Lescinovid]

Oh my bad, well then it's indeed more anti-audiophile than I suspected it to be. Thanks for the info!

 

[SteveS1]

Even if there were no issues around file format (no lossless) and higher res files were catered for, I'd still be pretty fed up if iTunes matched a different mastering to the one in my collection.

 

With storage and back up so cheap, easy and portable - remind me of the point of this? Not for Hi Fi enthusiasts, this one.

 

[wgscott]

OK, admittedly it is 5:45 am and I just got up to let the dog out, and am reading this while I wait, but I too am surprised that iTunes doesn't just match, but that it uploads and degrades music.

 

Maybe instead of "iTunes match" they should call it "iTunes Rapture."

 

I pray the default state is off. Even if I thought this idea was any better than getting rid of the "Save As" command, my ADSL connection is far far too slow to upload my music collection.

 

[Akapod]

@wgscott: Yes, the default option is off. To engage iTunes Match, you have to turn it on and pay $25.

 

@Chris: Can you clarify what's going on? I want to make sure that iTunes Matching is not converting the files in your iTunes library, but it is instead creating a lossy version in the cloud.

 

I'm one of those people with more than 25,000 songs, so I can't participate (and I don't feel like using the workaround described in the MacWorld article). I would have hoped that Apple would either (a) allow me which 25,000 would be eligible for matching or (b) allow me to pay more to have all my songs eligible. Instead, I just can't participate. Though I have no knowledge, my money is on this limitation being imposed by the record labels.

 

I fully agree with the idea that iTunes Matching is not audiophile quality. But I don't think it was meant to be, and that's OK. I'd like to have access to my whole music library when I'm not at home (and when I don't have access to my McIntosh, Ayre and Sonus Faber). From my own incredibly unscientific personal A/B testing, lossless files sound the same as 256 AAC files -- when played on my iPhone. That's going to be more than good enough for walking around NYC, or -- I imagine -- riding around in a car.

 

And I'd love to be able to go on vacation and have access to my entire music catalog, instead of hauling around my laptop and an extra hard drive. I would be good to go with an iPad and a mini Y cable.

 

I would suggest that iTunes Matching be viewed as an add-on to iOS music playback -- and one that's available for the price of a case. It's not a substitute for desktop iTunes.

 

[realhifi]

 

 

I'm not following the surprise here. I believe it was pretty well explained at Apple forums that Itunes Match was going to be exactly what it appears it is. The default for loading onto a mobile device is 256 so I'm pretty sure that was what was expected from most people. What it is, is a convenient way to have your library mobile with you wherever you travel and if you don't mind the lower resolution rate (which given Apples success is most people) then you are all set and can have your whole library at your fingertips.

 

The big question was is this going to do anything to your CURRENT collection in your computer. As, does it do any conversion to the files that are stored losslessly on your home system? Putting your collection out there wherever feels more than a little risky to me. Maybe just some iTunes music but your whole collection? I don't think so. Where is it going? Does anyone else have access? Is this another way to beef up iTunes selections? These are the questions that need to be answered.

 

 

[wgscott]

I can serve up my whole library with Audiotap for $5.

 

 

http://audiotapapp.com/

 

I'm under-using this, but it works great. It compresses music on the fly, but you can choose the compression value. So if you have a decent wireless connection, and the ability to serve your music (I have a static IP on the machine I keep a backup library on at work), this is a nice option.

 

[Garf]

It seems no different than Google Music and Amazon's cloud music solutions, except that Apple expects you to pay for this service.

 

Perhaps it is time to resurrect Chris's article "Amazon Cloud Drive and Google Music Beta are DOA" and include Apple's late offering?

 

[Murph]

I'm giving it a try...primarily to replicate my library to my work computer and my phone. Anyway, when I did the database match/upload etc it did NOT upload my High Rez files and labeled them as "Ineligible" for iTunes Match. Disappointing.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

My iTunes Match article is now up -> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/iTunes-Match-Review-Article-Formerly-Known-iTunes-Mismatch-Review