I'm getting ready to try it myself, but wondered if anyone has used it yet? I wonder how it will do with my large prince library with lots of outtakes, remixes, alternate versions, etc.

Anyone tried it yet? Anyone else planning to use it?

Yeah, I'd like to know too....let me know how it works out

I doubt it - for the simple reason that they want to nick me to the tune of $25/year to use it. (No pun intended.)

alandail said:

I'm getting ready to try it myself, but wondered if anyone has used it yet? I wonder how it will do with my large prince library with lots of outtakes, remixes, alternate versions, etc.

Anyone tried it yet? Anyone else planning to use it?

is it supposed to upgrade the quality of your library??? I'm not sure what the point of Itunes match?? How do they think they are going to pay the charge $25??

jaimestarr79 said:

alandail said:

I'm getting ready to try it myself, but wondered if anyone has used it yet? I wonder how it will do with my large prince library with lots of outtakes, remixes, alternate versions, etc.

Anyone tried it yet? Anyone else planning to use it?

is it supposed to upgrade the quality of your library??? I'm not sure what the point of Itunes match?? How do they think they are going to pay the charge $25??

so from what I read...it is supposed to upgrade songs to a higher bit rate. It says that it will find songs that aren't even in Itunes catalog?? I don't know how that works especially for songs that are out of print or not official releases. It sounds too good to be true. Let us know alandail if it works for your library!!!

alandail said:

I'm getting ready to try it myself, but wondered if anyone has used it yet? I wonder how it will do with my large prince library with lots of outtakes, remixes, alternate versions, etc.

Anyone tried it yet? Anyone else planning to use it?

In a way this will probably expand Itunes library which is lacking a lot of classic r&b and hip hop jams. itunes is really lacking for old school remixes.

Okay, folks obviously have no idea what this is.

It isn't about expanding the iTunes library or anything like it.

All this is for, is allowing you to store (in your own, personal iCloud account) the music you didn't buy from iTunes (stuff ripped from your personally-owned CDs, etc). The supposed benefit being that you can keep your entire iTunes library together and synch it effortlessly across all your devices.

And all the ability to do this wirelessly will cost you is a mere $25/year.

No thanks. My current system works juuuuuust fine.

[Edited 11/16/11 10:05am]

^^ yes, that's what it does. My work computer is currently missing most of the songs on my home computer. My iPad and iPhone also both have a subset of songs.

With iCloud, I just turn it on for both computers and after a while they are synced up. Add a song to one iTunes library and it is accessable on the other computer's iTunes library where you can either stream it or download it.

If the song is in Apple's iTunes store, you end up with the store's 256k/second AAC version, even if your original was a lower bit rate. If the song isn't in the store, I believe you get a newly encoded from your sourse 320k/second AAC version. I suppose in this case they are efficient enough to leave lower bit rate songs at their lower bitrates.

Note: The song on your original computer is not replaced unless you delete it and then download it from the cloud. So if you have higher bitrate or lossless files, they stay that way on your main computer. But if you have lower bitrate songs that matched the iTunes library, you have to manually delete them from your computer and download htem from the cloud.

Your whole library is also available on your iPad/iPhone/iPod touch. The songs stay on the cloud until you either play them or download them. They download when you play them, but start playing before the download completes.

For me it's worth $25/year to have my music avaiable everywhere without having to manually manage it and without having to use up all of the local storage for songs you don't need - yet they're accessible at anytime.

The one limitation that will cause problems for some is your libarary can't have more than 25,000 songs.

alandail said:

^^ yes, that's what it does. My work computer is currently missing most of the songs on my home computer. My iPad and iPhone also both have a subset of songs.

With iCloud, I just turn it on for both computers and after a while they are synced up. Add a song to one iTunes library and it is accessable on the other computer's iTunes library where you can either stream it or download it.

If the song is in Apple's iTunes store, you end up with the store's 256k/second AAC version, even if your original was a lower bit rate. If the song isn't in the store, I believe you get a newly encoded from your sourse 320k/second AAC version. I suppose in this case they are efficient enough to leave lower bit rate songs at their lower bitrates.

Note: The song on your original computer is not replaced unless you delete it and then download it from the cloud. So if you have higher bitrate or lossless files, they stay that way on your main computer. But if you have lower bitrate songs that matched the iTunes library, you have to manually delete them from your computer and download htem from the cloud.

Your whole library is also available on your iPad/iPhone/iPod touch. The songs stay on the cloud until you either play them or download them. They download when you play them, but start playing before the download completes.

For me it's worth $25/year to have my music avaiable everywhere without having to manually manage it and without having to use up all of the local storage for songs you don't need - yet they're accessible at anytime.

The one limitation that will cause problems for some is your libarary can't have more than 25,000 songs.

You also have to be running Lion on your main computer - which is another $50 (at least) you'll have to shell out.