Reactions to the Apple / EMI Announcement [Archive]

MacRumors

Apr 3, 2007, 11:29 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Yesterday's joint announcement (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/04/02/emi-apple-press-conference-coverage/) from Apple and EMI remains the big news. To recap:

- EMI's Music will be sold without Digital Rights Management restrictions through iTunes
- These new songs will be higher quality (256kbps) and sell for $1.29/song individually
- DRM-Restricted songs at the lower quality settings (128kbps) will still be sold for $.99
- Albums will be in the new higher quality/DRM-less format but remain at the same price.

A full transcript (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2624) of the Q&A session from the announcement is now available.

Microsoft-Watch notes (http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/games_consumer/what_apple_drm_free_means_to_microsoft.html?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535) that the deal greatly impacts Microsoft in that they bet big on Digital Rights Manangement.

With the release of Windows Media 9, Microsoft made a huge bet on DRM. No question, Windows Media 9 delivered highly flexible rights management that could be used for lots of interesting marketing purposes, such as a label releasing a new album with, say, three free plays. But Microsoft's bet hasn't paid off in the market, even with so many music stores using Windows Media DRM.

PC Mag cites (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2110314,00.asp) the response from the Norwegian Consumer Council, who had previously declared (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/24/european-countries-up-pressure-on-itunes-fairplay/) Apple's DRM restrictions to be illegal and tried to pass legistation to force open standards:

"No matter how the digital music market develops, today will always stand out [as] a very important date, the day when two of the really big market players finally took responsibility that follows from the position and made an interoperable solution available to consumers," said Torgeir Waterhouse, senior advisor to the Norwegian Consumer Council, in an email. "I applaud their move, and encourage all the other contenders in the digital music business to make the same important move."

crees!

Apr 3, 2007, 11:33 AM

This is going to be a very interesting ride. That's for sure.

Naimfan

Apr 3, 2007, 11:36 AM

Yes it is! On the one hand I'm surprised to see EMI do it, on the other, it makes perfect sense.....

B

jbembe

Apr 3, 2007, 11:37 AM

let's hope other companies get on board quick, I am quite eager to upgrade all my iTMS tracks to 256kbps for 30cents each!!

Poff

Apr 3, 2007, 11:45 AM

let's hope other companies get on board quick, I am quite eager to upgrade all my iTMS tracks to 256kbps for 30cents each!!

...and i am quite eager to upgrade all my iTS albums to 256kbps for free!! :D :apple:

princealfie

Apr 3, 2007, 11:47 AM

Gonna buy some iTunes cards today! :)

Nilonym

Apr 3, 2007, 11:49 AM

pagansoul

Apr 3, 2007, 11:51 AM

twoodcc

Apr 3, 2007, 11:58 AM

This is going to be a very interesting ride. That's for sure.

it looks that way.....the connection here with microsoft is very interesting....:apple:

Mgkwho

Apr 3, 2007, 12:00 PM

Yay Apple. Boo Microsoft.

Is the DRM- WM9 really that big of a deal? There next release will probably copy Apple and so what?

-=|Mgkwho

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 12:03 PM

They are loosing business, big time and have to try something new. This way while offering both versions on iTunes they can see true results of DRM @ .99 and DRM free @ 1.30 (and higher rate) using a store that carries over 50% of the download market. Whatever the outcome, the data will be priceless. Everyone in the music business will be waiting for the early results.

This is exactly what I was saying in another instance where a poster thought Apple doesn't do any market research. That's precisely what this is... They put out a "feeler" product, gather data, and determine the potential for going wide with that and similar products they may have in the pipeline. In the case of iTunes, they also use the data as a negotiating point with other labels.

In this case, Jobs is putting his money where his mouth is with a willingness to prove that there is a considerable market for non-DRM files. The outcome of this could be the end of DRM.

chrisgeleven

Apr 3, 2007, 12:04 PM

I know for one thing. As bands I listen to get their music upgraded to DRM free at 256kbps on iTunes, I will never buy another CD from them. I will instead buy albums directly from iTunes.

The instant gratification factor (no trip to the store) and the price are huge points.

Plus there is one key element. The sound quality will be higher on the store then what I currently rip CD's at (150-170kbps MP3 VBR thanks to LAME). I never actually listen to a CD itself anymore: after buying a CD I instantly run to the computer and rip it, then store the CD someplace out of the way. So I never need to rerip the CD again...my ears aren't getting better and even on the best speakers I can find, I don't notice a sound quality difference.

So I can just ditch having to store CD's and go 100% iTunes bought music. I get a sound quality improvement without worrying about storing the physical CD's.

It is a win/win for me. I am sure to buy more albums now.

bryanc

Apr 3, 2007, 12:13 PM

alansky

Apr 3, 2007, 12:16 PM

As others have pointed out in various forums, the deal puts pressure on EMI's competitors (the other big music publishers) to follow suit in order not to be perceived by the market as offering an inferior product (lower quality + DRM). This is brilliant!

Rojo

Apr 3, 2007, 12:20 PM

Wow - I thought the album cost remaining the same was just wishful thinking for people around here. Glad they're actually doing it.

But yeah, I'd like to know if upgrading full albums means we still have to pay the upgrade per track, or if it's free (since full albums remain the same cost). Also -- I read something about a button is going to be available in iTunes that will convert all previously bought tracks at once -- but can people upgrade just SOME songs and not others? If we have to pay the upgrade fee per track, there's definitely a huge chunk of my music that I don't care if it's high-quality or not -- and I don't want to have to pay upgrades for all at once. I'm looking at about $600 if I do that.

Also, if upgrading full albums turns out to be free -- does that mean using the "complete my album" feature will apply? That would be a clever way for Apple to get people to buy more tracks, so they think they're saving money by not having to pay upgrade fees. But I wouldn't mind doing that.

Whyren

Apr 3, 2007, 12:25 PM

Here's a question. A majority of my songs from iTunes have been acquired free (Pepsi promotions, gift cards, single of the week, etc.). How does one upgrade those songs? I'd assume gift cards you'd still have to pay for it, but what about their promotional songs (especially say any single of the week). Not that this affects anything right now (how many SOW's are EMI anyway?) but it could eventually become an issue as/if more labels update in this way.

nagromme

Apr 3, 2007, 12:28 PM

I usually purchase full albums from ITMS. Does anyone know how we will be able to upgrade our previously purchased albums to the DRM-free equivalient?

I suspect that even though the full album price is not changing, upgrading a previously purchased album will require that we pay the per-song difference of $.30 for each song in the album, resulting in a roughly $3-$5 upgrade fee.

Good question. I'm guessing there will be SOME fee--hopefully not that high, but with album prices varying I do wonder what SIMPLE system they might work out.

The fact that albums are the same old price is the best part of this news. Singles were the big reason to use iTunes, but now albums just got more tempting.

MacVault

Apr 3, 2007, 12:29 PM

I wonder if the DRM-free song files will be "watermarked" at all.. like with one's Apple ID.

studiomusic

Apr 3, 2007, 12:29 PM

grappler

Apr 3, 2007, 12:39 PM

So when can we buy these tracks??

I haven't bought any songs from the iTunes store, but I will buy lots of songs under these terms. So when can I get started? Have they set a date?

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 12:43 PM

So when can we buy these tracks??

I haven't bought any songs from the iTunes store, but I will buy lots of songs under these terms. So when can I get started? Have they set a date?

As I understand it they were starting in May, but that doesn't necessarily mean May 1st.

k2k koos

Apr 3, 2007, 12:48 PM

Yay Apple. Boo Microsoft.

Is the DRM- WM9 really that big of a deal? There next release will probably copy Apple and so what?

-=|Mgkwho

And So , the consumer wins, DRM free music, available everywhere, playable on all mp3 type players , and don't you worry, those artists, and particulary the labels, will still make enough money on us.

inkswamp

Apr 3, 2007, 12:52 PM

inkswamp

Apr 3, 2007, 12:54 PM

Looks like CDBaby is going to be going DRM-free for all of it's tracks as well... Darek says "We're working on it".

Excellent news, and I'm sure there are more to follow! I hope iTunes incorporates a "search only non-DRM music" into their advanced search functions.

pacohaas

Apr 3, 2007, 12:56 PM

Has anybody thought about the size implications of this? You're essentially cutting the (albeit arbitrary) storage of a 80GB ipod from 20000 to 10000 songs. It becomes more apparent with shuffles and nano's where storage goes from 240 to 120 or 1000 to 500, etc.

Ideally, you'd be able to purchase the DRM free version and choose the quality that you want upon checkout(much like taking a CD and importing it via iTunes). To some people, having more songs is more important than having higher quality(DMR'd or not). If you're listening while jogging using the included earbuds, you're not likely to notice the difference between 96kbps AAC and 320kbps AAC, so why not store more songs at the lower level? But say you have your ipod hooked up to that fancy new iPod Hi-Fi, you're probably gonna want that 256kbps version, or at least 192, right?

Ultra-ideally, this $0.30 premium should get you an Apple Lossless copy to do with what you please, I mean, it's DRM-free so converting it to whatever format you want(even *gasp* wma for a zune) should be well within your rights as the buyer, and there's no reason you should suffer a loss of quality through re-encoding. This is exciting news to be sure, but I still don't see myself purchasing until it's equivalent to purchasing a CD(i.e. lossless and DRM free), consumers want flexibility(not just a choice between 2 options).

edit: my original thought when starting this reply was lost when I started the above rant, but here it is: by offering songs at twice the size, they'll be able to sell those higher-capacity(and higher cost) devices easier.

ElvisNixon

Apr 3, 2007, 01:09 PM

I don't know if this was Steve's plan (it would be very interesting to know what stage the negotiations with EMI were at when Job's posted his open letter on DRM), but this is a stroke of genius: the removal of DRM from music purchased through iTunes solves the legal problems in Europe, drives a nail into the coffin of competing download services, shuts the anti-DRM detractors up, pulls the rug out from under WMA, and further enhances Apple's image as a consumer-friendly good-guy.

I think we'll look back on this event as the beginning of the end for WMA, and the masterstroke that cemented Apple's dominance of the digital music distribution market.

Cheers

Exactly my thoughts as well. I think this will turn out to be a very historic move for Apple. It certainly takes the wind out of the subscription based system's sails and insulates Apple from alot of potential anti-competitive critisism.

210

Apr 3, 2007, 01:13 PM

I have a feeling that DRM-free tracks will have a little symbol next to those songs, like the Explicit Lyrics tag. iTunes may even have an EMI section which would list all the albums and artists that are with EMI.

As with already-purchased music, I have a feeling that another iTunes update will come out soon to address DRM-free tracks. There might me a similar option like the "show duplicate songs" option where if you click on it, iTunes will fliter out all the songs that you can upgrade to premium and choose which ones to.

apollo8fan

Apr 3, 2007, 01:15 PM

Now that EMI has ventured into this, let's reward their effort by not posting the songs on P2P.

ryanw

Apr 3, 2007, 01:18 PM

pacohaas

Apr 3, 2007, 01:25 PM

Kelly Clarkson & Carrie Underwood have been great finds.
ha! I'm putting this on your headstone

Tymmz

Apr 3, 2007, 01:28 PM

If you're listening while jogging using the included earbuds, you're not likely to notice the difference between 96kbps AAC and 320kbps AAC, so why not store more songs at the lower level? But say you have your ipod hooked up to that fancy new iPod Hi-Fi, you're probably gonna want that 256kbps version, or at least 192, right?

I thought the shuffle had the option to "downgrade" the Kbs-rate while putting the songs onto the player. Why not extend this option to other players?

Do I stand correct?

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 01:33 PM

I thought the shuffle had the option to "downgrade" the Kbs-rate while putting the songs onto the player. Why not extend this option to other players?

Do I stand correct?

I think this is an iTunes-wide option and not just for Shuffle. But either way, anyone can just downconvert the files to a suitable size, format, whatever since... hello... there's no DRM!

So if the non-DRM alone is reason enough to buy, then you pay your 30 cents difference, get the file, make a 128kbps copy to pop on your ipod and keep the original 256 for whatever else... AppleTV perhaps.

You'll have to pardon me... I just find it oddly amusing that people have known that non-DRM digital music files are not tangibly-fixed product and yet people seem to be thinking that what they're getting for $1.29 is somehow a fixed product that they can't themselves modify.

You'd think it were obvious, but wasn't the entire point of removing DRM to allow you to do whatever you wanted to your copy of the file?

:)

inkswamp

Apr 3, 2007, 01:35 PM

People for YEARS have been 'tape recording' the radio and ripping CDs and giving mp3s or copies of the CD to friends. I don't believe this has been what hurt the music industry. What hurt the music industry was the gamble in signing all terrible bands and making bad choices for 'terrible alternative' bands. All the artists that were signed that were talented have still done very well.

I agree with you only partially. The thing with tape trading back in my youth was that it was only as fast and effective as the "sneaker net" would allow it to be, meaning I could only trade tapes and CDs with friends I could reach on foot (so to speak.) That was a limited and slow network. With the Internet, I can rip a CD, upload it somewhere and distribute it to potentially thousands of anonymous downloaders in a matter of minutes. I think it's fair for the music industry to be careful about how they handle this. I don't begrudge them their conservative approach to the new technology (although I despise the RIAA and its use of my legal system as its personal collection agency.) Lots of people's livelihoods--including artists, producers and laborers all along the production line--depend on a wise approach to this.

However, I fully agree with the fact that the bad quality of music produced nowadays contributes far more to the decline in music sales than file trading ever will. In the last 5 years, I've bought maybe a half-dozen albums (my old stand-bys like David Gilmour, Rush and Audioslave) because the rest sounds like mass-produced, corporate sludge to me.

The same thing happened back in 1990. Things like heavy metal glam rock, Milli Vanilli-type synth pop and Michael Jackson were the big thing and nobody was buying it because it was all uninspired trash. I remember reading articles claiming that the music industry was dead and rock music was over. There were rumblings from the music industry that people were pirating music (yes, prior to the Internet being a household word, the music industry was whining about widespread piracy being the source of their woes.) And yet, Nirvana and the grunge scene hit the big time and music sales went through the freakin' roof overnight. Suddenly, nobody was predicting the demise of rock music or the music industry. I remember this happening right in front of my eyes while in college and marvelling at how fickle the opinions of the music industry seemed to be. The whole landscape of the music industry shifted in a massive way and suddenly, everyone forgot what they were saying just the month before, and now it was all peachy again.

Same thing now. I see very little quality in the music being produced now. The music industry should be more concerned about that than any file sharing that might be going on. Hell, I know many people who discover bands via file sharing and then go on to legitimately buy up the stuff they discover and like (just like I did back in the tape trading days. A friend introduced me to Rush with a ton of tapes and I've since gone out and bought up everything I can find.) The argument has never made sense and never will.

Whew... didn't expect a rant, did you? :D

PNW

Apr 3, 2007, 01:38 PM

Ultra-ideally, this $0.30 premium should get you an Apple Lossless copy to do with what you please, I mean, it's DRM-free so converting it to whatever format you want(even *gasp* wma for a zune) should be well within your rights as the buyer, and there's no reason you should suffer a loss of quality through re-encoding. This is exciting news to be sure, but I still don't see myself purchasing until it's equivalent to purchasing a CD(i.e. lossless and DRM free), consumers want flexibility(not just a choice between 2 options).

That would be perfect. But for me lossless isn't as important as DRM free. Most of my current collection is 256 MP3 (though I'm ripping newer stuff at 256 AAC now that Amarok supports it), the CDs are in a closet in the basement, and it's sounds just fine coming out of a decent Hi-Fi system. Now I will definitly look to itunes for DRM free music before buying another CD.

What would be awesome is the ability to convert files to 128 or even 96 when transferring them to an ipod

Edited to add:
While I was posting someone added a post stating the itunes could already downgrade music transferred to an ipod. Would you care to elaborate? I’ve been using itunes for a while but just bought my first ipod a few weeks ago. --Thanks

pacohaas

Apr 3, 2007, 01:40 PM

I thought the shuffle had the option to "downgrade" the Kbs-rate while putting the songs onto the player. Why not extend this option to other players?

I would like to see that option used in conjunction with apple lossless. That option is NOT available to ipods or nanos last I checked, only cell phones and the shuffle. That way you could keep your entire collection in lossless and have it auto-convert(to a specified bitrate, not just 128 would be nice) while it's transferring to the iPod.

The problem with converting a 256kbps file(or any lossy format) is that there are extra artifacts introduced that are unnecessary if you had purchased the original CD and made a 128kbps file from that. Like i said, it's great that there's no DRM, but forcing a lossy re-encode to get a file the size you're used to dealing with is a big no-no. See any audio forums like hydrogenaudio.org, they will always encode from the original(CD or lossless file) rather than re-encoding a lossy file and introducing more artifacts.

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 01:43 PM

Now that EMI has ventured into this, let's reward their effort by not posting the songs on P2P.

THANK YOU.

This is why I don't pirate. Not because of any moral or legal argument... but because if internet music distribution is going to stand a chance as a legitimate competitor to the industry's aging distro monopoly, and thus level the playing field between independents and majors, we as consumers have to prove that it's a commercially viable medium.

Pirating the likes of Britney Spears does only two things:

1. It reinforces the idea that there is, all else being equal, a demand for such mediocre music.

2. It helps RIAA lobby Congress to pass stupid legsilation that surreptitously hampers internet distribution entirely, thus cleverly installing a barrier to entry in the marketplace that benefits major labels.

More importantly, when major label marketing machines are on a level playing field with Joe Q. Garageband, the sheer volume of choices tends to reduce the visibility of mediocre artists propped up by marketing machines and simultaneouly increase the visibility of otherwise talented artists who might have trouble finding a market with the idiots at Warner Bros. A&R at the steering wheel (thus becoming one of the 90% of artists to end up as a loss and a tax writeoff for the record labels).

This is precisely what the record companies are afraid of and why they've been fighting (albeit uphill) against internet distribution since the 1990's... because they know that the inevitable reality is that with a more level playing field they will be outgunned 10 to 1 by smaller, more agile entities who aren't pinned down by having become accustomed to a certain lifestyle. A&R executives, the robber barons of the industry, will have to either get more creative and find better talent (much more difficult than using marketing to push artists like darts at a dartboard to see which ones stick), or sell their Mercedes and get a real job.

How do we voice our discontent with the conventional model and simultaneously prove the internet distribution model is feasible, and even profitable, for independent artists?

Purchase music (especially more diverse and independent music) from outlets like iTunes Music Store. The more data you provide Apple in this transition period backing out of DRM, the more you reinforce the idea that non-DRM is profitable and eventually the major labels will fall into line.

Piracy while seemingly convenient in the short term helps to eliminate consumer options in the long term.

C00rDiNaT0r

Apr 3, 2007, 01:49 PM

I think Apple has actually factored in piracy when they raised the price..

In the past, 40 people buy a DRM-ed song from iTS - iTS gets ~$40 ($39.6).

Now, 31 people buy a DRM-less song from iTS - iTS gets ~$40 ($39.99). Even if there are 9 copies sent to others, Apple still earns the same.

If you do the math, you will see that, as long as the figure for piracy is low enough, the new business model with the new price can ensure same profit as the past without DRM, which probably costs millions of dollars to develop, and eventually will be breached by people.

Now Apple saves R&D money, earns better publicity, and others have less reasons to sue Apple for dominating the market. That's why it makes perfect sense for Apple to drop (or try to drop) DRM.

chrisgeleven

Apr 3, 2007, 01:50 PM

Main reason it isn't lossless on iTunes is the simple fact that hard drive space hasn't reached what lossless needs for the average computer user. Plus there is the bandwidth costs.

I bet within the next 5 years, iTunes will have lossless music though. Bandwidth and hard drive capacities should reach the point that people can store lossless and lossy copies side-by-side on the same hard drive.

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 01:59 PM

The problem with converting a 256kbps file(or any lossy format) is that there are extra artifacts introduced that are unnecessary if you had purchased the original CD and made a 128kbps file from that. Like i said, it's great that there's no DRM, but forcing a lossy re-encode to get a file the size you're used to dealing with is a big no-no. See any audio forums like hydrogenaudio.org, they will always encode from the original(CD or lossless file) rather than re-encoding a lossy file and introducing more artifacts.

Depends on how it's done... in order for a compressed file to actually play back, decompression and decoding have to occur. Advanced step-down transcoding involves re-sampling the decompressed output which is basically what video and audio rendering (e.g. "bounce to disk") does in professional mastering on a computer workstation.

Because 128Kbps AAC in playback is perceptibly indistinguishable from 16-bit Linear PCM, one should be able to reproduce the spectrum and amplitude characteristics of Linear PCM without perceptible loss if the latter is reconstructed through resampling.

But the folks at hydrogenaudio won't tell you this because, fundamentally, I don't think many audiophiles understand the fundamentals of digital audio encoding systems on anything more than a superficial level.

Not one that I have encountered has ever read Ken Pohlmann's Principles of Digital Audio (the bible of digital audio encoding fundamentals and system design)... and it shows when they reveal their total ignorance about the purpose of things like 20kHz low pass filtering, internal reclocking of a digital signal, the exact nature and causes of quantization noise, etc.

johnee

Apr 3, 2007, 02:01 PM

Honestly, I wish there were other rumors to discuss, this stuff is boring.

Can someone create some false documents about new designs and the secret leopard features and leak them to MR or another apple rumors site?

PLEASE....!!!

pacohaas

Apr 3, 2007, 02:04 PM

...people can store lossless and lossy copies side-by-side on the same hard drive.
That's what I do now since the "re-encode to 128kbps" option is not available on all iPods and isn't as flexible as it could be: "re-encode to X kbps for X ipod" would be great. That way I would only have to store the lossless copy of my cd's and could have separate bitrate settings for my shuffle/phone and iPod with no loss of quality due to re-encoding.

I agree about the bandwidth though, as it stands today, most people aren't going to want to wait for a 1000kbps lossless album to download, and apple isn't going to want to pay for that bandwidth either, which is why users paying $1.29/song should just have a choice of bitrate to download. If a shuffle ownder wanted 128 no DRM, they should be entitled to it direct from apple and not required to re-encode a 256kbps file.

inkswamp

Apr 3, 2007, 02:11 PM

Can someone create some false documents about new designs

I can't, but here's something that came through Digg a few weeks ago. Enjoy. :rolleyes:

http://flickr.com/photos/7459616@N06/429872676/

pacohaas

Apr 3, 2007, 02:13 PM

Because 128Kbps AAC in playback is perceptibly indistinguishable from 16-bit Linear PCMThis is entirely subjective and some people(with lesser hearing abilities) could say the same about 96kbps or even 64kbps on some songs. That doesn't make it true though, and even so, the type of resampling that you're talking about doesn't' exist within iTunes and even if it did, no amount of resampling can ever bring you back to the original lossless file and what you end up with is an amplification of compression artifacts.

Remember the washy sound in crappy mp3's back in the day? Those kind of artifacts still exist in AAC, only to a lesser degree as many advances have been made in mpeg4 over mpeg3 addressing these issues. But the fact remains that when you take a lossy file (AAC or MP3), and re-encode it again to AAC or MP3, the encoder will attempt to do it's job in preserving the perceived sound in the source file. And in the case of artifacts, the encoder will attempt to preserve those as well since it can't make a distinction between an artifact and a "good" sound sample. That's where you get the artifact amplification. If you don't believe me, encode a file at 96kbps(even 128 or 256), then do it again, and again, etc. You will be able to tell a difference after enough iterations, and some can tell after just one re-encode.

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 02:13 PM

I can't, but here's something that came through Digg a few weeks ago. Enjoy. :rolleyes:

http://flickr.com/photos/7459616@N06/429872676/

LOL... Looks like what would happen if Microsoft's design team made Apple products.

Tymmz

Apr 3, 2007, 02:23 PM

I would like to see that option used in conjunction with apple lossless. That option is NOT available to ipods or nanos last I checked, only cell phones and the shuffle...

...Like i said, it's great that there's no DRM, but forcing a lossy re-encode to get a file the size you're used to dealing with is a big no-no. See any audio forums like hydrogenaudio.org, they will always encode from the original(CD or lossless file) rather than re-encoding a lossy file and introducing more artifacts.

Like you said, while jogging you wouldn't notice the difference, even if you down-sample a 256 Kbs file. But you are absolutely correct, the consumer would be better off having a lossless format.

But I could imagine the 256 Kbs is the sweet spot at the moment for the "digital-consumer".

People who are not so familiar with all the Kbs-rate stuff will be fine and don't mind nor know about lossless formats. They probably would be even more confused when they see that a song takes about 10 or 20 MB (correct???) off their iPod/HDD.

I'm glad that the whole DRM-thing is on it's way out of our life.

I guess it will take a very long time, if ever, till EVERYONE is satisfied.

Apple is on a good way to find the balance between simplicity and freedom, that's what it's all about. I'm not saying it because I praise Steve Jobs, because that's what I believe.

I really hope Apple doesn't turn their back on the consumer at one point in the future. I'm really happy with them at moment.

pacohaas

Apr 3, 2007, 02:28 PM

Like you said, while jogging you wouldn't notice the difference, even if you down-sample a 256 Kbs file.true enough.

People who are not so familiar with all the Kbs-rate stuff will be fine and don't mind nor know about lossless formats. They probably would be even more confused when they see that a song takes about 10 or 20 MB (correct???) off their iPod/HDD.Agreed, the best option(until lossless is viable) would be a bitrate setting for non-DRM purchases(almost freedom :)). Apple could default this at 256kbps so the regular consumer wouldn't need to worry about it.

I'm glad that the whole DRM-thing is on it's way out of our life.AMEN!

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 02:53 PM

Remember the washy sound in crappy mp3's back in the day? Those kind of artifacts still exist in AAC, only to a lesser degree as many advances have been made in mpeg4 over mpeg3 addressing these issues. But the fact remains that when you take a lossy file (AAC or MP3), and re-encode it again to AAC or MP3, the encoder will attempt to do it's job in preserving the perceived sound in the source file. And in the case of artifacts, the encoder will attempt to preserve those as well since it can't make a distinction between an artifact and a "good" sound sample. That's where you get the artifact amplification. If you don't believe me, encode a file at 96kbps(even 128 or 256), then do it again, then do it again. You will be able to tell a difference after enough iterations, and some can tell after just one re-encode.

There is a threshold below which AAC is noticeably distinguishable from 16-bit Linear PCM. But at 128Kbps, the Audio Engineering Society found it is sufficiently perceptually transparent and only a few individuals can really pick apart the artifaction.

What's funny is that few if any of the actual artifaction or symptoms of artifaction that should arise from such perceptual encoding are the ones ever mentioned by audiophiles. People will bring up things like cymbals sounding weird because of limited frequency response at the high end. The answer is, they have no freaking idea what they're talking about. Cymbal sounds lack coherent phase characteristics, and this makes it difficult for even PCM encoding to properly represent their amplitude characteristics at any given quantization interval. But quantization error is typically shaped by dithering on all but the highest resolution PCM streams so you're still getting an improper representation even at 16-bit Linear PCM (CD audio, in other words). Frequency response is not the problem, amplitude resolution is.

AAC is a perceptual coding schema and PCM is not. At certain bit depths, AAC can faithfully reconstruct a PCM stream from fewer bits of data per sample just like ADPCM could back in the day. I've already explained elsewhere some of the basic concepts that drive such reductions without noticeable loss (such as using difference values instead of absolute values to represent amplitude at each quantization interval) but the bottom line is that resampling a 256Kbps AAC bitstream with a decent transcoder should not introduce more artifacts than there already were. Transcoding errors are greatest when sample & hold buffers do not hold each value long enough but this is less and less of a problem with offline transcoding in digital audio workstations which are not tethered to linear feeds and can instead hold the value as long as necessary until encoded correctly.

What you need to understand is that the sample & hold buffer in an A/D, D/A or transcoder is the most critical element in terms of the accuracy of encoding and the mitigation of artifacts. The actual encoding algorithm itself in AAC is quite capable of producing a narrower discrete time sampled bitstream from which the values of the original analogue or digital source can be accurately reproduced... but if the sample & hold times in an encoding algorithm are insufficient, there arises the possibility of artifaction being introduced in the process of transcoding itself.

You can cite all the anecdotal evidence in the world, but because the fundamentals of sound perception depend on the propagation of soundwaves, one must first demonstrate that there is actually a difference between the analogue soundwaves propagated between 128Kbps AAC and 16-bit Linear PCM... and no audiophile has ever been able to demonstrate this. Some will argue "but the difference is one of perception"... Well, I agree... If upon playback the reconstructed analog soundwaves are fundamentally the same and you insist that you're still hearing differences, then it is indeed your perception and NOT the files that are flawed.

Krevnik

Apr 3, 2007, 03:05 PM

I wonder if the DRM-free song files will be "watermarked" at all.. like with one's Apple ID.

I wouldn't mind this approach, actually. Stamp the file with some metadata in an odd spot in the file with a hash of some kind with the purchase ID + user. It won't affect the playback of the music, but it will give the legal hounds a place to start when trying to figure out who broke the license.

surferfromuk

Apr 3, 2007, 03:13 PM

I think it's safe to say all digital music carries some form of compromise but the fact is the needle keeps jumping off the records everytime I press the throttle, brake or go round a corner - and so a solution had to be found. Let's never forget Apple were the ones that really made it work!

AND...a precident has been set by Apple for the 'upgrading' of songs bought from iTunes in one format to a 'better rate'.

20 years from now when Apple is selling the 'all new' 600 channel 5 terabit AAF files its reassuring to know your going to be able to 'upgrade' them from your 'crappy old' 100 channel 2 terabit AAE files :)

bobchambo

Apr 3, 2007, 03:16 PM

there is a way to take the DRM off of the songs bought on itunes...

.

geerlingguy

Apr 3, 2007, 03:27 PM

Looks like CDBaby is going to be going DRM-free for all of it's tracks as well... Darek says "We're working on it".
I wonder if we'll be getting more per sale on those... (<plug>Check out: Kyria - Whispers In The Dark)

Sweetness! I hope they get that going A.S.A.P...

The only thing I wonder is, did CDBaby originally rip all the CDs they have on iTunes/other services into a lossless format, and store them on a huge server? Because if they did, it would be a lot quicker to take those files and convert them to 256kbps songs rather than get out everyone's CDs again.

<shamelessplug>Priestie Boyz - Lost in Ecstasy (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playListId=199861842)</shamelessplug>

lazyrighteye

Apr 3, 2007, 03:31 PM

I don't know if this was Steve's plan (it would be very interesting to know what stage the negotiations with EMI were at when Job's posted his open letter on DRM), but this is a stroke of genius: the removal of DRM from music purchased through iTunes solves the legal problems in Europe, drives a nail into the coffin of competing download services, shuts the anti-DRM detractors up, pulls the rug out from under WMA, and further enhances Apple's image as a consumer-friendly good-guy.

I think we'll look back on this event as the beginning of the end for WMA, and the masterstroke that cemented Apple's dominance of the digital music distribution market.

Cheers

I suspect EMI & Steve had, at the very least, verbally agreed on such a concept for Steve to make such a bold (and at the time, odd) statement on apple.com.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out. Wonder how soon other labels (and Hollywood) will follow?

In the end, it only bodes well for everyone: the content creator, the ditributor and the end user. And with MS' eggs in one DRM basket... is it wrong if I grin?

goosnarrggh

Apr 3, 2007, 03:32 PM

There is a threshold below which AAC is noticeably distinguishable from 16-bit Linear PCM. But at 128Kbps, the Audio Engineering Society found it is sufficiently perceptually transparent and only a few individuals can really pick apart the artifaction.

What's funny is that few if any of the actual artifaction or symptoms of artifaction that should arise from such perceptual encoding are the ones ever mentioned by audiophiles. People will bring up things like cymbals sounding weird because of limited frequency response at the high end. The answer is, they have no freaking idea what they're talking about. Cymbal sounds lack coherent phase characteristics, and this makes it difficult for even PCM encoding to properly represent their amplitude characteristics at any given quantization interval. But quantization error is typically shaped by dithering on all but the highest resolution PCM streams so you're still getting an improper representation even at 16-bit Linear PCM (CD audio, in other words). Frequency response is not the problem, amplitude resolution is.

AAC is a perceptual coding schema and PCM is not. At certain bit depths, AAC can faithfully reconstruct a PCM stream from fewer bits of data per sample just like ADPCM could back in the day. I've already explained elsewhere some of the basic concepts that drive such reductions without noticeable loss (such as using difference values instead of absolute values to represent amplitude at each quantization interval) but the bottom line is that resampling a 256Kbps AAC bitstream with a decent transcoder should not introduce more artifacts than there already were. Transcoding errors are greatest when sample & hold buffers do not hold each value long enough but this is less and less of a problem with offline transcoding in digital audio workstations which are not tethered to linear feeds and can instead hold the value as long as necessary until encoded correctly.

What you need to understand is that the sample & hold buffer in an A/D, D/A or transcoder is the most critical element in terms of the accuracy of encoding and the mitigation of artifacts. The actual encoding algorithm itself in AAC is quite capable of producing a narrower discrete time sampled bitstream from which the values of the original analogue or digital source can be accurately reproduced... but if the sample & hold times in an encoding algorithm are insufficient, there arises the possibility of artifaction being introduced in the process of transcoding itself.

You can cite all the anecdotal evidence in the world, but because the fundamentals of sound perception depend on the propagation of soundwaves, one must first demonstrate that there is actually a difference between the analogue soundwaves propagated between 128Kbps AAC and 16-bit Linear PCM... and no audiophile has ever been able to demonstrate this. Some will argue "but the difference is one of perception"... Well, I agree... If upon playback the reconstructed analog soundwaves are fundamentally the same and you insist that you're still hearing differences, then it is indeed your perception and NOT the files that are flawed.

How's about presenting a Matlab example... feed it in a train of 16-bit Linear PCM samples taken from a "typical" sound source... Run it through a well-implemented AAC encoding scheme... Run that through the standard AAC decoding algorithm...

Compare the output set of samples against the input set... What is the typical numeric error comparing sample to sample from input to output?

alec

Apr 3, 2007, 03:34 PM

While I am delighted by the corporate first movement towards DRM-less music (imagine!), EMI leaves a lot to be desired....

chrisgeleven

Apr 3, 2007, 03:42 PM

Kinda interesting to look at the record company market share and figure out how much iTunes Music will be DRM-free.

EMI has a 9.55% market share in 2005
Indie record labels had a 18.13% market share in 2005

Let's say most of the indie labels and just about all of EMI's music is DRM-free by late spring. That is ~25% of music on iTunes that is DRM-free.

Pretty interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_music_market

killmoms

Apr 3, 2007, 03:52 PM

Now there's an interesting point. I wonder if the indie labels will be given the same freedom to call up Apple and say "HAY US TOO!" :eek:

That'd be awesome. :D

pacohaas

Apr 3, 2007, 03:55 PM

one must first demonstrate that there is actually a difference between the analogue soundwaves propagated between 128Kbps AAC and 16-bit Linear PCM... and no audiophile has ever been able to demonstrate this.
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128test/results.html
in blind listening tests, there are people who can tell the difference.

itcomesinwaves

Apr 3, 2007, 04:21 PM

I wouldn't mind this approach, actually. Stamp the file with some metadata in an odd spot in the file with a hash of some kind with the purchase ID + user. It won't affect the playback of the music, but it will give the legal hounds a place to start when trying to figure out who broke the license.

This is pretty much how I figured non-DRM music would work, and I'll bet you that's exactly what they're doing. I'm pretty sure they do this with purchased songs already, so I doubt they would stop for the DRM free ones. I remember some of the initial 'DRM stripping' applications for iTunes tracks intentionally left the personal information in the file as a show of good faith that they weren't encouraging piracy, just enabling fair use.

This makes life much easier on the RIAA when going after people who share their music on P2P. When a song shows up on P2P with your information embedded in it, it's a pretty open and shut case against you. Not many people would be against that kind of case the way they are against the current round of lawsuits. People might have excuses such as a stolen iPod, or a kids friend messing with their machine, but the cases would still be a lot more legitimate than they are now.

This also lets you exercise fair use by sharing a song with a friend. However, it would have to be a friend you trust not to keep sharing the song, or it might eventually end up on P2P.

As long as the information isn't actually embedded in the audio itself, one could always burn and re-rip the tracks to strip out the info. There will probably be some hacks to strip the info right out of the file, too. But all that seems like a lot of work to go to to be able to make your music available to strangers.

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 04:40 PM

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128test/results.html
in blind listening tests, there are people who can tell the difference.

Seen that many times before. Several problems...

1. It is not a randomized, double-blind test. The subject pool is not picked at random. The subject pool consists ostensibly of people who tend to go to the site which would include, largely, people who have an interest in vindicating their audio snobbery with these sorts of listening tests. Even in a blind test, this lack of randomization will skew the results one way or another. This is not scientific.

2. It is not a true double-blind test. The examiner knows which samples are which, and can unconsciously have arranged them in an order that skews the results. There's no documentation as to how the distribution or order of samples is done, whether it is also randomized to rule out order bias. There is no discussion of the full test parameters, really... just that it is an ABX test.

ABX tests, I have found, do not actually test whether a listener can discern the difference between one format and another. What they test is what samples the listener thinks are most alike the reference sample. But without a reference sample can anyone tell the difference? How about testing each song only once? And does knowing there's a reference sample at all skew the results? No control and variable trials are done with different random sample populations to determine which if any of the parameters may be biasing the results so as to rule out the degree of bias and/or placebo effect.

Also, what are the effects of the test result when labels are added, or when each file is mislabeled? What is the percentage of error that occurs when an individual is given the same test repeatedly... How often do they actually identify the same sample correctly? How often do they identify the same sample as being different formats?

There is a difference between subjective and objective perception. This test does nothing to compare and contrast the two. It only accounts for subjective perception by asking the subject to identify which two samples sound most alike... but that is not the same as asking someone whether or not they can actually discern what differences, if any, exist between one format and another. But most importantly, there has to be a reason for those differences to exist. If the degree to which a user identifies the correct sample in a series of samples is actually no greater than the degree to which they misidentify the same sample several times, then something in that individual's perception, rather than the object being tested, is flawed.

There are many phases to randomized, double-blind trials and these ABX tests are as insufficient as so-called online IQ tests at determining actual degrees of perceptual transparency between audio formats. Furthermore, the environment is not controlled as it would be in a scientific setting because the playback equipment will vary from subject to subject. This is utterly unscientific.

Another thing that scientific experimentation and testing does is it makes certain predictions on what we should expect to find. If no predictions are made, then the results of perceptual testimony are meaningless. I'll explain:

If there really is a reason for users to perceive AAC and PCM playback as different, then there should be a fundamental and measurable difference in the analogue waveforms that are reconstructed by the decoding algorithms of the two formats. If the difference is statistically insignificant relative to the thresholds of all human perception, then any perceived differences are either due to outside factors or are simply imagined by the subject.

It is exceedingly suspicious that these types of tests never predict the precise differences we should expect to find, and consequently should expect subjects to identify symptomatically on some level with some degree of concordance in the test results. And I'm frankly tired of people claiming that "complex audio isn't predictable" or that "perception comes down to the individual" ...due to the fact that both PCM and AAC are built around very solid mathematical algorithms whose resulting artifactions should be as predictable as the 12.1kHz alias frequency that arises from sampling a 32kHz sinewave at 44.1kHz without a low-pass filter at the Nyquist limit.

Again, that digital encoding systems can reproduce very high-fidelity audio, much less audio at all instead of gibberish, is a testament to the predictive abilities of science. Digital encoding/decoding systems weren't designed by throwing circuits together until the engineer heard something. :D

So much is understood about digital encoding/decoding by the engineers who design such systems that mathematically one can predict where and when artifaction should be present and what is required to overcome it. To wit... the fundamental basis for the minimum critical sampling frequency used in digital audio systems today was derived from predictions made by the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem in 1928.

As for differences between people's perception... well, one of the things a random sample population would do is it would give us an average population, rather than a population with perceptual abilities that are outside the normal distribution one way or another. In fact, several sample populations could consist of average perception, acute perception, and poor perception, to weigh the differences among the groups... but of course none of that is done in these ABX tests.)

There's no reason to take these test results seriously because not enough measures have been taken to ensure that the conditions of the tests are uniform, controlled and truly unbiased.

ltning

Apr 3, 2007, 04:43 PM

PC Mag cites (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2110314,00.asp) the response from the Norwegian Consumer Council, who had previously declared (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/24/european-countries-up-pressure-on-itunes-fairplay/) Apple's DRM restrictions to be illegal and tried to pass legistation to force open standards:

This is a false statement: The Norwegian Consumer Council has said nothing about DRM per se, not even Apple's DRM restrictions. Lock-in and DRM is, strictly, two very different things, and the NCC has been against the lock-in. Now in Apple's case one is just a measure to achieve the other, but the restriction there does not lie in the DRM, but in the decision not to allow others to implement it. The restrictions imposed on the end user by the Apple DRM scheme is actually much less restricted than they could have been (don't get me wrong; I hate DRM as much as the next guy, and that includes Apple's DRM); at least you're allowed to play a song as often as you want :P

- Love over Gold -

snowmoon

Apr 3, 2007, 05:30 PM

http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128test/results.html
in blind listening tests, there are people who can tell the difference.

As has already been pointed out this was not an ABX test of who can tell the difference. It was not scientific, but even it it were, it ended up testing what encoder made the music "sound better" and not which one actually did a truer encoding.

gnasher729

Apr 3, 2007, 05:34 PM

Compare the output set of samples against the input set... What is the typical numeric error comparing sample to sample from input to output?

It doesn't work that way. AAC (and MP3, and any other lossy method) throws away phase information.

Assume that you have a perfect sine wave at say 1000 Hertz. It goes from zero to maximum, down to zero, down to negative maximum, back to zero, and that 1000 times per second.

Now take the same sine wave but shifted by 1/4000th of a second. Where the original was at zero, this one as at negative maximum. When the original goes to maximum, this one is at zero. Original goes back to zero, this wave goes to the maximum. At each point in time, the numerical difference is huge. However, both sine waves sound absolutely identical to the human ear, because you can't hear that 1/4000th of a second difference.

So you get two signals that sound absolutely the same, but look absolutely different.

Howmanoid

Apr 3, 2007, 05:48 PM

Does any body else get the irony that the EU chose today to slap official complaints on Apple? I'm so glad I left there to be here!

pacohaas

Apr 3, 2007, 05:53 PM

I'm not sure why i'm trying to prove that a lossy format at 128kbps is worse than a lossless encode. Can you prove that it's the same? For that matter where did 128kbps become the cutoff for AAC, why not 96kbps, 64kbps, or even 160kbps? If you can prove that, or even if you just believe it, then it kinda proves my original point that 256kbps is unnecessarily twice the size and a waste of space on anyone's iPod. People who pay that $0.30 premium for no DRM shouldn't be punished by only being able to put half the songs on their devices if (as you are saying) 128kbps is the same quality as the original.

gnasher729

Apr 3, 2007, 05:54 PM

If you do the math, you will see that, as long as the figure for piracy is low enough, the new business model with the new price can ensure same profit as the past without DRM, which probably costs millions of dollars to develop, and eventually will be breached by people.

Actually, the amount of piracy doesn't matter. What matters is the amount of purchases. There will be lots of purchases with the explicit intent of making (a few) copies where with DRM there would have been no purchase at all. Take a group of three people, each with ten dollar, and each wants the same three records. With DRM, each can buy one record. But then it is quite possible that they each decide that the record isn't _that_ good and it is more fun to spend ten dollars on pizza, or on text messages. Now with DRM removed, they can buy all three records and make copies, which is illegal but better value for money. So removing DRM caused six illegal copies to be made, but it _also_ caused three purchases. In the end, this is more money for record companies and musicians.

(As long as EMI is the only one without DRM, their advantage is even bigger. First, given the choice, anyone will buy an EMI record without DRM instead of say Sony with DRM. Second, if people buy records and copy them, that will be EMI records! )

gnasher729

Apr 3, 2007, 06:02 PM

Has anybody thought about the size implications of this? You're essentially cutting the (albeit arbitrary) storage of a 80GB ipod from 20000 to 10000 songs.

Go to an Apple Store. Tell them that you will buy iTunes gift vouchers for 10000 songs if they give you a free 80 GB iPod. I think you'll get that iPod.

pacohaas

Apr 3, 2007, 06:17 PM

Go to an Apple Store. Tell them that you will buy iTunes gift vouchers for 10000 songs if they give you a free 80 GB iPod. I think you'll get that iPod.

haha, yeah, if i was careful and only purchased albums with songs averaging over 4 minutes, I could potentially fill up an 80 gig ipod with less than half the amount they say you can, requiring a 2nd ipod for the remainder of the 20000 songs.

killmoms

Apr 3, 2007, 06:23 PM

haha, yeah, if i was careful and only purchased albums with songs averaging over 4 minutes, I could potentially fill up an 80 gig ipod with less than half the amount they say you can, requiring a 2nd ipod for the remainder of the 20000 songs.

So? 20,000 songs is not some sort of guarantee. I can only fit 2,948 songs on my 20GB (5,000) song iPod because the average bitrate of stuff on there is higher than 129kbit, do you hear me bitching? They always put the disclaimer in the literature for an iPod that the "song count" is based on an average of 4 minute songs at 128kbps.

In fact, my entire music collection (just shy of 13,000 tracks) won't fit on the 80GB iPod because a large segment of it is comprised of songs significantly longer than 4 minutes, and nearly all of it (about 12,600) is 192kbit or better.

This is a very spurious (and pedantic) complaint, and smacks of trollish-ness.

Nicky G

Apr 3, 2007, 06:39 PM

This is a great move on the parts of Apple and EMI. One hopes that the other majors realize they will soon be identified with nothing other than total greed, especially when consumers realize not ALL labels are so evil.

I used to really dislike the idea of music subscriptions, and Rhapsody is a PITA ugly beast. However, after having the chance to use it at a friend's house, I am really starting to warm up to the model.

In the spirit of offering choice to their customers, I think Apple should offer a subscription-based service allowing access to the entire iTMS catalog, even if those tracks include DRM. I would never subscribe to such a service through Real or M$. But I think Apple has gained enough credibility, at this point, in the digital music market to win customers over to this model -- and people will not in any way hesitate to fork over the $15/month or so to take part in an entirely new way of accessing music.

Think about it -- Rhapsody does, at least, give subscribers a WONDERFUL chance to explore and discover new music, that they don't have to feel obligated to permanently buy. I can't see how this would do anything other than majorly invigorate what has become a pathetically sad and stagnant music market (at least as far as the major labels are concerned.)

killmoms

Apr 3, 2007, 06:43 PM

In the spirit of offering choice to their customers, I think Apple should offer a subscription-based service allowing access to the entire iTMS catalog, even if those tracks include DRM.

Well, with a subscription service, those tracks HAVE to use DRM, since if they didn't, you could just download a crap-ton and then cancel your subscription and keep them forever. Subscription services by their very nature (renting) MUST use DRM. :)

thirdhand

Apr 3, 2007, 06:51 PM

This is great news! Steve's anti-DRM statement wasn't just empty words. Kudos to Apple and EMI. And to think that not long ago EMI was about the only company to sell defective CD-like discs (at least in Norway). Better sound quality too. And no price increase for albums. Woohoo!

I will have to buy some music from EMI online now. Maybe from iTMS. Or some other online store - if they have a better offer. But anyway - great stuff!

Cult Follower

Apr 3, 2007, 07:00 PM

This is the start of yet another way we look at music.

ideapower

Apr 3, 2007, 07:08 PM

Something not many people are talking about is the fact that the major labels have been pushing to increase the track price for quite some time now, and with Jobs' only very-recent push for dropping DRM, the labels are really benefiting more than the consumers in this case. Kudos to Steve for figuring out a way to give everybody what they want, to a degree, and still come out on top.

If they would make including digital booklets with every album download a REQUIREMENT then I'd feel a lot more comfortable paying $13 for an album. Otherwise, I'll just keep buying CD's - and rip them into iTunes at whatever quality I choose.

EagerDragon

Apr 3, 2007, 07:29 PM

I like to see the reaction of the other Majors. They seem to be quiet at the moment.

ChrisA

Apr 3, 2007, 07:37 PM

How's about presenting a Matlab example... feed it in a train of 16-bit Linear PCM samples taken from a "typical" sound source... Run it through a well-implemented AAC encoding scheme... Run that through the standard AAC decoding algorithm...

Compare the output set of samples against the input set... What is the typical numeric error comparing sample to sample from input to output?

In a real music player there must be an analog low pass filter after the D/A converter. So say the sample rate is 44Khz it would be low pass filtered to about 20Khz before being sent to the headphones. A proper test would hve to compare the waveforms after low pass filtering.

shawnce

Apr 3, 2007, 07:55 PM

How's about presenting a Matlab example... feed it in a train of 16-bit Linear PCM samples taken from a "typical" sound source... Run it through a well-implemented AAC encoding scheme... Run that through the standard AAC decoding algorithm...

Compare the output set of samples against the input set... What is the typical numeric error comparing sample to sample from input to output?

That type of comparison doesn't factor in the way we, on average, hear and process sound. So it wouldn't be a fair comparison from the point of view of what a human would/could detect.

Audio compression algorithms (like image and video compression algorithms) are designed with humans in mind. They throw out aspects of the audio signal the human ear either cannot detect and/or will synthesize.

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 08:21 PM

In a real music player there must be an analog low pass filter after the D/A converter. So say the sample rate is 44Khz it would be low pass filtered to about 20Khz before being sent to the headphones. A proper test would hve to compare the waveforms after low pass filtering.

Precisely.

The reconstructed analogue waveforms are what must be compared for a reference sample in order to predict what, if any, artifaction should be detectable.

The ignorance of audiophiles to the most basic principles of digital audio encoding and systems design is really beginning to show when something as basic as a low-pass (antialiasing) filter at the Nyquist limit is missed.

BlueMars

Apr 3, 2007, 08:29 PM

EMI could have made an announcement on their new DRM-free music without playing favourites and tying the announcement in, specifically, with iTunes.

But I wonder if this wasn't a nod of appreciation to Jobs and Apple who, through iPod and iTunes, stepped into the morass of music 'sharing' that existed and offered those who wanted to pay for their music (be if for reasons of moral conviction, convenience, or assurance of a certain quality of the song file) the first real and legit option to do so.

snowmoon

Apr 3, 2007, 08:35 PM

Precisely.

The reconstructed analogue waveforms are what must be compared for a reference sample in order to predict what, if any, artifaction should be detectable.

The ignorance of audiophiles to the most basic principles of digital audio encoding and systems design is really beginning to show when something as basic as a low-pass (antialiasing) filter at the Nyquist limit is missed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustic_model

Is a good introduction why a lossy compression / expansion will lead to a totally different waveform. This also just barely scratches the surface of the science behind the algorithms.

Avatar74

Apr 3, 2007, 08:41 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustic_model

Is a good introduction why a lossy compression / expansion will lead to a totally different waveform. This also just barely scratches the surface of the science behind the algorithms.

Your last sentence is totally correct. This article is worthless to someone who already has a cursory understanding of the fundamentals of digital audio. A better reference is Ken Pohlmann's Principles of Digital Audio which dives heavily into the technical design requirements of digital audio encoding systems.

What that Wikipedia article does underscore is no different from my point. Even if differences in the overall waveform DO exist, the question is which of those differences are actually within the A-weighted spectrum and/or otherwise perceptible. Knowing what we know about psychoacoustics, we should be able to predict what, if any, artifaction is perceptible in an analogue soundwave reconstructed from a particular perceptual coding algorithm.

ElderscrollsV

Apr 3, 2007, 09:02 PM

iMikeT

Apr 3, 2007, 09:25 PM

I can't wait to hear the official response from Microsoft.

I wonder if they will have a scare campaign for the record lables to show how Apple's move is a threat... Blah, blah, blah...:rolleyes:

NicP

Apr 3, 2007, 09:51 PM

Seriously what is so great about the removal of DRM? Was it really stopping you from doing ANYTHING? I didn't even know that it was on there....and neither does the average user....so it's not like sales are going to skyrocket...this is a stupid topic

It stopped people from playing the tracks on their mobile phones, on their DAPs (that were not ipods), on their TIVOs, on linux, on their car stereos (unless you burnt an audio cd), basically on any non apple device.

dontmatter

Apr 3, 2007, 11:35 PM

I think this is an iTunes-wide option and not just for Shuffle. But either way, anyone can just downconvert the files to a suitable size, format, whatever since... hello... there's no DRM!

So if the non-DRM alone is reason enough to buy, then you pay your 30 cents difference, get the file, make a 128kbps copy to pop on your ipod and keep the original 256 for whatever else... AppleTV perhaps.

You'll have to pardon me... I just find it oddly amusing that people have known that non-DRM digital music files are not tangibly-fixed product and yet people seem to be thinking that what they're getting for $1.29 is somehow a fixed product that they can't themselves modify.

You'd think it were obvious, but wasn't the entire point of removing DRM to allow you to do whatever you wanted to your copy of the file?

:)

Yeah, but that's messy. It takes your actively doing this to some set of files that you choose, and then you have two of each file, etc. On the other hand, if you could simply specify that you wanted all music at 128kbps on your ipod b/c that's what you can hear on your headphones, and all music in itunes at it's max, b/c it doesn't really matter and you have a nice stereo system or headphones, it would be amazingly elegant. Hope we get this.

MikeTheC

Apr 4, 2007, 12:01 AM

Couple quick thoughts here on this...

First, I'm glad that Apple has put it's money where it's mouth is. It really helps to shut up the nay-sayers (here and elsewhere) with regard to Apple's espousal of DRM in their product.

Second, I think most of the general public are a bunch of ignorant, lazy sheep who (by and large) would have been incapable of getting this achieved on their own, so basically even though some of you folks want to treat this as a non-event, you should really give Apple their due for basically taking the bull by the horns and representing not solely their own interests, but those of the general public as well.

Third, and this is something I've pointed out to people I know (friends and acquaintances) regarding HD-TV, but the entertainment industry has now caught the "features and upgrades" bug that's so long plagued the computer industry, and so even though your discussions here on digital audio processing, digitizing and the cumulative effects on spectra and waveform due to lossy compression are well taken, they're well beyond the reach of the average person using one of these devices or, for that matter, the average consumer using ANY modern audio or video entertainment device.

So, by all means I'm not trying to shut you folks up (honest, go for it, it's very informative!) but just try to understand that the average person couldn't give a toss about relative signal quality, so long as it doesn't significantly intrude upon the human-perceptible range.

Nilonym

Apr 4, 2007, 01:41 AM

Second, I think most of the general public are a bunch of ignorant, lazy sheep...

What an arrogant thing to say. I think most of the general public might not care about bit rates or obsess about the evils of DRM, but that doesn't make them ignorant, lazy sheep - it makes them people who have interests that differ from yours.

pacohaas

Apr 4, 2007, 02:23 AM

The average use can understand the idea of re-encoding and why it is bad. Just do a simple test:
Take a lossless file(from CD), encode to 256kbps AAC name it "songAAC", encode that AAC to a 128kbps AAC and name it "songAAC2", encode the 2nd AAC at 128 and name it "songAAC3", go further if you want, but depending on the music you should be able to hear the quite annoying difference between songAAC3 and songAAC, while hearing the difference between songAAC and the original lossless file is not so easy and in fact might be impossible even if the original AAC was made at 128kbps.

My point wasn't really to argue whether 128kbps sounded identical to LPCM though, but rather that iTunes users who want(or require on their device) 128kbps shouldn't be forced to re-encode a 256kbps file because of the artifacts introduced. If 128kbps AAc was as good as you're saying it is, these artifacts wouldn't be amplified so greatly even after 1 encode. Go ahead and try it...even the "ignorant lazy sheep" can hear the problems that occur with re-encoding.

localoid

Apr 4, 2007, 04:00 AM

Seen that many times before. Several problems...

1. It is not a randomized, double-blind test. The subject pool is not picked at random. The subject pool consists ostensibly of people who tend to go to the site which would include, largely, people who have an interest in vindicating their audio snobbery with these sorts of listening tests. Even in a blind test, this lack of randomization will skew the results one way or another. This is not scientific. ...

You're a riot! :p Post you theory about how AAC@128 is "indistinguishable" on a pro sound/music forum and you'd be laughed off it.

You really can't accept or don't understand the fact that many people can hear much better than you. Not in terms of frequency response, but it terms of being able to discern elements of sound that you'll never be able to hear.

Can you detect if two tones are 1 cent out of tune without using a tuner? Do you have perfect pitch? Can you tell the difference between a violin and a voila playing the same note? If I give you the starting note, can you fill in the rest of the notes on a staff if I play a simple melody for you? Can you hear the difference between an open fifth tuned to equal tuning and one tuned to harmonic tuning?

You probably can't (do any of the above.) Why? Because you don't have "an ear." Anyone who's developed "an ear" for music can hear some/all of the things above. That's how it works in the real world. Accept it and move on.

Your knowledge of acoustic theory might help to build a room with less echo, but your "it sounds exactly the same" theories would be of little or no use in the real world of professional musicians or other sound professionals who work daily with sound for a living (other than giving them a good laugh.) :p

This sort of "ear" (for sound/music) I'm talking about isn't something some "snobby audiophile" made up. Sound is realized in the brain (not in a lab, e.g., your machines can't actually "hear."):

Musicians have been found to have more developed anterior portions of the corpus callosum in a study by Cowell et al. in 1992 (Strickland, 2001). This was confirmed by a study by Schlaug et al in 1995 who found that classical musicians between the ages of 21 and 36 have significantly greater anterior corpora callosa than the non-musical control.

You can read some slightly dumbed down information regarding this at the Wikipedia article, music and the brain... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_the_brain) If you really desire to understand how hearing (vs sound) works in the real world, you should back away from your slide rule and pocket calculator and put your pencil back in your pocket protector and do some research on the stuff of the real world. ("Hearing" occurs in the real world.)

cycocelica

Apr 4, 2007, 04:20 AM

I will wait and listen to one that is bought from a friend. I don't really care about the DRM thing, since I only use an iPod

Avatar74

Apr 4, 2007, 08:41 AM

You're a riot! :p Post you theory about how AAC@128 is "indistinguishable" on a pro sound/music forum and you'd be laughed off it.

You really can't accept or don't understand the fact that many people can hear much better than you. Not in terms of frequency response, but it terms of being able to discern elements of sound that you'll never be able to hear.

Can you detect if two tones are 1 cent out of tune without using a tuner? Do you have perfect pitch? Can you tell the difference between a violin and a voila playing the same note? If I give you the starting note, can you fill in the rest of the notes on a staff if I play a simple melody for you? Can you hear the difference between an open fifth tuned to equal tuning and one tuned to harmonic tuning?

In 1997, a series of tests were conducted jointly by the BBC, NHK (Japan Broadcasting Co.) and at the CRC Signal Processing and Psychoacoustics Audio Perception Labartifacts. Using 24 participants in double-blind procedures, including 7 musicians and 6 recording engineers, they were fed a series of samples, AAC 128Kbps tested higher than any of the other codecs including AC-3.

The panel also concluded that AAC 128Kbps met the requirements for perceptual transparency, and stated:

The AAC codec operating at 128 kbps per stereo pair was the only codec tested which met the audio quality requirement outlined in the ITU-R Recommendation BS.1115 for perceptual audio codecs for broadcast.

These findings were published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society in 1998.

Source:

G. A. Soulodre, T. Grusec, M. Lavoie, and L. Thibault, Signal Processing and Psychoacoustics/Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Ont.: Subjective Evaluation of State-of-the-Art 2-Channel Audio Codecs, Paper presented at the AES 104th Convention, 1998.

This paper was edited and reprinted in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society:
G. A. Soulodre, T. Grusec, M. Lavoie, and L. Thibault. Subjective evaluation of state-of-the-art 2-channel audio codecs. J. Audio Eng. Soc., 46(3):164 – 176, March 1998.

pacohaas

Apr 4, 2007, 10:17 AM

The AAC codec operating at 128 kbps per stereo pair was the only codec tested which met the audio quality requirement outlined in the ITU-R Recommendation BS.1115 for perceptual audio codecs for broadcast.
Isn't that study trying to determine the best codec/bitrate for a radio broadcast? This was at a time when AAC was only first being developed and was far from the quality of today's codecs. I'm sure the study found AAC the best one at 128kbps, but the title of that paper includes the phrase "low bitrate", so they were not looking at transparent audio, rather at what should be used for broadcast at lower bitrates.

You can site all the papers you want, I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove anymore though and if you test a re-encode from 256 to 128kbps AAC, you will see the quality loss due to artifacts and compression that I am trying to demonstrate. I'm sure you're taking a very interesting course in DSP right now and you think you know it all, but as localoid said, you need to get your nose out of the books and train your ears to hear imperfections so you can start to question these decade-old studies and start forming an opinion of your own based on experience.

The requirements of the ITU for audio quality even have considerations for artifacts:
"For emission, the most critical material for the codecs must be such that the degradation may be 'perceptible but not annoying' (grade 4)"which is fine for the radio communication sector, and I agree with their findings: AAC @ 128kbps is a better choice than mp3 @ 128 or mp2 @ 192kbps. They also conclude that AAC (Main Profile) @ 96kbps gives BETTER results than mp3@128kbps. The point of the ITU, however, is to ensure efficient use of the radio communications, so their goal is ultimately to find the lowest bitrate that can be considered (by them) good enough (allowing perceptible but not annoying artifacts) for radio communications.

What I don't like about their study is that they give no details about the encoders used or the specific settings. One can easily pick out a "bad" mp3 made by iTunes for example, even at 160kbps, but will have more trouble with a more developed encoder like LAME @ 160kbps.

msandersen

Apr 4, 2007, 11:34 AM

I'm not one to promote that tired old mythology about the ongoing Microsoft-Apple rivalry because, let's face it, they're both big companies with their own concerns and goals and they're definitely not sitting around plotting against each other like some Spy Vs. Spy strip.
I don't know about Apple, but Microsoft has been behaving like the black Spy somewhat over the years, plotting the overthrow and destruction of its enemies by various nefarious means, like WordPerfect and Netscape. For instance, they tried repeatedly to kill Quicktime, by threats (Knife the Baby or Else), sabotage (fake error messages in Windows blaming QT, forcing OEMs to remove QuickTime, forcing 3rd party developers to cease QT support, buying hardware manufacturers solely to remove Quicktime drivers, etc), and theft (having an Apple partner provide QT sourcecode and putting it into their own product, for which they were found guilty of software piracy). So there is a certain delicious irony in seeing how Apple foiled MS' attempts at making WM the international MPEG-4 standard by having QT accepted instead, and go on to trounce MS in the "MP3"-player and Download marketplace. Removing DRM could help other stores adopt AAC (or at least go back to MP3), since over 70% of players (iPods) don't support WMA. I hope they will go for AAC, though many current WMA-players may not be compatible.

Avatar74

Apr 4, 2007, 11:45 AM

Isn't that study trying to determine the best codec/bitrate for a radio broadcast?

Where do you derive this? The study was to determine standards for television broadcast... unless by "radio broadcast" you are referring to RF transmission.

This was at a time when AAC was only first being developed and was far from the quality of today's codecs.

Hardly. The foundations for AAC actually lay in Dolby SR-D/AC-3 which was developed in the late 1980's-early 1990's.

I'm sure the study found AAC the best one at 128kbps, but the title of that paper includes the phrase "low bitrate", so they were not looking at transparent audio, rather at what should be used for broadcast at lower bitrates.

AES specifically commented on transparency, however.

You can site all the papers you want, I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove anymore though and if you test a re-encode from 256 to 128kbps AAC, you will see the quality loss due to artifacts and compression that I am trying to demonstrate.

I already discussed this... I said it depends on the transcoder being used. Run of the mill transcoders do a crappy direct conversion instead of resampling the decompressed output.

I'm sure you're taking a very interesting course in DSP right now and you think you know it all, but as localoid said, you need to get your nose out of the books and train your ears to hear imperfections so you can start to question these decade-old studies and start forming an opinion of your own based on experience.

No actually I've been involved in professional audio and video for quite some time. I've produced professionally-encoded CD's and DVD's, and I mastered a nationally-released jazz album. I wrote a research paper on internet distribution of music in 1996. I have 15 years of experience with audio and video and while you're jumping to asinine conclusions in your ad hominem attacks (which is no way to substantiate an argument in a debate) I'll point out that during a mass media course in college, sitting in an auditorium of about 350 students I arose and went to the professor and asked him if he had switched on the video projector. He said he did. How did I know? I could hear the 60Hz refresh cycle of the projector over the noise of 350 students talking before class.

What irritates me is the assumption being made that I have no field experience and that I haven't used my own ears to sort things out. But look at it from my point of view... everyone wants to believe that their hearing is impeccable. You can't trust statements like that because they're loaded with confirmation bias. Scientific approaches filter out bias especially where perception is concerned.

What irritates me further is the confusing of Socratic/logical/academic theoretical principles in a book versus the hard empirical observation of science... Science does not rest idle on the pages of a book... Science takes the book and puts it to a practical, systematic examination to see if the hypothesis holds in the real world. But what I hear some people saying is that "No no... ignore the science. ignore the facts observed in controlled settings and instead take my word for it."

Why the hell should I? How do I know I can trust the ears of a bunch of self-affirming audiophiles who sit around and massage their Rotel monoblocks all day over professional engineers who have the ears AND the education to understand what causes what.

Maybe you'll tell me some BS like "controlled settings don't exist in the real world." This betrays a total ignorance of what a controlled setting means. It doesn't mean an environment so sterile and impractical that the results would not be replicable in the real world... it means an environment where other possible phenomena are isolated out so as to not allow any confusion as to what the root cause is.

As good as my own ears are, I don't trust them to tell the whole story... and neither should you. You can goad me with your stories of how audiophiles glued to their self-congratulatory message boards would laugh at me because of my insistence on book knowledge...

Do you mean to tell me I should not listen to SMPTE and AES engineers and instead entertain the opinions of those who speak without having even the cursory/fundamental knowledge of digital encoding and system design to actually know what it was they thought they were hearing and why?

If opinions based on experience are not rooted in fundamental academic knowledge, those opinions can lead down all kinds of corridors of aspersion and syllogistic nonsense.

pacohaas

Apr 4, 2007, 12:35 PM

You would argue that the 128kbps AAC from 1980 is "transparent", but even advances in quicktime's AAC implementation in the last few years has greatly improved quality. Plus you're talking about sophisticated decoders, when we are all talking about iTunes(wasn't that the original point of this news post?), even so, can you point us to such a decoder that magically recreated the original perceived audio and is immune to re-encoding artifacts amplified by the iTunes encoder? Like I said, you can read all the studies you want, but until you actually see(hear) it in practice, you shouldn't place all your faith in them. So show me an example of multiple re-encoding steps(as I have above) that produces a file indistinguishable from the first and I'll concede. But to my knowledge, no such process exists for lossy encoders, regardless of bitrate each re-encoding step is losing information, whether perceivable or not, the amplification of this information in later steps is perceivable, that no amount of resampling can ever completely recover. If it could, these codecs would not be considered lossy.

ITU-R deals with radiocommunications, you might be thinking of ITU-T, but the paper you are siting is an ITU-R one and as I said above, it states that some amount of degradation is allowed as long as it is not annoying, and would still receive their recommendation as AAC @128 did.

hey, congrats on the large vocabulary though, makes you look smart