I voted negative, because it is MP3 format. C'mon Amazon! Donnez moi une break.
Me too.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazon to Launch DRM-Free Music Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
From a marketing perspective, Amazon probably feels like they have to differentiate themselves somehow from the ITMS. And if we're talking about portable devices, unless you're using rather expensive headgear the difference isn't going to matter (ever listen to music on a commuter train with a bevy of old broads, er ladies, yakking it up 3 feet from you? Not to mention the train/bus noise itself). But I agree with you - most all the devices people own now do play AAC, and certainly all computer programs that are used (iTunes, Winamp, XMMS) can play the format as well, so I want the higher-quality of AAC on my computer/iPod.
I can see the Slashdot posts now, though - "WTF!? It's not Ogg! L0s3r Amazon!"
(FWIW I rated this a positive since anything that hastens the death of DRM is beneficial)
Not so dumb.
MP3 is a universal format that is playable on all portable players. Also a lot of car CD systems now play CDs with MP3s on them.
Not everyone wants to carry around their iPod with them. For example my wife can listen to (up to) 600 MP3 songs spanned across the 6CD changer in out car.
Our car has no provision for AAC and outside of the iPod nor have many other players.
Actually that site says nothing about portable media players. While many software media players can play AAC, that is still not that case with hardware music players. Outside of Apple, neither Creative and Sandisk - two of the largest MP3 player manufacturers - support AAC.
Ogg + rockbox'd iPod is the best combo. I really do think that ogg is slightly better than aac most of the time.
Apple leads? Where are the DRM-free tracks they talked about? Actions speak louder than words my friend!
I think MP3 sounds good enough for a portable music player. If you want higher quality, then use lossless or listen to CDs.
I strongly support this move by Amazon. Competition is good.
I don't see the big complaints about mp3's. As it stands, mp3's are still the dominant life form in the codec world. Everything uses it. Regardless of AAC being better, a proper size mp3 is more than enough to satisfy the majority of consumers. Amazon had to make a decision, and their decision rules in favor of those who still use those little flash-based whatchamadoodles that don't yet support AAC, which in turn is a huge benefit for everyone....for now. While I don't have a single mp3 formatted file anymore, I used to have loads of them when all I owned was a tiny Sony Network Walkman.
Anyway, if Amazon starts distributing nicely priced, DRM free music that I can't find on iTunes ( Radiohead for example) then I may have to just mix some mp3's with my 256kbs AAC files. But hey....it's DRM free!
And we all know the majority of consumers tend to go that route
Anyway, if Amazon starts distributing nicely priced, DRM free music that I can't find on iTunes ( Radiohead for example) then I may have to just mix some mp3's with my 256kbs AAC files. But hey....it's DRM free!
And we all know the majority of consumers tend to go that route
Anyone who says they can easily tell the difference between mp3 and aac at anything above even 192 is wrong...as long as they are using a good mp3 encoder. All 'audiophiles' (people who really really care about this stuff) admit this unless you are using extremely highend speakers in a great environment. Even then the double blind tests in these conditions say you cant tell. Itunes is known for using a poor mp3 encoder though so its possible that is the problem but even so at a high bitrate you cant tell.
There are three "actions": Making the deal. Making the announcement. Delivering on the promise. I don't know when the back-room discussions were held, but Apple leads Amazon in the other two:
April: Apple announces plan for DRM-free music.
May: Amazon announces plan for DRM-free music.
By end of May: Apple DRM-free music to become available.
Sometime "later in 2007": Amazon DRM-free music to become available.
May: Amazon announces plan for DRM-free music.
By end of May: Apple DRM-free music to become available.
Sometime "later in 2007": Amazon DRM-free music to become available.
If I can buy an album on Amazon in DRM-free MP3 format and the same album is only available on iTunes with DRM, guess which I'll choose?
Assuming the pricing is close enough to that of iTunes or less.
Of course, I really don't buy music online much anyway. I still love buying the CD and being able to import it in any format at any quality.
Assuming the pricing is close enough to that of iTunes or less.
Of course, I really don't buy music online much anyway. I still love buying the CD and being able to import it in any format at any quality.
It is my personal theory that Apple may be hoping for more record labels to 'jump in the bandwagon' before the end of May ...or perhaps they are already making final negotiations.
Apple doesn't offer files sans DRM at 128, they're all in 256!!
Your iPod can hold the same number of 256kbps Mp3s as 256kbps Mp4s.
Again, at 256, you almost certainly can't hear the difference between the two formats.
That said, we STILL don't know the bitrate of the Amazon files, so we'll have to wait and see. If they're at 192k/s, Apple's got them beat by a lot. If it's 256 or higher though, and at the same price/song, I'm going with Amazon.
That's the way things are though, regardless of whose fault it is.
As someone mentioned earlier, people will be pissed that Apple doesn't offer DRM-free tracks in OGG format too. It can't be helped. Mp3 plays on almost all portable music players including some types of CD players (Mp3 CD, anyone?). They also play on almost all home DVD players and some factory car stereos (standard!). Thus, if the quality is the same, obviously you want to go with the one that you can use in the most devices.
You're better than most, then.
Most audiophiles can't tell the difference between 256kbps and cd quality. (source [sorry for german])
Regardless of whether or not you "can notice a difference" (not that I necessarily believe you), this hardly makes Mp3 "horrible."
Mp4 is certainly better, but it's really not significantly better at high bitrates. ['Significant' meaning having any non-theoretical advantage]
If Amazon sells Mp3 at high bitrate at the same cost as iTunes, it will be a better product (due to its compatibility). Whether or not it's convenient to buy them through Amazon's setup is another question entirely.
This guy had a good point about itunes' mp3 encoder as well:
It doesn't but it will help the consumer. I'm all for some proper competition for the iTunes Store as long as Amazon's offering will be accessible by a Mac and they don't decide to employ some bizarre ActiveX-based interface or anything else that locks it to Windows PCs only. Hopefully this will lead to a bit of price competitions and better prices/services from all.
Bugger Apple on this one - I've contributed enough to Steve's $1 salary already...
Just because you can't hear the difference doesn't make your statement true. People can "develop" their hearing over time. Most musicians for example can hear elements a non-musician won't notice. They hear more (and better) because they've developed their hearing, much like an athlete who develops their muscles via physical training.
Can you tell if two notes are 2 cents out of tune? Many musicians can. This is just one example of how some people can detect small details in a given sound that others cannot.
Hearing occurs in the brain. Read the article that the quote below was taken from, and learn...
Interesting point. However, it doesn't explain why you can take two audiophiles and two hi fi stereo systems and get them to listen to both of them, only to find that they have differing opinions on which one sounds better. That must occur in another part of the brain!
I find all this mentioning of "audiophiles" humorous, as no true audiophile I've ever known would listen to MP3 or AAC.
Most have moved onto 24/96 lossless, SACD, DVD-A, etc.
Most have moved onto 24/96 lossless, SACD, DVD-A, etc.
"for a portable player" is a pointless qualifier.
Portable players are used on trains, where there is tons of background noise. They are also attached to stereo systems, used in people's living rooms. What is "good enough" on the player in the former location will not be good enough in the latter.
I buy what satisfies me, not what satisfies the majority of total strangers I've never met.
Amazon is free to sell what they want. And I'm free to choose to not buy from them if what they want to sell is different from what I want to buy.
Every audiophile I know hates all compressed audio formats equally. That's hardly praise for MP3.
I've had arguments with some who claim to be able to hear the difference between lossless-compressed formats, which makes absolutely no sense.
I highly doubt that any audiophile would even participate in a study comparing low-bitrate lossy compression formats against each other. It would be like conducting a beer tasting where you compare Bud Light against Miller Lite. People may have an opinion, but every true beer expert will conclude that they both taste like sewage.
I plan to buy the DRM-free 256k version as a master copy and crunch it down to 128k for actual use. If I stay within AAC will I avoid transcoding issues?
Er you can pretty easily hear the difference between MP3 at these sort of bitrates, AAC, and CD. You certainly don't need "extremely highend speakers in a great environment." Some fairly modest setups will quite easily show up the difference. I certainly don't have "golden ears" but I know from personal experience that several of my friends, (albeit in a less that controlled double blind experiment) easily told the difference between the three. On the other hand they were all musicians, for what it's worth.
Unless it's a really controlled double blind experiment, this result is worthless. There are just too many ways to fool yourself. For example, the CD player might play at a slightly different volume than the MP3 player, which will make you think that the CD sounds "different".
The german magazine c't made an experiment with several professionals, among them a chief recording engineer of a symphony orchestra, several musicians, a blind man, etc. The result was basically that with a good encoder (!) anything higher than ~160 doesn't make a significant difference. At 128 nobody had any criticism, but with a direct A/B comparison everyone noticed that it didn't sound like the original (though some thought it sounded better). At 256 there was no statistically significant difference.