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.
Apple/EMI Press Conference Coverage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Complainers, don't forget...
Apple has to create an incentive for record companies, who wanted DRM in the first place, to agree to non-DRM music. Hence the higher price. This will prove whether or not there is really a market for non-DRM music.
As for the bitrate, personally, I feel that on certain songs and with good headphones I can hear a difference, particularly ones that have very high or very low-pitched sounds. At any rate, I think this development rocks, and I'm very excited!!
256 AAC as the bitrate is awesome. I'm an eMusic customer, and I've always been pretty happy with their 196 MP3 (also non-DRM) encoding. This bitrate and format should be even better.
Apple has to create an incentive for record companies, who wanted DRM in the first place, to agree to non-DRM music. Hence the higher price. This will prove whether or not there is really a market for non-DRM music.
As for the bitrate, personally, I feel that on certain songs and with good headphones I can hear a difference, particularly ones that have very high or very low-pitched sounds. At any rate, I think this development rocks, and I'm very excited!!
256 AAC as the bitrate is awesome. I'm an eMusic customer, and I've always been pretty happy with their 196 MP3 (also non-DRM) encoding. This bitrate and format should be even better.
Everyone hears sound differently. Which means, some people will be able to hear the difference. Other won't...
Yeah, like some people are able to hear the difference between speaker-cables that are on cable-elevators as opposed cables that are not....
With all due respect.. that you can't hear the difference doesn't mean others can't.. For a very long time I've had my songs at "low" bitrates thinking it didn't make a difference.. but on some music styles it makes a huge difference, especially if you listen to them at a high volume. Ever since I noticed this, I started encoding on Lossless because to me, it made a difference, and the storage wasn't a big deal.
Only Apple would define 256 kb/s as premium quality. sorry but I'm not biting on $1.29. .99 was already pretty spendy for a track.
sorry but I'm not biting on $1.29. .99 was already pretty spendy for a track. 
Of course! But it's even better than that, I spent the extra money to get the adaptive reductivation chip! So that way when it transmogrifies it also reductivates adaptively!!!
Watermarks!!!
Watermarks, what about the watermarks?
Steve nor EMI mentioned whether these songs will be watermarked so they can be tracked back to the original buyer if they show up on P2P or such.
I can guarantee that these songs will be watermarked, which doesn't bother me, but I would think that they might get more Labels to sign on if they knew the songs were watermarked.
Watermarks, what about the watermarks?
Steve nor EMI mentioned whether these songs will be watermarked so they can be tracked back to the original buyer if they show up on P2P or such.
I can guarantee that these songs will be watermarked, which doesn't bother me, but I would think that they might get more Labels to sign on if they knew the songs were watermarked.
AAC is a CONTAINER
Apple lossless is in an AAC container.
Therefore, there is at least 1 lossless AAC format.
You bring up a good point though: Is Apple lossless truly lossless?
AMAZING! I may finally buy from iTunes. $10 for an album that in finally a high enough bit rate (I personally like 320 VBR MP3, but this is fairly close). That is actually worth it for me. But uhhh... has anyone seen it up in the Music Store yet?
I think people are missing the point here.
This is a very smart and sneaky move for Apple.
If EMI allows all stores to sell DRM free songs, then Apple has won. Many players, even the Zune, support unprotected AAC. But the market leader with the vast majority of marketshare does not support WMA files.
Now that other retailers will be able to sell unprotected files that will play on the iPod, what reason is there for them to stick with Windows Media.
If all the labels abandon DRM, then Windows Media is basically dead as a digital music format.
This is a very smart and sneaky move for Apple.
If EMI allows all stores to sell DRM free songs, then Apple has won. Many players, even the Zune, support unprotected AAC. But the market leader with the vast majority of marketshare does not support WMA files.
Now that other retailers will be able to sell unprotected files that will play on the iPod, what reason is there for them to stick with Windows Media.
If all the labels abandon DRM, then Windows Media is basically dead as a digital music format.
seems like a compromise was made...
Seems like a compromise was made-a way to keep apple's .99 price tag and give the record companies the higher prices they wanted.
I think the $1.29 price is fair. I think i used to pay 1.50 for vinyl 45s, years ago. The change in quality is a big thing for me. I hear no difference between 192 to 320 but tracks at 128 have always sounded "thinner" to me. Along with no DRM I may actually start buying stuff on iTunes now.
I wonder how they will manage the upgrade part tho, and how many people will go for that route?
Seems like a compromise was made-a way to keep apple's .99 price tag and give the record companies the higher prices they wanted.
I think the $1.29 price is fair. I think i used to pay 1.50 for vinyl 45s, years ago. The change in quality is a big thing for me. I hear no difference between 192 to 320 but tracks at 128 have always sounded "thinner" to me. Along with no DRM I may actually start buying stuff on iTunes now.
I wonder how they will manage the upgrade part tho, and how many people will go for that route?
I've ripped my share of CD's, and the best for size and quality is VBR. if they ripped in VBR there wouldn't be all this talk about quality. it wouldn't be lossless, but it wouldn't be bulky and have 256kbs when you are listening to a song that doesn't need that high of quality. lossless may be good for you, but for the common person, they don't need it. i have hundreds of CD's and am fine with VBR when i rip, if i'm too lazy i'll just do 192. i just don't see the merit in making a "higher quality" rip that costs more and doesn't have DRM. it's a step in the wrong direction. and the fact that you rip in lossless is fine, but most of the music that isn't bought, but downloaded is VBR and it is scene standard, meaning IRC, which.... is like the mouth of a river for pirated music. go download EAC, download lame, find out the VBR line of code, enter it in, and bam, perfect music for your listening ears. if everyone knew how easy it was to rip a CD even with copy protection, they would have no reason to pay for or buy it online anyways. go to best buy, buy the CD, put it on your ipod. it's that easy, or get into the music industry and get free CD's from labels before they come out, that's what I do... downloading music you pay for is a scan. and apple is the middle man. buy music directly from the band.
Give some feedback to Apple!!
I urge everyone here to copy and paste this in this link, or write some similar feedback there and send it to Apple. This is our chance to get heard people:
"This EMI DRM-Free thing is good news. There are still a few small annoyances right now however; 1. The tracks cost more, if one still wants to go with the .99c a song thing, that will still encompass DRM. I don't think going DRM-free is a risky move for any of the two cpmpanies involved (Apple or EMI), it can only mean higher sales and more profit for both companies IMO, so the customer shouldn't have to pay for that luxury. 2. Another little niggle now is the gap where only a certain amount of songs on iTunes will be DRM free thus causing confusion. "Is this a DRM free song?" "Will the song I'm searching for be DRM free" etc. etc.
I think a better overall solution would have been to drop DRM completely for all EMI content and keep existing bitrate songs DRM-free and .99c (128bit), and make them also 1.29c at double bitrate. This is the only solution IMO that could please all people properly, both consumers and audiophiles alike."
I urge everyone here to copy and paste this in this link, or write some similar feedback there and send it to Apple. This is our chance to get heard people:
"This EMI DRM-Free thing is good news. There are still a few small annoyances right now however; 1. The tracks cost more, if one still wants to go with the .99c a song thing, that will still encompass DRM. I don't think going DRM-free is a risky move for any of the two cpmpanies involved (Apple or EMI), it can only mean higher sales and more profit for both companies IMO, so the customer shouldn't have to pay for that luxury. 2. Another little niggle now is the gap where only a certain amount of songs on iTunes will be DRM free thus causing confusion. "Is this a DRM free song?" "Will the song I'm searching for be DRM free" etc. etc.
I think a better overall solution would have been to drop DRM completely for all EMI content and keep existing bitrate songs DRM-free and .99c (128bit), and make them also 1.29c at double bitrate. This is the only solution IMO that could please all people properly, both consumers and audiophiles alike."
these changes are coming in May
Jobs said they would be, just didn't say when
Only Apple would define 256 kb/s as premium quality.
Well, it's premium if you compare it to the DRM'ed 128kb/s version. Above 256kb/s the differences would be neglible in any case.
"Lossless" compression actually refers to whether or not the original signal can be reconstructed without error.
Strictly speaking, even CD audio omits data. Its format, 16-bit Linear Pulse Code Modulation (which has a bitrate of 1411Kbps at 44.1kHz), has a llimted dynamic range around 96dB. 24-bit LPCM by comparison has a dynamic range of 144dB... 1/f noise notwithstanding in both cases.
The key to perceptual encoding is not only that it works within the A-weighted spectrum (range of human hearing) but also because there are methods to decrease the data required to reconstruct the exact same waveform as a 16-bit PCM stream.
A simpler example of a lossless schema is ADPCM. Instead of recording the absolute value of amplitude at every quantization interval, Adaptive Delta PCM records only the difference between the present value and the previous value. This requires significantly fewer bits and the exact waveform can be reconstructed without loss from this data.
The idea I'm trying to illustrate here is that there are many ways to reduce data requirements without reducing fidelity. AAC is one of the most advanced codecs yet, superior fidelity compared to its uncle, Dolby AC-3, at every bitrate... even something as simple as the 20kHz low-pass filter prohibits aliased frequencies from appearing on reconstruction because aliased/foldover frequencies are a function of encoding frequencies above the Nyquist limit.
You can convert the music to a smaller format. So if you want DRM-free but 128, then convert it down. Personally I would have never bought 128, but 256 just made me look.
I think this a momentous occasion in the history of the music industry and something that should not be down played.
But what I haven't seen mentioned yet, is the windfall that Apple will get from this. It will now be alot more appealing for people with other digital music players to shop on the iTS (assuming their player supports AAC). iTS has the largest range of music, more exclusive content, and now at the highest bitrate. It will also mean a lot more sales of TV shows and movies as more people visit the store, which in turn may turn into more sales of not only iPods, but also the AppleTV, MacMini etc.
More people with Apple products.
But what I haven't seen mentioned yet, is the windfall that Apple will get from this. It will now be alot more appealing for people with other digital music players to shop on the iTS (assuming their player supports AAC). iTS has the largest range of music, more exclusive content, and now at the highest bitrate. It will also mean a lot more sales of TV shows and movies as more people visit the store, which in turn may turn into more sales of not only iPods, but also the AppleTV, MacMini etc.
More people with Apple products.
Apple Lossless is truly lossless. If you decode it back to a WAV file and compare it to the original WAV file from a ripped CD, they would be identical right down to the last bit.
Even though you will have people (like Avatar74) claiming techinally you cannot hear the difference, it has been shown over and over that on the right equipment you can hear differences. It is just that most people cannot afford that kind of equipment.
That said 256 AAC is a big improvement over 128 AAC and without DRM I might be tempted to buy more stuff from the iTS.
That's true, it would be no different than ripping a CD (high quality) to 128bit AAC (lower quality).