Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Aren't DAT tapes better quality than CD's nowadays?

Fundamentally, no. DAT spec is 16-bit, 48kHz. The step up to 48kHz was simply a copy protection mechanism to make DAT incompatible with the 44.1kHz sampling inherent to CD audio. Other than that, the difference is negligible and still near the Nyquist limit.

Also, while 16-bit Linear PCM (CD Audio) is vastly inferior to 24-bit Linear PCM, I wouldn't call it "compressed" as did the person to whom you were responding. PCM is not a compression schema, but an encoding schema which reproduces a continuous (analog) signal from discrete time samples.
 
What have people done to stop DRM?

Have you looked at the popularity of torrent sites lately? Of software like DVDShrink or MacTheRipper?

Have you read about why so many people are not interested in the new HD formats because of all of the security they've had (cracked only months after release)? How mad people have gotten over the HDMI debacle?

People are doing quite a bit to make their way to fight DRM.

I think it's AWESOME that Steve spoke out against DRM. It's probably one of the greatest people the industry could've heard from. But please - DRM is a failed attempt at crippling what users are paying for. Don't charge us extra to have it removed. That's all that I'm saying. The fact that iTMS users now have an OPTION to have DRM-free music? Great! I just sincerely hope the added price is not the cost of it.

So people have become criminals? Great. They aren't doing that to fight DRM, they are doing that to be thieves and nothing more. You can't convince me that downloading music for free is sticking it to the music companies, if that is what you think are you are a thief yourself.

People are not doing enough. They are not fighting just like we fight nothing in this country (USA) we are complacent. There may be people downloading, but iTunes sales numbers suggest people are buying.

People are buying the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD as well. Regardless of the few who speak out against it on internet forums.

Added price or not, that is how it is. .30, big whoop. Did you really expect it to be at the same price? And i dont know if it is you saying this, but does lossless really make it any better for the .30? Or would you still whine about it costing more.

I don't buy single tracks, never have. So it doesn't bother me because albums are still $9.99.
 
From a legal standpoint, how is that different from file sharing? The artists certainly aren't getting any compensation from you.

??? There are plenty of music stores around that sell used cd's, and accept unwanted discs as exchange against the purchase of another.

Secondly, I don't follow your logic. If I buy a used car, the manufacturer doesn't directly get paid by that transaction, however the simple fact is that they already made their money on the initial sale.

Now file sharing on the other hand, would be the equivalent of taking the original vehicle, and multiplying it several million-fold and handing them out free.
 
??? There are plenty of music stores around that sell used cd's, and accept unwanted discs as exchange against the purchase of another.

Secondly, I don't follow your logic. If I buy a used car, the manufacturer doesn't directly get paid by that transaction, however the simple fact is that they already made their money on the initial sale.

Now file sharing on the other hand, would be the equivalent of taking the original vehicle, and multiplying it several million-fold and handing them out free.


When you sell your car you cant still drive it. You have to delete your music when you sell/exchange your cds.
 
... but it's interesting that these technical issues NEVER come into the conversation when I'm confronted by audiophiles who insist that anecdotes from their own ears qualify as any kind of substantial argument against the fidelity of perceptual coding schema....

You're confused. The "hearing" of sound takes place in a human's head... the lab equipment doesn't actually "hear".

Therefore my statement that "I can hear the difference" is accurate. You cannot measure or hear what I hear (unless you're God)...

Your claim that "my lab equipment can't hear the difference" is bogus and a misguided concept. To find out what (a human) can actually "hear" -- well, you need to ask a human. :rolleyes:
 
To me, I think songs are woth $1.99 each. I really would pay that and I'd think that's fair. For the past 2 years I've been getting them on iTunes for $1.00 less than my ideal price. Whoo, good for me!And now I can get them for $0.70 less than my ideal price.

I'm sorry you're unhappy, but I'm going to be buying a lot of music that STILL costs 35% less than what I think it's worth even AFTER this fantastic change.

I'm sorry but I'm not getting this. Why $1.99 and not $2.50 or $.99? Is this based on some sort of calculation? And what kind of calculation?

The price for a song just went up. That's bad news. Objectively. It is a whole different story that I'm still going to buy music from itunes.

What annoys me the most is that we're supposed to believe that Steve's new friends are really doing us a favour.
 
The price for a song just went up. That's bad news. Objectively. It is a whole different story that I'm still going to buy music from itunes.

How did the price go up? You can still buy the same bitrate/codec/DRM song as before for the same .99 price. Albums are still the same in either case. Yeesh, just don't buy the non-DRM, 256 version of a single song if you don't want to pay for it. There's no way that adding a product that a lot of people want is bad news.
 
??? There are plenty of music stores around that sell used cd's, and accept unwanted discs as exchange against the purchase of another.

Secondly, I don't follow your logic. If I buy a used car, the manufacturer doesn't directly get paid by that transaction, however the simple fact is that they already made their money on the initial sale.

Now file sharing on the other hand, would be the equivalent of taking the original vehicle, and multiplying it several million-fold and handing them out free.

But that's exactly what she's doing. She's not "trading" a CD. She's copying it and then trading the original disc while keeping the music on her computer.

...What I've been doing is buying used cds rip them and trade them for other cds...
 
So people have become criminals? Great. They aren't doing that to fight DRM, they are doing that to be thieves and nothing more. You can't convince me that downloading music for free is sticking it to the music companies, if that is what you think are you are a thief yourself.

Ah, I see. So you ask what people are doing to fight DRM, and the fact that it's hated enough that people are actually becoming "criminals" because of it, that's still invalid enough. Please. If you're going to ask, and you get an answer, don't kick and scream and then salt it with an insult. And how is downloading music for free NOT sticking it to DRM? If nothing else, it's proving how irrelevant DRM is. The people that don't want to pay for music, the ones that DRM was basically invented for, can still get it for free, while the ones who DID pay for it are punished with it by DRM.

People are not doing enough. They are not fighting just like we fight nothing in this country (USA) we are complacent. There may be people downloading, but iTunes sales numbers suggest people are buying.

I don't know louder of a message you want. Companies have been built off of defeating DRM. There's a countless amount of software that's out there whose only purpose is to get rid of DRM. What else do you want, a march on corporate headquarters?

People are buying the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD as well. Regardless of the few who speak out against it on internet forums.

Right, because as long as SOMEONE is buying it means that there isn't a problem. If you think that only a "few people" are against the sort of DRM that's built into the new formats you simply, well, don't know what you're talking about.

Added price or not, that is how it is. .30, big whoop. Did you really expect it to be at the same price?

No. I still find it disappointing that it is.

And i dont know if it is you saying this, but does lossless really make it any better for the .30? Or would you still whine about it costing more.

Cute, so now my argument is "whining." Make enough off-handed remarks and you win teh interweb, right? Lossless helps, absolutely.

I don't buy single tracks, never have. So it doesn't bother me because albums are still $9.99.

Can you get any more anecdotal? That's irrelevant.
 
I think they've been quite clever here. It has often been reported the labels want higher prices, while Apple feels the 99c pricepoint is the sweet-spot. With this move, I think they'll both be happy, and they have a carrot 'n' stick approach for the customer. (Carrot - bitrate, stick - DRM).

A more subtle point though, it's also a carrot and stick for the other labels. 'You want higher prices? Sure, no problem. Just drop DRM too. Your choice".

I don't know why Jobs is being painted as our saviour against DRM though - while it was the studios who insisted upon DRM it was he who decided to use a proprietary, closed DRM standard and not license it, and it's this lack of interoperability with which so many people had a problem.

Personally, I can't wait to upgrade all my iTMS songs (a few hundred), then probably stick to eMusic, with the occasional purchase from iTMS for anything that's missing.

Good news! :)
 
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying the people that claim "tests show people can't tell the difference" are clueless about this subject and the what the "results" of such test are showing...

Even if most (the majority) of the people (in a test) can't hear the difference, that doesn't mean there weren't some people that could hear the difference.

Just as an example of how clueless some people are: A while ago I wanted to buy my first LCD monitor. Went to a computer store, looked at all the 1280x1024 LCD screens. One had horrible text quality - because some idiot had switched it to 1024 x 768! Now you would think that _anybody_ would see the difference between an LCD monitor in native resolution and non-native resolution. Much more obvious than for example the difference between 128kbit MP3 and CD quality. The sales people in that shop insisted that monitor was just as good as the others.
 
Don't really know if non-DRMed songs are good or bad. Good that people can finally use them on music players other than iPod, but I can see people starting to pirate the songs again. While the artists and music production companies shouldn't get greedy, they should be compensated for what they do. Too bad so many people don't think about that (or don't care). My dad and one of his friends copy DVDs for one another so I asked my dad if he knew what intellectual property was. He didn't. And he was a high school english teacher, and is writing a novel. How can he not know what intellectual propert is, but want his students not to plagiarize?

Anyways, higher bitrates are good. I'm not a huge, picky audiophile, but I know some people are. I'm trying to import all the CDs in my house (my own, and my parents) into Apple Lossless so that if I ever want to make a mix CD or something, I have the full CD quality. While it takes up a LOT of room, it'll sound better.
 
You're confused. The "hearing" of sound takes place in a human's head... the lab equipment doesn't actually "hear".

Therefore my statement that "I can hear the difference" is accurate. You cannot measure or hear what I hear (unless you're God)...

Your claim that "my lab equipment can't hear the difference" is bogus and a misguided concept. To find out what (a human) can actually "hear" -- well, you need to ask a human. :rolleyes:

I'm not confused. I'm simply stating in a rather polite way that some people tend to imagine they're hearing differences that don't exist.

When double-blind tested according to scientific standards, most of these bogus claims tend to break down.

But more importantly, if some Joe comes along and tells me he can hear the difference between ADPCM and PCM because "PCM has more bits" or some idiotic lay argument like that... He may indeed believe he's hearing a difference, but he'd be imagining it. He may have fooled himself into thinking this when the truth is that he just doesn't understand how the exact same analog signal can be reconstructed from fewer data.

The problem is, I hear all sorts of arguments predicated on the misconception that fewer data always means lower fidelity... without any comprehension from the other guy as to how fewer data can reconstruct a fundamentally identical signal.

It is the reconstruction of the analog fundamental which is of utmost importance. Understanding that, as I've stated repeatedly, requires an understanding of how an analog signal is recorded, stored, and reconstructed in any given encoding schema. You cannot simply state that PCM has more data therefore it's higher fidelity than AAC, especially not without understanding the difference between how AAC encodes and reconstructs an analog waveform versus how PCM does it.

If a person claims they can hear the differences between two identical analog signals reconstructed from two different types of digital compression, then they are either lying, imagining, or have a problem with their hearing...
 
I'm not confused. I'm simply stating in a rather polite way that some people tend to imagine they're hearing differences that don't exist.

When double-blind tested according to scientific standards, most of these bogus claims tend to break down.

But more importantly, if some Joe comes along and tells me he can hear the difference between ADPCM and PCM because "PCM has more bits" or some idiotic lay argument like that... He may indeed believe he's hearing a difference, but he'd be imagining it. He may have fooled himself into thinking this when the truth is that he just doesn't understand how the exact same analog signal can be reconstructed from fewer data.

The problem is, I hear all sorts of arguments predicated on the misconception that fewer data always means lower fidelity... without any comprehension from the other guy as to how fewer data can reconstruct a fundamentally identical signal.

If a person claims they can hear the differences between two identical analog signals reconstructed from two different types of digital compression, then they are either lying, imagining, or have a problem with their hearing... because it is the reconstruction of the analog fundamental which is of utmost importance. Understanding that, as I've stated repeatedly, requires an understanding of what actually is required in a digital encoding system to fully reconstruct an analog signal in a way that is perceptually transparent to the listener.

You can never recreate the analogue signal exactly unless its a pure sine wave or simple addition of them. Thats the whole point of the bit rate talk, its about the sampling rate and thus accuracy of your analogue recreation so of course its relevant. Whether or not its above our perception is perhaps what you should be arguing but to say the signals are the same is just pure wrong.
 
BBC World will broadcast an interview with Steve Jobs at 19:30 CET on World Business Report
 
well sneaking in the higher per price track here was a little underhanded, most (if not all) my iTunes purchases are full albums anyways, so I'm pretty happy with todays announcement.
 
Specs and frequency/spectrum analysis methods have often been proven to be completely meaningless in the real world of music and sound.

For example: You can't prove "ghost tones" actually exist by examining a digital recording of two notes played together, however many humans can hear the sum and difference of the two notes (the resulting "ghost tones"), and thus hear one or two additional notes in addition to the two original (pitches). :rolleyes:

Summing, harmonics, etc. are mathematically demonstrable... not only that but digital systems that have the capability to break them down to their individual sine components, as in a fourier transform.

The ghost tones one might expect to hear that DON'T directly appear on spectrographic analysis are mathematically predictable and demonstrable from the constituent fundamentals which combine to produce them... just as surely as one can mathematically predict that a 32kHz signal sampled at 44.1kHz will produce an alias at 12.1kHz without a low-pass (antialiasing) filter.
 
Just as an example of how clueless some people are: A while ago I wanted to buy my first LCD monitor. Went to a computer store, looked at all the 1280x1024 LCD screens. One had horrible text quality - because some idiot had switched it to 1024 x 768! Now you would think that _anybody_ would see the difference between an LCD monitor in native resolution and non-native resolution. Much more obvious than for example the difference between 128kbit MP3 and CD quality. The sales people in that shop insisted that monitor was just as good as the others.

While it's true some changes are obvious, just remember that not everybody has the same listening/visual abilities, and some people aren't as picky as others when watching TV/listening to music. I have pretty good hearing, but I can't really hear the difference between 128K MP3s and CDs, but I don't really pay that close attention. My dad pretty much can't hear worth $h!t. Don't know how much of it is his hearing getting worse and how much of it is him just not paying attention, but he probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But I also know some people are really picky about what they listen to. It's all up to the specific person.
 
All this bit-rate talk and encoding lossless superfantastic codec mantra is great, but it makes my music smell funny.

Seriously, any differences I've heard are basically too small and trivial to care about through my e2c's, and I just don't have the capacity to really pick apart the sound of my audio equipment so long as what I currently have is perceived to be rich enough to make me more than happy. This stuff about compression is nice, but truthfully, it just doesn't matter so long as the current sound is more than just good enough, and is entertaining to the less seasoned ears. :eek:

Ah well, it's lunch time, I'll go listen to my cruddy lil ripped-CD 128kbs goodness. :D
 
As a matter of fact, I happen to find LP s sounding better than the CD version of the same record. Very well maintained LP s that is. Over time, it may be another story.

I think the closest to LP is DVD-A, and still, I don't think it's as warm and delightful.
 
My dad and one of his friends copy DVDs for one another so I asked my dad if he knew what intellectual property was. He didn't. And he was a high school english teacher, and is writing a novel. How can he not know what intellectual propert is, but want his students not to plagiarize?

"Intellectual property" is usually used as a euphemism by patent trolls and the like who try to rip off companies, or by people who cannot clearly distinguish between copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets and therefore have to muddle everything together into one vague concept.

Clearly you are one of these confused types, if you can't see the difference between copying a DVD and plagiarism.
 
Summing, harmonics, etc. are mathematically demonstrable... not only that but digital systems that have the capability to break them down to their individual sine components, as in a fourier transform.

The ghost tones one might expect to hear that DON'T appear on spectrographic analysis are mathematically predictable.

And your reply proves my point: You can't record the ghost tones. Because a human explains they can hear them, you can then "prove" why they are hearing 4 notes when only 2 are actually being played (via math).

Humans hear. Machines don't. (You have the concept backwards.)
 
Excellent News. Progress has been made.

On that ALL of us can agree. This is the most important thing. Things are better today than they were yesterday! Thanks Steve, Apple and EMI - yes?

1: 256K AAC - Excellent. I cut my own music to 256K so if it's good enough for me it's gonna be good enough for you ;)
Joking Aside, at this bit rate it's not worth wasting valuable disk space over lossless. 256K AAC is a great bit rate and one that will outlive your ears!!! Nothing wrong with using a little CPU to save space - the CD argument isn't valid as all CD players sounds different the important thing is not the difference but the quality!!Cheap ones sound REALLY BAD!!Ipod audio dynamics are generally far superior to the crappy CD players a lot of people use!.
256K AAC is a quality bit rate and nothing to worry about ( equivalent to 512K MP3.)
2: DRM - Excellent. This guarantees that for the rest of your life your music can move with you unlike 8 track, Vinyl, Tape, CD, minidisc, etc etc. Buy a track from iTunes and you got it for life. Now that's a first for the music industry.
3: Price - Fair enough. Extra storage costs - extra bandwidth - customer is given the choice. I for one will be buying from iTunes store again!.
4: Upgrade - Excellent - Seems reasonable that I can upgrade at 'cost'. I shall be.

What's not to like ? Only people who won't like this news item will be die-hard communists.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.