Apple/EMI Press Conference Coverage

[Hattig]

AFAIK there is no such thing as "lossless" AAC.

It's called Apple Lossless, and it isn't part of the AAC specification AFAIK. This is NOT AIFF.

It is a lossless compression of audio data, i.e., you can decompress it and get the same data as before. It uses an algorithm more suited for audio rather than the more generic zip compression. FLAC is another example of lossless audio.

The format on CDs is 16bit PCM which no compression. CDs datarate is 44000 samples per second, 16bits (2bytes) each sample for each channel. Makes 176k Bytes/sec or 1408kbits/sec. Thats lossless, ie not compressed at all.

It's lossless, and uncompressed. Apple Lossless is also lossless, but compressed.

You maybe thinking of Apple lossless (AIFF) which is equivalent to a WAV file on Windows, its a way of storing uncompressed 16bit PCM.

AIFF is not Apple Lossless.

 

[Queso]

In amongst all this techie talk, who else likes EMI's Eric? I thought he was pretty switched on for a Brit CEO. Normally they're quite stuffy at these things.

 

[Avatar74]

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.

I'm talking about reconstructed signals that should be at least identical to one another, if not exactly identical to the analogue fundamental.

However, for sake of argument I am speaking only of analogue signals within the A-weighted spectrum because it doesn't matter who you are (assuming you're human)...you're not going to hear a signal at 173.4kHz or any of the harmonic effects a fundamental at that frequency will produce (harmonics are multiples of the fundamental, i.e. they go upward).

Complex waveforms can and routinely are broken down into their sine components with fourier analysis.

In fact, the reverse fourier transform is the principle by which Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing works... muxing multiple wavelengths of light for layered bandwidth in the tens to hundreds of gigabits per second, and then reversed by the receiving DWDM switch with fourier transform breaking the complex light waveform into its sine components.

 

[snowmoon]

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 heard (via math).

Humans hear. Machines don't. (You have the concept backwards.)

You are the type that would pay $100/foot for $.05/foot lamp cord if they told you if faithfully reproduces "Ghost tones".

Signal processing and reproduction is a well understood scientific problem. Psycoacoustic modeling, as a field, is expanding but is pretty much understood as well.

The two weakest links in most listening systems is the consumer electronics and the human involved!

 

[Small White Car]

I hear what you're saying with the rest of your post, and that makes perfect sense. Personally, I wouldn't pay more than a buck for a song but that's just me.



... but this I don't get. You're saying that EMI is NOT charging a price premium for removing DRM but then in the same sentence say that the labels are cool with removing DRM as long as they can set the price on the songs, which are higher. How is that not the same thing?

I'm mixing up two concepts:

1) The general concept of DRM vs. non-DRM. The only relevent ideas here are "less" and "more." Any price is hypothetical.

2) The reality of song prices which are 99 cents and $1.29 and why they are priced the way they are.

I'm talking about two different ideas at once and they're getting a little crossed. Had I been typing slower I might have taken the time to seperate them rather than much them all together. You're right, it is a little confusing to mix reality with hypotheticals and expect it to all make sense. My mistake.

 

[lazyrighteye]

I agree with you. The vast majority of my collection is in 192k right now, because I can hear the difference in the hi-hats. Trance fans will nod their heads in agreement, as they can easily tell the difference between a TR-909 open hi-hat at the two rates.

<rant>
Agreed!
Hi-hats are one of the best/easiest examples of noticeable fiedlity loss with compressed audio. Sounds muddier (not as crisp, as bright) than uncompressed - which is the nature of compression: if you take pieces away, the end result WILL BE EFFECTED. Period. It's simple math people. Audio will sound less crisp, colors will appear less vivid, motion not as smooth, etc.

And while that may not matter to (unfortunately) the majority, it does to many. Why? Because this illustrates a much larger and concerning problem than how well one can hear, or not. It points toward the continual decline in art appreciation. A lowering of artistic standards that, in the end, hurt us all.

Ask any content creator (musician, film maker, etc.) what they think about compression schemes. The ones I know aren't too high on seeing their hard work and contributions, typically meant to enrich our lives, devalued by some compression scheme aimed at fitting more content on portable music players. And as us Americans well know, more is more. Right?

Wrong.
It's like watching an IMAX film on a video iPod. Sure, it can be done. But should it?

That said, I am glad to see Apple & EMI at least offering options. And while far form perfect, it is one of millions of necessary steps in the right direction.
</rant>

 

[Mac-Addict]

Is there anyway you can upgrade your libary? If not then that sucks because in a bout a months time my libary will have half songs great quality and half no so great.

 

[localoid]

You are the type that would pay $100/foot for $.05/foot lamp cord if they told you if faithfully reproduces "Ghost tones".

Signal processing and reproduction is a well understood scientific problem. Psycoacoustic modeling, as a field, is expanding but is pretty much understood as well.

The two weakest links in most listening systems is the consumer electronics and the human involved!

You don't even have a clue of what I'm talking about, do you?

 

[contractcooker]

Keep things in perspective people!!!

I can't believe how many negative comments there have been in this thread. KEEP IT IN PERSPECTIVE. This is a HUGE symbolic step for apple/emi to take. If everything goes well this could be just the beginning. FINALLY, someone is realizing how pointless DRM is. I agree that the extra thirty cents isn't the best solution but this is the first time since the creation of the ITMS that I have even remotely considered buying music online. I think this is a wonderful (albeit small) step in the right direction.

 

[winstano]

Is there anyway you can upgrade your libary? If not then that sucks because in a bout a months time my libary will have half songs great quality and half no so great.

As it's been said, you can upgrade the songs you've bought that are available in the non-DRM'd format for 30c a pop

 

[enda1]

I'm talking about reconstructed signals that should be at least identical to one another, if not exactly identical to the analogue fundamental.

However, for sake of argument I am speaking only of analogue signals within the A-weighted spectrum because it doesn't matter who you are (assuming you're human)...you're not going to hear a signal at 173.4kHz or any of the harmonic effects a fundamental at that frequency will produce (harmonics are multiples of the fundamental, i.e. they go upward).

Complex waveforms can and routinely are broken down into their sine components with fourier analysis.

In fact, the reverse fourier transform is the principle by which Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing works... muxing multiple wavelengths of light for layered bandwidth in the tens to hundreds of gigabits per second, and then reversed by the receiving DWDM switch with fourier transform breaking the complex light waveform into its sine components.

... But they will not be identical to each other. Both will be encoding from a source which is composed of an infinite number of sine waves. The lower the bit rate the fewer waves you use as your estimation of what the signal looks like. Recompose your digital estimation and you'll get back an analogue singal. Both the digital signals will give back a different analogue signal to each other and to the source.

 

[icrude]

I think the big thing here is that we can finally burn MP3 CD's for our cars. We no longer have to either use an ipod with the crummy FM transmitter, we no longer have to rip out our factory cd units in our cars and add all kinds of adaptors, we no longer have to choose between songs to have to burn only 10-15 songs per cd.....we can now burn MP3 cd's and probably put our entire library in our car at high quality!

 

[Jon'sLightBulbs]

From the question and answer:

- Q: What's the point on keeping DRM on standard tracks?
- A: (Steve) We don't want to force-raise the price on anyone.

More like it would take too long to re-encode the entire existing iTunes library at the new bitrate and remove DRM. So they're not touching the old library, and as a result, they've decided that raising the price on that segment of the collection would look bad.

Not a jab. Just a more realistic assessment.

 

[snowmoon]

You don't even have a clue of what I'm talking about, do you?

From the sounds of it neither do you!

 

[Avatar74]

<rant>
Agreed!
Hi-hats are one of the best/easiest examples of noticeable fiedlity loss with compressed audio. Sounds muddier (not as crisp, as bright) than uncompressed - which is the nature of compression: if you take pieces away, the end result WILL BE EFFECTED. Period. It's simple math people. Audio will sound less crisp, colors will appear less vivid, motion not as smooth, etc.

Really? Then explain to me why ADPCM streams require much less data and can reproduce the same dynamic range as straight PCM?

Not sure? Here's why...

One way to record the amplitude value at a given interval is to record it as absolute, the total value at that given quantization interval... Another way to record the amplitude value at a given interval is to actually record only the difference between the present value and the value in the preceding interval.

Fewer bits of data to reconstruct the exact same information... Simple math.

 

[goosnarrggh]

Can you get any more anecdotal? That's irrelevant.

Hum...

Yesterday, I could buy an individual track at 128 kbps with DRM for $0.99. In the immediate future, I will be able to buy the exact same file, and pay the exact same price. The price hasn't changed.

Yesterday, I had no means of obtaining any DRM-free songs directly in one step from iTunes, and all songs were encoded at 128 kbps. I had no say in the matter. Sometime in the immediate future, I will be able to purchase tracks that are both DRM-free and encoded at 256 kbps. Those products didn't exist before, and now they do. The price has been set for that product, and it happens to be around 30% more expensive a la carte than the previous, still-available product. But the still-available product's price hasn't changed.

If I want to continue buying tracks at the same price as I paid yesterday, that will be possible too. EMI says that all of its new tracks going forward will be available under both schemes. So I'll still be able to pay the same price for new content in the immediate future as I pay today, if I'm willing to live with the same quality of product. If I want to upgrade the quality of the product, I can pay a price premium for it.

Yesterday, I could buy any complete EMI album at 128-kbps with DRM for an average of $9.99. Sometime in the immediate future, I'll be able to continue buying those albums at 128 kbps and with DRM, or I'll be able to buy them at 256 kbps and without DRM. Either way, the Complete-Album price tag (average $9.99) will be exactly the same as it was yesterday no matter which format I choose.

Demonstrable fact. How does any of that qualify as an irrelavent anecdote?

 

[enda1]

Yesterday, I could buy any complete EMI album at 128-kbps with DRM for an average of $9.99. Sometime in the immediate future, I'll be able to continue buying those albums at 128 kbps and with DRM, or I'll be able to buy them at 256 kbps and without DRM. Either way, the price tag will be exactly the same as it was yesterday no matter which format I choose.

Will the album price for the 256 be still 9.99?

Deadly!

 

[localoid]

I'm talking about reconstructed signals that should be at least identical to one another, if not exactly identical to the analogue fundamental.

However, for sake of argument I am speaking only of analogue signals within the A-weighted spectrum because it doesn't matter who you are (assuming you're human)...you're not going to hear a signal at 173.4kHz or any of the harmonic effects a fundamental at that frequency will produce (harmonics are multiples of the fundamental, i.e. they go upward).

Complex waveforms can and routinely are broken down into their sine components with fourier analysis.

In fact, the reverse fourier transform is the principle by which Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing works... muxing multiple wavelengths of light for layered bandwidth in the tens to hundreds of gigabits per second, and then reversed by the receiving DWDM switch with fourier transform breaking the complex light waveform into its sine components.

Math is one of the sciences that attempts to explain what happens or is experienced in the real world (not the other way around).

Want to know what someone can or can't hear? Ask them.

Thomas Edison probably felt his Victrola was "good enough for anyone" and could go on for ages on a useless techno-rant spewing out the specs to prove it.

 

[rew]

I can't believe how many negative comments there have been in this thread. KEEP IT IN PERSPECTIVE. This is a HUGE symbolic step for apple/emi to take. If everything goes well this could be just the beginning. FINALLY, someone is realizing how pointless DRM is. I agree that the extra thirty cents isn't the best solution but this is the first time since the creation of the ITMS that I have even remotely considered buying music online. I think this is a wonderful (albeit small) step in the right direction.

I agree. Just please, PLEASE do not set the precedent that stripping DRM means the consumer somehow owes the company more.

The 256k, the DRM-less, and the fact that you get both of those at no additional cost when buying entire albums is a great step in the right direction. I'll be using this option.

 

[Avatar74]

... But they will not be identical to each other. Both will be encoding from a source which is composed of an infinite number of sine waves. The lower the bit rate the fewer waves you use as your estimation of what the signal looks like. Recompose your digital estimation and you'll get back an analogue singal. Both the digital signals will give back a different analogue signal to each other and to the source.

Pohlmann and others specify the use of a low-pass filter set at the Nyquist frequency.

Do you understand why this is relevant to the point you're trying to make?

A source has a finite number of sine components to it at any given quantization interval... if there were an infinite number of sinewaves associated with it, it wouldn't have any harmonic structure, it would be noise... assuming the sinewaves are substantially out of phase with each other.

 

[gugy]

I've been saying that all along. I'd rather buy a cd and own it. What I've been doing is buying used cds rip them and trade them for other cds. It winds up being cheaper than itunes and I think the ripped cds sound better than my itunes music. I will occasionally download a single song but for albums no way. I'm buying the cd.

I am with you on that.
I only go to iTunes when occasionally I need a song right away. An album, I rather buy a cd. You get way more: Quality, cover art and a physical back up just in case.

I probably have spent way over $4k over the years in music (cd's) on iTunes maybe $300 at the most.

 

[enda1]

This is why Pohlmann and others specify the use of a low-pass filter set at the Nyquist frequency.

Do you understand why?

Im not talking about frequencies outside the human threshold!! But the quality of the signal that we can hear.

Also there is much debate about the range of human hearing (upper and lower) but thats a different days work...

 

[Tara Davis]

Not too bad

I strongly would have preferred Apple Lossless, but I totally get why they went with 256 AAC, and it's not just the difference in space.

AAC is an industry standard format. You can play it on an iPod, a PSP, a Zune, or just about any decent-quality digital media player.

Apple Lossless is not. It's Apple's proprietary format. You can play it on a computer running iTunes, an iPod, and pretty much nothing else.

Lack of lossless will steer me away from a handful of "hi fi" albums. I'll just do what I always do when that's the case: Buy the CD and rip it to Lossless myself.

But for a lot of albums in the EMI catalog... well, from an audiophile point of view they always sounded like crap anyway. 256 AAC is more than good enough for listening to The Beastie Boys or Iron Maiden, if you are so inclined.

 

[Mgkwho]

Anyone have a video of the CNN International segment that was just on? The audio wasn't on for the TV I was watching in our SC.

-=|Mgkwho

 

[goosnarrggh]

Will the album price for the 256 be still 9.99?

Deadly!

http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm

Apple has announced that iTunes will make individual AAC format tracks available from EMI artists at twice the sound quality of existing downloads, with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29/€1.29/£0.99. iTunes will continue to offer consumers the ability to pay $0.99/€0.99/£0.79 for standard sound quality tracks with DRM still applied. Complete albums from EMI Music artists purchased on the iTunes Store will automatically be sold at the higher sound quality and DRM-free, with no change in the price.