Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Notifies Partners: DRM-free Music and DRM-free Music Videos Soon

Macrumors said:
The new unrestricted format appears to be open to any publisher who is interested.
Click to expand...

Is Apple saying this is going to be a new music format other than MP3 for these DRM free tracks? OR It's a new format of iTunes store?

The reason I ask is because of the lawsuits that are going on with the MP3 licenses. I can see why Apple would want to get away from MP3's, but if it's a new format then it will mean DRM free music, but not interoperable if they only play on an iPod.
 
boer said:
Sounds to me you are just troubled with the knowledge of the bitrate and not the quality itself. Personally I do not care if the bitrate is 1kbps if it still sounds great. (I could fit plenty of songs on my iPod too.)
Click to expand...

The problem is, plenty of people CAN perceive a lack of quality in 128 kbps music, myself included. I've shied away from buying from iTunes for this reason as well. Flat, tinny, muddy - however you want to describe it, with a good pair of headphones you likely won't be happy with 128 kbps.

256 kpbs, well that's a different story. 192 kbps is the point where I personally can't distinguish from lossless, so 256 kbps is great.
 
But won't they all be in AAC format??

I do not really understand what this is about. If I got this correctly the DRM free music will still be in Apples AAC format, meaning that you still only can play them on apple products. As a result apple makes even more money and makes sure that you use an apple product.
 
CHSE said:
I do not really understand what this is about. If I got this correctly the DRM free music will still be in Apples AAC format, meaning that you still only can play them on apple products. As a result apple makes even more money and makes sure that you use an apple product.
Click to expand...

AAC isn't "Apple's format," and there are other devices that play AAC (like the Zune).
 
CHSE said:
I do not really understand what this is about. If I got this correctly the DRM free music will still be in Apples AAC format, meaning that you still only can play them on apple products. As a result apple makes even more money and makes sure that you use an apple product.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain that AAC is NOT an Apple format at all. Protected AAC with Fairplay is Apple only. AAC is just a compression algorithm/format which actually does a better job than mp3 at keeping the quality of the song.

Other devices can already play AAC, those that don't could easily build it into future versions.
 
SRSound said:
so this means we'll be able to download direct from iTunes on to our iPhones - no DRM hassle = download and transfer freedom
Click to expand...

Because previously we wouldn't have been able to do this??? Or are you trying to make a comment about ringtones? (If so, this still doesn't answer the question of how much freedom the iPhone will allow on ringtone selection)
 
CHSE said:
I do not really understand what this is about. If I got this correctly the DRM free music will still be in Apples AAC format, meaning that you still only can play them on apple products. As a result apple makes even more money and makes sure that you use an apple product.
Click to expand...

AAC is not Apple's format. It is an MPEG standard. See Advanced Audio Coding for more details.
 
cepler said:
I would only consider these higher priced songs if they were losslessly compressed (ALE) format.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on the source for the format conversion.
If they use a high bit, high kHz source and convert it to 256 AAC then this should sound better than a Lossless file ripped from a CD.

Now if only we knew what the source the labels use...
 
This is nothing new.Jobs already said all EMI and independent music would be DRM free starting in May.This is just Apple giving notice to the folks that upload the "EMI and Independent" music to make it DRM free..


I don't see a big story here.Am I missing something?
 
papadopolis1024 said:
Steve says he dose not want DRM free movies and tv shows just music.
Click to expand...

That is NOT what Steve said. He said that movies have been distributed with various type of DRM since the get go, unlike music, and that it is unlikely that the MPAA members would want to break away from what they are used to having.

He never said he WANTs DRM for movie / TV shows.
 
Peace said:
This is nothing new.Jobs already said all EMI and independent music would be DRM free starting in May.This is just Apple giving notice to the folks that upload the "EMI and Independent" music to make it DRM free..


I don't see a big story here.Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

The big story is that this was sent to /all/ labels that publish music onto the iTMS, that the option will become available to them.
 
Krevnik said:
The big story is that this was sent to /all/ labels that publish music onto the iTMS, that the option will become available to them.
Click to expand...

If thats the case then it will fall on deaf ears because the "other labels" would be owned by Warner Bros. et.al. and can't make their music DRM free without said owners giving permission.And it's my understanding Apple is still negotiating with the other "big" labels.
 
Diatribe said:
Well, it depends on the source for the format conversion.
If they use a high bit, high kHz source and convert it to 256 AAC then this should sound better than a Lossless file ripped from a CD.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Diatribe said:
Now if only we knew what the source the labels use...
Click to expand...
It has been stated that Apple encourages encoding from master digital recordings which are often these days done at 24/96 (24 bits per sample and 96,000 samples a second). Standard CDs are encoded at 16/44 (16 bits per sample and 44,100 samples a second).

24 bits = 16,777,216 levels per sample
16 bits = 65,536 levels per sample

Doing a perceptual based lossy encoding (e.g. ACC) from 24/96 will result in a better product then doing that same thing from 16/44. Also if the perceptual encoding is done at a high enough bit rate it can surpass the human perceived fidelity of a lossless encoding from 16/44.

I would argue that 256 kbps ACC is of sufficient bit rate to achieve CD or better then CD quality (perceptually) when being encoded from 24/96 (for many types of music).
 
Peace said:
If thats the case then it will fall on deaf ears because the "other labels" would be owned by Warner Bros. et.al. and can't make their music DRM free without said owners giving permission.And it's my understanding Apple is still negotiating with the other "big" labels.
Click to expand...

I think this particular call is sent to everyone, but aimed at the smaller labels that /aren't/ under the thumb of the RIAA (Yes, they do exist).
 
johnmcboston said:
You sure most of the people here will know what vinyl is? :)

We old farts will remember the days when CDs first started coming out - they were all for sale in the 'long boxes' to prevent theft. When the long boxes were going away people would worry the artwork on CDs would be too small. Of course now we buy music with no artwork at all... Even the booklets in CDs have been replaced by band web sites and blogs.
Click to expand...

I'm not that old, and I remember that...
 
shawnce said:
Correct.

It has been stated that Apple encourages encoding from master digital recordings which are often these days done at 24/96 (24 bits per sample and 96,000 samples a second). Standard CDs are encoded at 16/44 (16 bits per sample and 44,100 samples a second).

24 bits = 16,777,216 levels per sample
16 bits = 65,536 levels per sample

Doing a perceptual based lossy encoding (e.g. ACC) from 24/96 will result in a better product then doing that same thing from 16/44. Also if the perceptual encoding is done at a high enough bit rate it can surpass the human perceived fidelity of a lossless encoding from 16/44.

I would argue that 256 kbps ACC is of sufficient bit rate to achieve CD or better then CD quality (perceptually) when being encoded from 24/96 (for many types of music).
Click to expand...

Well, encourages doesn't mean that they are actually doing it. But I'd love it if it were true.

Nice post btw. Pretty much sums it up and should shut up people wishing for Lossless (if they use the master that is).
 
Warbrain said:
Yes, that's the case. 9.99 an album. I don't know what eMusic's plan is, but if I remember right isn't it a subscription service? I'm not paying for that.
Click to expand...

Why not? You pay 9.99 for 90 songs a month, DRM free, high quality, and you own them forever. 100X better than iTunes.
 
eMusic is NOT 9.99 per month for 90 tracks. Its for 30 tracks. And eMusic offers none of the music from the big 4. Might not be a problem for everyone, but to suggest it blows iTunes away is naive.
 
This is all great and wonderful, and I'm happy to pay $.30 for higher quality music that's also non-drm.

...BUT...

All I really want is HD movies and TV shows!
Come on iTunes, please please!!
 
I rarely buy single tracks, so the fact that albums remain unchanged with the price is a big plus for me.

I can't imagine why anyone would want iTunes to sell lossless. Some songs can average around 30MB in size in this format. How much is one willing to pay for a 20-30MB large file? Is Apple going to simply hold onto these huge 700+MB large albums and sell them for just a smidge more than the regular compressed stuff? heh :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back