More on iPod and WMA

[caddisfly]

Re: Re: WMA on Ipod....

Originally posted by greenstork
While many would say you are dead wrong, that Apple is a hardware company, I will not. Instead, I'll say that Apple is a systems company that offers hardware AND proprietary software. Anyone who says differently is dead wrong.

The reason that many consider them a hardware company is that hardware drives all profit at Apple. The cost of reaserch and development on their software far outweighs the revenue they pull in. I would not be surprised to see that most of their software departments are losing money. Until recenly, all of the iApps were free so certainly hardware is where the bread is buttered.

All that said, it's just impossible to label Apple a software company because they make hardware whereas Microsoft, Adobe, et al, do not.

....well, OK, strictly speaking....but the only reason I have bought Apple hardware since 1981 (pre-Mac) is because what their software (OS and apps) lets me do with it.

But- you are right -- it is their "system". I call it "design" - the way the whole package is integrated that makes the value. But, in my mind, it is more software "like" than hardware.

Would the ipod be the "thing" without the integration of itunes and the music store in addition to its design, size, etc? I don't think so and so far, the market bears that out.

The cube was probably the only Mac worth buying just on looks alone....and I didn't even buy one of those until it dropped to $1200! ;-)

My point was: "you kill the software and you kill the concept".

Giving in to MS on the WMA just places you under the same monolopist pressure the Gates et al puts on everyone else --- you are forced to bend to their market power.

Nothing has every gotten better by doing the same thing that everyone else is --- it may get cheaper, but not better.

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by akac
Except the first iTunes icon wasn't green. It is as of 4.0 and the icons were green too....so they've been updated.

Same with the OGG and SD2 icons.

If you are shipping a product and changing the color of icons, you will usually change the color of all shipped icons, regardless of if they're being used or not.

Really simple process. Open up the .icns. For each icon, replace purple with green. No thought required. No decision to drop/keep the WMA icon required. These things, in software development, are generally regarded as Good Things.

 

[greenstork]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Apple is not targetting high-end audio codecs today. That is a simple, self-evident fact. When/if they do, they'll let you know it. They *have* targetted high-end video codecs (pixlet).

Today, for high-end audio, you do not have a digital purchase choice, unless you go through rather obscure means (direct to the musician or such). This is true on both sides of the digital music business.

Apple having an AAC/lossless would not improve this picture whatsoever. You would still not be able to buy it from iTMS. You would still have to rip it from your CDs. I suspect that when Apple supports a lossless compression codec for audio, it won't be called AAC, as AAC is targetted for lossy compression and Dolby isn't as loose with its branding as Microsoft is with WMA (where the goal is, essentially, to have every possible audio and video stream be labeled with "Windows Media", confusing the consumer into thinking that the 128k WMA they just downloaded is essentially the same as the WMA 7.1 surround track they heard in the theater).

In other words, the distinction really shouldn't matter this much. If you want WMA/lossless, then rip your CDs to that (and use something besides iTunes to listen/burn them). If you want lossless with iTunes then buy a second HD and rip to AIFF/WAV uncompressed (not all that much more space if you're saying WMA lossless gets a max of 50% savings ... just one more HD 🙂 )

In either case, you'll want to re-code them down to AAC for your iPod if you use an iPod, as the space vs quality argument doesn't make sense there (until iPods have 250GB drives ...)

OTOH ... that's kinda a good idea for Apple. Debut a lossless codec. Provide a new option for iTMS downloads in the new lossless codec. Push the massive-sized iPods ... hmmmmm ....

With the rate in which HD sizes for both the desktop and the iPod are increasing, I don't see any technical/practical limitations to a lossless codec. Of course, business decisions are rarely about what is technologically possible and more about what will earn the most $$$. Here's hoping that quality will prevail, an ideal that seems to fit the Apple mold.

 

[svenas1]

Originally posted by ccuilla
I still don't understand why so many people don't recognize that this is a format/DRM battle Apple is fighting.

Step back. Look at the WHOLE board.

Apple is battling to control DRM for digital music/media. So is MS. Apple knows this. MS knows this.

You are about beging hearing a whole more FUD from the MS camp. It is going to get ugly...fast.

The HP deal is brilliant. Bring on the rumored McDonald's deal now!

Next...say by summer...make iPod Mini $199 (this is likely to happen).

This is Apple's game to lose, and I think that the only way for them to lose it, is (much like my beloved Green Bay Packers), by being too conservative. so far they are not showing signs of this. They are making all the right moves...so far.

Another thing that it important to understand is that MS doesn't dominate EVERYTHING. This may be one thing they end up not dominating.

Absolutely spot on. Selling a few more iPods is not going to make up for the losses if MS controls the ditribution format. That can easily cost Apple untold sums more in the future. This has to be fought out now and fast.

That is why the HP deal is so momentous - and that is why all the MS drones (like the spine- and brainless P.T.) are getting their knickers in such a proverbial twist. This is about a lot more than even selling a few more units. AAC is not controlled by MS. WMA is. It is about 'tides' and gaining marketshare, and keeping ahead in the game and not handing the opposition more control than absolutely necessary.

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by greenstork
While most of your post was spot on, the iPod Mini also comes in priced at exactly the same as at least one 15GB music player, the Dell DJ. For ease of use, style, etc. there is no comparison but if we're just talking GB, then the Dell DJ is a better value.

The Dell DJ is more than twice the size of the iPod mini.

You pay, as always, for miniaturization.

Why can't people understand this?

Look at players of the approximate storage and size of the miniPod and you'll find that they are all within pennies of each other in price. Period.

 

[greenstork]

Originally posted by jettredmont
The Dell DJ is more than twice the size of the iPod mini.

You pay, as always, for miniaturization.

Why can't people understand this?

Look at players of the approximate storage and size of the miniPod and you'll find that they are all within pennies of each other in price. Period.

I can understand this but the parent post only cited size for price, please put my response in context.

Come to think of it, I said very clearly in my post that if we were just talking about GB.

 

[gwangung]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WMA = Better Audio Quality

Originally posted by boros
Alright,, I'll bite... I was going to stay out of this but - since you're hostile to just about everybody with your superior "British not European" attitude...

Fistly, this thread actually started with a discussion of WMA being supported in iTunes/iPod. In that context, WMA lossless was discussed as potential beneficial.

In a theoretical world.

But we're talking about the real world, where 128-bit AAC is driving sales of Ipods. I do not for a second think that lossless WMA will drive sales of Ipods for the next 2-3 years.

And THAT is why you're getting such disagreement, because what you're discussing is out of context with the real world. Folks are talking mass market, portable players and consumers where 128-bit is "good enough" (and don't for a second think that "good enough" isn't a factor; that's why metal typeset were replaced by phototypesetting in the 1970s, and why phototypesetting was replaced by laserwriters in the 1980s and 90s). Ignoring THOSE factors is a form of arrogance in and of itself...

 

[fatfish]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WMA = Better Audio Quality

Originally posted by boros
OK, now we're getting non-productive and nasty here... this is my last post...

Re. My "Whopper" ... I originally said "50-70% compression" I supsequently said "50-30% of the original file size"... I think the two are fairly consistent... again, you can (and I suspect you will) cut hairs. Actual rates vary, depending on the complexity of the music... my observations are somehwere in this range. You can choose to belive that this is a whopper if you like.

Re the rest of your post, we're essentially agreeing... though you tend to do so in a contrary and fairly cheeky way. Yes, AAC is good for things like iPods...

IMOHO, WMA 9 lossless is a better format for high-quality archives.

People should be made aware of the disctinction between lossy and lossless compression, beferore they spend time ripping their CD collections. This distinction might not be important for many people, but they should be aware of the tradeoffs nonetheless.

Plenty of people maintain archives with dupes in numerous formats.

Apple should strive to deliver lossless audio compression...

OK, like you said we probably agree in the most part, I just resist the push for M$ products.

I personally understand that lossless compression at best achieves about 50-70% reduction in file size, but maybe you have a better experience than me. I don't keep lossless files or uncompresed files, I only experiment with them.

It just seems to me that there are better alternatives than the evil empire.

I note the guy who has a levard something, don't know what it is but it sounds a lot more expensive than my B & O.

I just wonder, that for someone to play these lossless files, they must have a fairly costly computer and sound system, if all the expense that's involved doesn't warrant say an extra FW 800 500GB HD so as they can have all their files uncompressed. I mean in the light of all this expensive equipment, whats another £ 400.00-it's gotta hold say 10,000 songs uncompressed.

But then again, I can understand not wanting to re-rip them, just can't understand how you can say there's no real alternative to WMA lossless, and then be happy to convert if iTunes did support a lossless codec.

I also suppose I agree, I don't understand why Apple can't support a lossless codec in iTunes, but I do understand why they don't.

 

[greenstork]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WMA = Better Audio Quality

Originally posted by gwangung
In a theoretical world.

But we're talking about the real world, where 128-bit AAC is driving sales of Ipods. I do not for a second think that lossless WMA will drive sales of Ipods for the next 3-5 years.

And THAT is why you're getting such disagreement, because what you're discussing doesn't have a connection to the real world.

If you look at at boras' posts you see that he offered an advantage of WMA. Yes it is an advantage that does not serve the download market or the iPod sales market. However, in the real world, some people don't own iPods and they would like to listen to their music collection on their home stereo from their computer. It's a small and overlooked market that DOES exist. No one claimed lossless codecs would drive the download business or the sale of iPods, this is an incorrect assumption that you are making as to the subject of boras' posts.

edit: Just for clarification, I don't want WMA or a WMA lossless codec anywhere near my computer, I'm just putting it in perspective from someone who listened to boras' posts.

 

[caddisfly]

Originally posted by greenstork
With the rate in which HD sizes for both the desktop and the iPod are increasing, I don't see any technical/practical limitations to a lossless codec. Of course, business decisions are rarely about what is technologically possible and more about what will earn the most $$$. Here's hoping that quality will prevail, an ideal that seems to fit the Apple mold.

....but not to pick on you, but you're kidding right?

I just checked my latest rip:
4 minute of audio CD track = 40MB
same track as 192kps MP3 = 5.4 MB

....it seems my lossy compression saved me 8 times the space....which in my case represents 20GB of music vs 160 GB of music.

 

[gwangung]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WMA = Better Audio Quality

Originally posted by greenstork
If you look at at boras' posts you see that he offered an advantage of WMA. Yes it is an advantage that does not serve the download market or the iPod sales market. However, in the real world, some people don't own iPods and they would like to listen to their music collection on their home stereo from their computer. It's a small and overlooked market that DOES exist. No one claimed lossless codecs would drive the download business or the sale of iPods, this is an incorrect assumption that you are making as to the subject of boras' posts.

Yeah, but doncha think that it's a kinda silly point to be making in a thread that was talking about ipods and WMA? And a point that's easily misconstrued in such a topic? Particularly when he did make the comparison between WMA and CCA? He's comparing apples to oranges without noting the change in fruits.....

 

[jettredmont]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WMA = Better Audio Quality

Originally posted by boros
Re. My "Whopper" ... I originally said "50-70% compression" I supsequently said "50-30% of the original file size"... I think the two are fairly consistent... again, you can (and I suspect you will) cut hairs. Actual rates vary, depending on the complexity of the music... my observations are somehwere in this range. You can choose to belive that this is a whopper if you like.

I can back him up on this one.

Compression ratios depend a LOT on the source material ("flatter"/quieter wave forms compress significantly better than louder or more "jarring" pieces ... compare 35% compressed size of a soft concerto to 85% compressed size of pink noise).

The FLAC codec has a set of comparisons. Doesn't include WMA at all, but I don't think WMA is outside the general range defined in these tests:

http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html

OTOH, this brings up the question: with so many other standards out there, some (FLAC) with wide support and open so that you know they won't be hijacked as Microsoft is wont to do with their IP ... why use Microsoft's offering?

 

[fatfish]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WMA = Better Audio Quality

Originally posted by greenstork
If you look at at boras' posts you see that he offered an advantage of WMA. Yes it is an advantage that does not serve the download market or the iPod sales market. However, in the real world, some people don't own iPods and they would like to listen to their music collection on their home stereo from their computer. It's a small and overlooked market that DOES exist. No one claimed lossless codecs would drive the download business or the sale of iPods, this is an incorrect assumption that you are making as to the subject of boras' posts.

edit: Just for clarification, I don't want WMA or a WMA lossless codec anywhere near my computer, I'm just putting it in perspective from someone who listened to boras' posts.

Yes, it's a small and overlooked market that does exist, but not in the context of iTMS and ipod and whether to adopt WMA, and there are better alternatives without turning to M$.

 

[jettredmont]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WMA = Better Audio Quality

Originally posted by boros

I don't know about your other point as to many available lossless CODECs for the Mac and Winblows... I've tried a lot of them and and haven't found one I particularly liked.... APE was OK in many cases, though I didn't like the Mac sipport. It should be noted that this was almost a year ago, so APE may have improved on the Mac.

What did you not like about the other codecs? Were they not accurate (ie, not really lossless)? Were the tools archaic? Did the rendering take too long?

 

[greenstork]

Originally posted by caddisfly
....but not to pick on you, but you're kidding right?

I just checked my latest rip:
4 minute of audio CD track = 40MB
same track as 192kps MP3 = 5.4 MB

....it seems my lossy compression saved me 8 times the space....which in my case represents 20GB of music vs 160 GB of music.

I'm not kidding but you should also realize that lossless and uncompressed are two entirely different terms. There is such a thing as lossless compression

 

[fatfish]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WMA = Better Audio Quality

Originally posted by jettredmont
I can back him up on this one.

Compression ratios depend a LOT on the source material ("flatter"/quieter wave forms compress significantly better than louder or more "jarring" pieces ... compare 35% compressed size of a soft concerto to 85% compressed size of pink noise).

The FLAC codec has a set of comparisons. Doesn't include WMA at all, but I don't think WMA is outside the general range defined in these tests:

http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html

OTOH, this brings up the question: with so many other standards out there, some (FLAC) with wide support and open so that you know they won't be hijacked as Microsoft is wont to do with their IP ... why use Microsoft's offering?

Ok point taken, I generally listen to rock music, guess my compression will be less, but is it not really better uncompressed with 500 GB HD's now and 1 TB HD's on the horizon.

 

[svenas1]

Re: Re: Re: Re: WMA on Ipod....

Originally posted by greenstork
I hate it when people use car comparisons but in this case, it seems appropriate. BMW doesn't actually make all of the components of their car, indeed most are outsourced. However, by most accounts, BMW still makes cars. The same theory applies to Boeing and on and on.

Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that car manufacturers outsource large parts of production and developing to other companies. But none the less, a company like BMW has engineers devoted to improving essential parts of these components, like the engine, the suspension and the chassis. That is what they are good at, building cars, engineering them to be better, more fuel efficient etc etc (I won't go on, although it might be educative, because I think there is a qualitative difference b/w BMW outsourcing development of components and Apple buying in components)

If Apple needed smaller harddrives for their new mini-mini iPod, for the life of them, they couldn't make them.

Aside from that, a company is not defined by what it develops but rather, by what it sells. That is why in every business listing of Apple, it's called a computer company with many subcategories of software and *hardware*.

Of course, if this weren't the case, we wouldn't be having this argument ! It obviously builds and sells hardware (like the PowerBook I'm typing this on). The question was, in fact, if Apple was in actual fact, despite apparitions to the contrary, a software company. This can - and has - been debated to lengths.

I really don't mind either way, I just think that people who argue that Apple is more of a software company than a hardware company have a good point. It might help understand why Apple will relinquish the music format war only kicking and screaming - if ever. If Apple were only or primarily a hardware companey, they wouldn't care that much, as their chips (which they don't make) could decode either format with equal ease.

Lastly, you're just dead wrong. All Apple computers are designed by Apple engineers, all one has to do is look inside and outside of a new G5 Power Mac to see this. Believe it or not a whole computer is a piece of hardware and not just a sum of its parts. Thank goodness that Apple does *develop* its own hardware or we'd end up with just another beige box.

Yes, there's a beautiful dual 2GHz G5 under my wifes desk. I can (and do ;-) look at it with great joy. Apple designs the case (praise Ive for that), lays out the internal pieces. But they have very little way of influencing the specs of the things that do end up inside. They basically have to take what the market has to offer. Although - having said that, I really would like to know how closely Apple was involved with IBM in developing the G5. Thank whoever was in charge that the Power4 architecture so closely resembled the G4. And that IBM agreed to incorporate Altivec into the single core version and thus make a G5. (This is probably a version too much abridged to be correct - but that's how I understood the birth of the G5)

With regard to developing hardware, the case, yes. The layout of the innards, yes. The innards themselves, no, or very little. I'd like to know which parts were.

 

[fatfish]

C'mon someone disagree with me about something, I've had a beer and like to rant.

 

[MCCFR]

Spot the BS - Part II

Here's the problem: Apple's iPod plays back the popular MP3 audio format as well as the standards-based Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) format. But the Apple iTunes Music Store sells songs only in the more limited Protected AAC format, which is compatible only with iTunes and the iPod, giving Apple the type of corporate lock-in for which Microsoft is often (and, in the case of digital media, unfairly) criticized. Incidentally, RealNetworks' recently announced RealPlayer 10 also works with the AAC and MP3 formats (and with Windows Media Audio--WMA--RealAudio, and other formats), but RealNetworks uses yet another completely incompatible AAC version for its music store, a format that doesn't work with iTunes or the iPod or with any other music software . To its credit, however, RealNetworks is offering higher-quality AAC files than the iTunes Music Store offers because most customers will likely want to convert the RealNetworks' AAC files to the more compatible MP3 format for the short term.

Enter HP, which makes a variety of digital-media products, including Media Center PCs, iPAQs, and media set-top boxes--none of which are compatible with the Protected AAC format that HP will be supporting through the iTunes Music Store or with HP-branded iPods. Microsoft representatives I spoke to politely called HP's decision to go with Apple's technology "interesting," although the loser in this situation isn't Microsoft, it's the millions of people who use HP's products now and will use them in the future. "Windows is about choice," Microsoft General Manager of Windows Digital Media Division Dave Fester said during the recent 2004 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, Nevada. "You can mix and match software and music player stuff. We believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services." Indeed, this choice characterizes the PC market. Whether the choice is Musicmatch Downloads, Napster 2.0, the Wal-Mart Music Store, or virtually every other online music store, each service uses the same WMA format for the songs users download, and all the songs are compatible with the same range of software and devices--including, incidentally, all the devices, portables, and Media Centers PCs that HP makes.

Wow - where to start?

Rebuttal - One

This argument is circular and self-defeating.

You can only purchase from the iTunes Music Store using the iTunes application, which takes responsibility for managing the download and integration process.

The iTunes application (in conjunction with QuickTime) is responsible for enforcing the DRM on the PC platfom only.

Therefore iTunes/QuickTime is directly analogous to the Windows Media libraries and Windows Media Player. So the real argument here is "How many media playback applications does a single PC need?"

It would appear from market evidence that a significant and growing element of the Windows audience appears to believe that the answer is one more than zero and one less than two, so long as that application is easy-to-use and well engineered.

Hmmm, maybe there's a lesson there but we'll get back to that.


Rebuttal - Two
What's your target here? Real or Apple? AAC or the means that are used to protect the rights-holder?

I would accept the fact that Real has finally come to market with a version of Protected AAC that is incompatible with the FairPlay system that Apple introduced in April 2003 is a prima facie example of the balkanisation that Steve Jobs talks about in his contribution to the HP/Apple press release.

However, Real's Helix DRM is probably designed to be used with the full gamut of the content that Real offer to the market and that's their business.

There's no rule that says that the DRM used by one provider has to be compatible with every other provider and, in reality, heterogeneous diversity may be advantageous from a security perspective.

But again, I suspect that you have another agenda here - or, at best, you are spreading FUD on behalf of Microsoft without questioning their agenda.

Could this sudden commitment to compatible DRM systems have any other motive? Well, the simple answer is 'Yes'!

Could it be that Microsoft desparately wants Apple to adopt a standard DRM for iTMS so that the vendors of Windows Media portable devices can survive and so that users of said devices don't throw them into a bin whilst on their way to the local iPod retailer?

Well that sounds like a starting point, and it explains why MS is so keen on this 'clearing house' concept, despite the fact that it'll take an age to put together.

Or maybe MS now wants a single DRM model, so that the music retailers like Musicmatch and all of the Loudeye stores can have a chance to survive when there is a single hot property in the player market.

Well, that sounds like the other 50% of the reason.

To summarise, Microsoft is desparately trying to muddy the waters around iTunes, iTMS, iPod and AAC so that it can regroup and get another bite of the cherry.

The problem here is that its very difficult to take anything MS says at face value: Apple can be forgiven for not wanting to be the frog to Microsoft's scorpion, simply because the number of instances where MS has preached co-operation whilst practising duplicity are legion and Apple itself has been the victim of Microsoft's plagiarism, bullying and deceipt on too many occasions.


Rebuttal - Three

What you seem to have a problem understanding here is that support for (and compatibility with) the FairPlay-protected form of MPEG-4 AAC is implicit ly contained in the iTunes audio library software. Therefore, install the software and the machine has the support.

However there is no Apple-supplied AAC player for the iPaq - or for any Pocket PC platform - but then Apple has no interest in developing such a piece of software as it has no devices in those segments.

That's not to say that HP may choose to develop that code; MPEG-4 AAC is a specification that can be licensed from Dolby Labs through VIA Licensing, just as MP3 had to be licensed from Fraunhofer and Windows Media has to be licensed from MS.

The FairPlay DRM used in tracks downloaded from iTMS merely act on the PC/Mac platform and is ignored by a number of portable devices, including - but not limited to - phones produced by Nokia.

For you to present any other interpretation is yet another indictment of your type of "journalism", or maybe you're just too lazy to think or do independent research! I know what my opinion is on the subject.

Rebuttal - Four

What absolute drivel. The idea that your average domestic consumer (i.e. the person with a standard computer, a printer and a broadband connection) is any worse off under this arrangement than they were last Monday is disingenuous or - because it's getting late and I'm getting grumpy - an outright lie.

One week ago, HP customers could go and buy an iPod, install the copy of iTunes therein and - assuming that Windows chose not to break - become part of the biggest revolution in recorded music since the Walkman twenty years ago.

But, unlike Windows Media, QuickTime and iTunes don't throw the system into a sulk when they're not being used as the default so the consumer still has the choice to use Windows Media should they so desire.

So if the consumer isn't losing, and MS isn't losing and HP sure as hell isn't losing and the rights-holder isn't losing, just what the hell are we doing here, unless you're fooling yourself and the reality is that MS is losing which I suspect is why we're seeing so much smoke at the moment.



Rebuttal - Five

Windows is about choice.

That's why Windows Media 9 was so late coming out on Macintosh.

That's why OS X users had to wait so long for Exchange support.

That's why MS removed Java support from Windows XP.

That's why MS threatend the EU with a crippled version of Windows if it was forced to decouple Windows Media.

Now, without wishing to criticise, maybe if WMP9 had been released simultaneously onto OS X, some of the WMA stores might have been able to make inroads into the Macintosh market and some of the player manufacturers likewise. The benefit of that is that iPod might have been a bit slower out of the blocks and the WMA supply community wouldn't now be looking down the barrel of a gun. But I'm sure you can find a reason why that wouldn't have been the case.

Again, I would remind you that the market appears to think that one application that's well designed and executed is enough which then forces me to tell you to look up that Einstein quote about things being as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Choice… it's all I can do not to laugh at the hypocrisy.

Rebuttal - Six

More FUD, misdirection and hypocrisy.

Who's the dominant player in this market? iTunes, iTMS and iPod!

Are they cross-platform? Yes.
Combined, do they provide the consumer with an integrated easy-to-use solution for the purchase, management and playback of the consumer's music assets? Yes.
Do they provide a consistent digital rights package to the consumer? Yes.


Are WMA stores accesible on Macintosh systems? No! (oops)

Combined, do they provide the consumer with an integrated easy-to-use solution for the purchase, management and playback of the consumer's music assets? Dell, who resell Creative's player, also provide a store.

Do these solutions work on a Macintosh? No!

Do they provide a consistent digital rights package to the consumer? NO!


To summarise, the Windows vision of choice is most people's idea of confusion and chaos. It certainly is not inclusive and it is nowhere near as elegant.

The remainder of my critique of this piece of flim-flam tomorrow.

 

[dgdosen]

Reasons for no lossless

Originally posted by boros
... and wouldn't it have been great, if Apple had come out with the lossless flavor before MS. I suspect that Apple's hands were tied for a few reasons:

1. The major growth segment that you pointed out, iPod kids, isn't that concerned with quality.
2. It would've adversely impacted their xx,000 songs on one player messages.
3. It would've tripled the bandwidth and storage costs for the iTunes store.

This is a great thread!

I'd add the record companies would be much more nervous about perfect copies of their songs out there if Apple's DRM was cracked in some way. It's risk avoidance on their part. I don't think they would have gone for ITMS if Apple wanted to offer lossless ripping.

That said, I do want to play ripped CD's on my home network. I just bought a couple of WD 250 GB Hard drives, and am going to mirror them and rip it all. I might wait for AAC lossless though. Does anyone know when that might be available? Is it already?

 

[jettredmont]

Re: ummmm no offense but read his article

Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
he said "It would be great" meaning that he thought that would be great if they came out wit that in the future. He did not mean present. read before u post.

Let's review:

It would also gr great if the songs we paid $.99 a piece for were in a format that sounded as good as a CD. WMA lossless gives us that.... .APE gives us that... AAC doesn't.

Originally posted by jettredmont
Where, exactly, are you buying WMA lossless songs for $.99?

No WMA music store I know of is selling lossless. They are all compressed at about 128k, same as Apple's AAC (and comparable quality; different profiles, but it all evens out to about the same quality IMHO).

Trivial sentence reorder (my English teacher would be proud):

WMA lossless gives us songs that sound as good as a CD for which we pay $.99 a piece.

My point was, he is saying that WMA lossless support (in iPod, as is the topic of the thread) would give us $.99 truly CD-quality songs.

Au contrair: WMA music stores don't sell lossless music. Thus, the issue is not presence of an lossless audio codec with the same name as your lossy codec. The issues are:

1) Music stores may not have the bandwidth to sell 5x as large files for the same price (5x overhead approximately ... if Apple pays $0.25/song in bandwidth and storage, then that means a lossless version would cost Apple $1.25, more or less, to get it to your doorstop.)

2) Homes generally don't have the bandwidth for songs that are five times as long. People don't generally want to spend five minutes downloading one song, and dialup ... well, forget it! To sell a reasonable quantity Apple would have to offer both the high-bandwidth and low-bandwidth songs, which is more complexity than I'd be willing to put into an industry-first concept project.

3) Lossless audio can be burned to CD with 100% accuracy (well, close enough ... yes, the burning process will introduce errors). It can then be ripped without DRM with 100% accuracy (again, close enough for nukes). Steve had a hard enough time convincing the RIAA to let go of their jewels, and key in that was the argument that too much quality would be lost in cross-coding any Fairplay restrictions out of the music for most of the public to bother. Lossless would have been an IMPOSSIBLE sell.

In other words: this has NOTHING to do with WMA vs AAC!

The iPod supporting WMA would not fix this. Thus, it is a bogus argument for this discussion.

 

[whodatrr]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WMA = Better Audio Quality

Originally posted by fatfish
Ok point taken, I generally listen to rock music, guess my compression will be less, but is it not really better uncompressed with 500 GB HD's now and 1 TB HD's on the horizon.

Point taken... just a few other things to think about...

1. Let's assume an average of 50% compression... though actually, you'll probably see 60% (I can check my real-world archive when I get home).
2. If you're like me and you've taken the time to rip using EAC or whatever tool... cleaning the discs, etc., you might want to keep a backup of your files. I definately do not want to rcreate my archive... this took me a very looooong time.

So, uncompressed... when I rip my 1,200 CDS I get (1,200 * 500MB = 600GB)

Next, I add an additional 600GB for backup... now, I'm in the 1.2 TB range.

Using WMA 9 Lossless, I was actually able to get this entire archive on a 250GB HD with room to spare (If I had mostly rock, it would've been larger). I regularly back this archive up onto a second 250 GB and I'm set.

So, actually, in the real world... lossless compression has kept me from having to buy at least 2 250GB external HDs.

Actually, I would've probably had to buy a third HD, given the greater than 50% compression I experienced..

I'm not at home, so I can't see the specifics, but this is the best I can furnish from memory.

So, for me, lossless compression has probably saved me $800 or more.

Also, I can now rest assured that my audio files are archived in the best-possible format with no threat of them being lost.

Just my experience to add some insight into why this is an issue for me, personally. Also, to refer back to my original post... there really is a HUGE difference in quality between any lossy and lossless audio on my stereo system.

 

[svenas1]

Originally posted by fatfish
C'mon someone disagree with me about something, I've had a beer and like to rant.

British ARE european.. ;-P


... or, for the sake of this thread,

I also suppose I agree, I don't understand why Apple can't support a lossless codec in iTunes, but I do understand why they don't.

I agree.

(your five quid doesn't entitle you to more of an argument...)

 

[whodatrr]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WMA = Better Audio Quality

Originally posted by boros
Point taken... I do agree that, for most people, WAV is the way to go.... I just wish I had the money to do it...

1. Let's assume an average of 50% compression... though actually, you'll probably see 60% (I can check my real-world archive when I get home).
2. If you're like me and you've taken the time to rip using EAC or whatever tool... cleaning the discs, etc., you might want to keep a backup of your files. I definately do not want to rcreate my archive... this took me a very looooong time.

So, uncompressed... when I rip my 1,200 CDS I get (1,200 * 500MB = 600GB)

Next, I add an additional 600GB for backup... now, I'm in the 1.2 TB range.

Using WMA 9 Lossless, I was actually able to get this entire archive on a 250GB HD with room to spare (If I had mostly rock, it would've been larger). I regularly back this archive up onto a second 250 GB and I'm set.

So, actually, in the real world... lossless compression has kept me from having to buy at least 2 250GB external HDs.

Actually, I would've probably had to buy a third HD, given the greater than 50% compression I experienced..

I'm not at home, so I can't see the specifics, but this is the best I can furnish from memory.

So, for me, lossless compression has probably saved me $800 or more.

Also, I can now rest assured that my audio files are archived in the best-possible format with no threat of them being lost.

Just my experience to add some insight into why this is an issue for me, personally. Also, to refer back to my original post... there really is a HUGE difference in quality between any lossy and lossless audio on my stereo system.

Fatfish is right, however, for most people, WAVs are the way to go.

... and, if you're entering this thread late, the topic is high-quality archives... you probably would duplicate these files and convert to AAC or MP3 for your iPod. These would be the copies you played on your high-end stereo. Also, if you're stereo and/or ears can't differentiate between a losslessly compressed audio file and a lossy one, then you probably don't have this problem 🙂 You're residing in an "ignorant" state of bliss (This is a complement... I'm jealous).

 

[doogle]

Re: Re: Re: WMA on Ipod....

Originally posted by caddisfly
Would the ipod be the "thing" without the integration of itunes and the music store in addition to its design, size, etc? I don't think so and so far, the market bears that out.

What came first, the iTMS or the iPod.

We will never know😉