Sony BMG to Offer DRM-Free Music

[dmelgar]

I agree with this for the most part. I notice a huge difference between 128 encoding and 256 encoding, especially with high quality headphones, but as I start to listen up and up to lossless etc, I dont notice the difference as much..there is a difference, but just not as big to me. I write and record music so the quality of sound is very important to me, however the size of downloadable files is also important, as is whether the format is compatible with most media players.

The silent majority seems fine with 128 mp3's. I personally think 256 should be the minimum standard, especially given the price comparison between a physical CD and an downloadable album, where most of the time the prices are very close.

The vocal minority usually screams for FLAC or something. Listening is highly subjective though so to each his or her own.

I agree. In my personal listening tests, 128 mp3s can sound pretty bad. I'd never voluntarily chose that. I've even heard problems with 256k mp3s.

I have never noticed an issue with a 128k aac, but I probably haven't recognized what to listen for. I'm therefore ecstatic with a 256k aac.

I know of one intro to one song that sounds really bad at 256k mp3 that might also have a problem with aac, but I haven't tried it. Its such a rare occurrence that its not worth worrying about. This particular intro sounds like rain hitting glass or metal causing fast rythmic high pitched yet very quiet sounds. 256k mp3 makes it all garbled and unintelligible.

 

[mklos]

Why do you enter the info by hand instead of letting iTunes download the info itself?


Lethal

If I rip a song of a CD, iTunes isn't going to know what the song, artist, genre, etc is unless it just happens to be on the CD and imports with the song. I haven't purchased a CD in about 8 years so maybe things have changed since then. Anyways...I'd still rather buy just the songs I want and now a CD of 13 songs and only use 2 or 3 of them.

Also, lets remember that Apple can easily survive without the music store. Yes, its nice that they have the store, but if it ever falls through it doesn't mean they're dusted. Apple doesn't make a heck of a lot of money off it, there are other stores that sell music that works with the iPod which wasn't true when the iTunes Store first started. I believe that was the whole reason why Apple started the store was to boost iPods sales because there were a viable source to get music to your iPod without stealing it. Now there are other ways to get music.

 

[CWallace]

The existing recording labels are more then just distributors. They are also producers and promoters. So Apple launching their own "label" to attract artists means they need to do more then just distribute the songs on the iTunes Music Store. They also need to produce them and promote them.

And those recording labels spend a great deal of money producing and promoting bands that go nowhere. Is Apple going to invest hundreds of millions supporting new artists and hope they strike gold enough times to cover the ones who are just dross? Or will they only label established artists?

And if Apple only labels established artists, where do the next generation of both new and established artists come from? The existing recording labels are not going to fund the production and promotion of a new artist into an established one just to watch them head over to Apple's label. If artists think existing contracts are onerous...

Apple wants cheap digital music so we will buy expensive digital iPods. All of the other PMP producers no doubt want the same, so I am not singling Apple out here.

The labels only charge us $1 a track for the CD, but we have to buy all 15 tracks even if we want just one. If every track is available for digital download for $1 and we are allowed to buy only that one track we want, the record label just lost $14. Now, I expect they wish they could charge us $13.60 for that track and $0.10 for every other track, but they are willing to settle for $2 or $3 since it's more then $1, but also cheap enough that they hope it is cheap enough to be worth buying vs. downloading (though one might want to hear what Trent Reznor had to say) it instead of buying the CD and paying $15 for that song.

 

[theBB]

What? Sharing songs with a spouse or kids presumably won't push the vast majority of users over the Apple's DRM limit for number of machines. I'm sure that there are some that do, but most households don't have over five computers.

A lot of households have more than five computer accounts. Authorizing my account on our iMac does not authorize my wife's account on the same machine. Each one of use have laptops, ooops four out of five is already gone with no kids.

 

[CWallace]

If I have the choice, I will buy DRM free anything. With the RIAA now claiming you can't rip CD's, I doubt I will be buying any CD's anymore.

Yet if the RIAA is successful in legislating/adjudicating making a digital copy of your CD to play on your computer or PMP illegal, the next step would be to make it illegal to copy a purchased and downloaded song on your computer to your PMP or a purchased and downloaded song on your PMP (via the iTunes Store button on the iPod/iPhone) to your computer.

The goal is to make you pay every time you listen to a song, no matter where, when, or on what device. Perpetual revenue.

 

[theBB]

The labels only charge us $1 a track for the CD, but we have to buy all 15 tracks even if we want just one. If every track is available for digital download for $1 and we are allowed to buy only that one track we want, the record label just lost $14.

Well, what if they sell more of that same track as more people will be willing to spend $1 than $15. I could also buy more songs from different artists some of whom are bound to be from that same label, as my entertainment budget is not tied up to that CD. They also do not have to spend money producing the filler songs that nobody wants, so that saves them money as well. In the end, I don't think labels would much worse than with CDs.

 

[jephrey]

The only true lossless audio is analog audio... Fine. Digitized audio can be upwards of 192Hz/48bit but much audio wasn't recorded at that fidelity anyhow. It's my personal belief that the audio should be distributed in its initial digitized state, but that's just me. I have a "why not?" attitude about it. However, in general, we call everything 44.1kHz/16bit "lossless". I'll tell you one thing. Someone is more likely to tell the diff between a 256k Mp3 and a CD, than between a cd and a 48/24 recording. But whatever.

Today, if you use AAC or MP3 at 256K, your library is about 1/3 the size of the same in FLAC or ALAC. In how long will your HD space triple? It takes 3X the time do download... What was your DL speed a few years ago compared to now? In how long will your DL speed triple? What would it take? 3 minutes opposed to 1? Is that worth a file missing data that someday you may be able to hear? I can appreciate the argument today, but I think the proponents of lossy audio should look a few years into the future and see that there will really be no need to remove data if you have plenty of room and the download takes say 30 seconds instead of 10.

With advances in audio technology, home audio, car audio etc, how long will it be before a good amount of people can hear a difference - on their home system? On their quality headphones? In their car?

The argument for lossless is not of being able to hear the difference... now, but it might be later. The argument is for always having a minimum of a CD quality track available to yourself at the temporary and minimal sacrifice of a percentage of your HD space and 3x the time downloads.

I hear ya SthrnCmfrtr, I have about 100 tracks and 20 entire albums to replace and I'll be all lossless.

J

 

[mr.666]

While I agree that this is good thing in the short term (I refuse to buy DRM'ed music), this is just a first move in a long term strategy to increase the cost per song. If the recording industry was serious about removing DRM, they wouldn't be locking out iTMS.

EXACTLY!!!! the GREEEEEDDDDYYY fux are up in arms cuz apple is hardball on the 99¢ (a good thing). in 5 years when they think it's safe to raise the price the backlash will result in RAMPANT IllEagal downloading again (full circle) GREED is not a long term business model!

 

[Pandaboots]

Why are all the companies anti Apple? Apple is responsible for all of this. I mean, why can't Apple be the "big dog" in one market for a change? Microsoft has dominated with their OS and other applications, but I don't recall them having these issues with other companies turning their backs on them or "sticking it to them". As for pricing, $.99 is awesome, but $1.30 isn't going to change my mind much on music. I like the simplicity of $.99 though. Give me DRM free 256K AAC Quality on iTunes or I'll stick with Limewire. I'm not going to pay for 128K DRM music and I'm not going to pay $15 for the cd for 1 or 2 songs. Hmm let's see, Amazon sells books, the kindle, most every other retail item in the world, I believe they have auctions similar to ebay, downloadable music and videos and tv shows and have alliances with what seems to be every other online retailer. I'd say Amazon doesn't need any more preferential treatment. These music and movie execs better open their eyes and support iTunes....how do these idiots get into these high end positions?

 

[Chris Welch]

I just don't get it.

I prefer iTunes (i don't care if it costs a bit more than others), and the only other online store I use for my DJing is beatport. The only quarm i have is i'd like longer previews.

So the labels that are not with iTunes are just missing out on my money.... I'm not the only one who thinks like this.

It's sad that record labels can be like they are.

Have you even tried Amazon MP3?

They've got just about everything working in their favor.

1. Better quality throughout their entire selection. Sure, Apple has iTunes Plus, but ALL of Amazons catalog is in the ~256 kbps range.
2. Better pricing on popular songs and albums. Period.
3. And for Mac users, the Amazon MP3 downloader couldn't be much better than it is right now. It integrates the songs you buy with iTunes perfectly. What more do you want?

 

[pdjudd]

Why are all the companies anti Apple? Apple is responsible for all of this. I mean, why can't Apple be the "big dog" in one market for a change?

Because when you have power, you really tend not to want to give that power up. That goes double for perceived power loss.

 

[mr.666]

Their wont be an iTMS with fixed pricing to compete with. They cant pull out of iTMS yet because there isn't a viable alternative. So first they have to build that alternative.

Step 1. Support resellers who allows for variable pricing by offering lower cost and DRM free.

Step 2. Over time consumers move to the "superior" value

Step 3. Labels pull out of iTMS saying that "iTMS is bad for the consumer"

Step 4. Raise the price.

or

Step 1. Support resellers who allows for variable pricing by offering lower cost and DRM free.

Step 2. Over time consumers move to the "superior" value

Step 3. Apple gives in and allows for variable pricing

Step 4. Raise the price.

Step 5. People who said "why steal what I can get legally for a buck", start saying "why pay three bucks for something I can get for free".

ding, ding, ding!!! we have a WINNER!
I WILL NEVER BUY DIGITAL FROM AMAZON for this very reason. anyone of you who thinks supporting them is "good or compitition" is an ass.

 

[LethalWolfe]

If I rip a song of a CD, iTunes isn't going to know what the song, artist, genre, etc is unless it just happens to be on the CD and imports with the song. I haven't purchased a CD in about 8 years so maybe things have changed since then.

iTunes (as well as other MP3 proggies) can access an on-line database that has the info on dang nearly every CD ever published so you don't need to manually enter the CD info except in super rare cases.

Anyways...I'd still rather buy just the songs I want and now a CD of 13 songs and only use 2 or 3 of them.

That's fine 'cause there's really no right or wrong way to shop it's all personal preference. For me, personally, I'd typically rather have the whole album unless I know for sure that there are no songs on there that I'll never, ever grow to like (no hidden gems or diamonds in the rough). For this same reason I rarely buy "best of" albums 'cause lots of artists have good songs that never became "hits."


Lethal

 

[w00master]

It's amazing to see people on these forums criticizing a service/provider (Amazon) that benefits everyone. Amazing.

Also, to comments that most "normal people don't know/care about DRM." Guess what, they SHOULD. People should be aware about the issues and problems behind DRM. Being "comfortable with DRM," isn't the answer it's part of the problem.

w00master

 

[audioruckus]

The only true lossless audio is analog audio... Fine. Digitized audio can be upwards of 192Hz/48bit but much audio wasn't recorded at that fidelity anyhow. It's my personal belief that the audio should be distributed in its initial digitized state, but that's just me. I have a "why not?" attitude about it. However, in general, we call everything 44.1kHz/16bit "lossless". I'll tell you one thing. Someone is more likely to tell the diff between a 256k Mp3 and a CD, than between a cd and a 48/24 recording. But whatever.

I agree, however in my opinion, now and even in the future, there are far more "passive" listeners out there than "active" listeners when it comes to music. If you are an active listener, then lossless is absolutely where you want to be, because that is the best experience. Active listeners hear a song in layers, with each instrument and sound standing on their own apart from the whole. They appreciate every little detail, and that makes recording music that much more fun.

However I feel most people hear music as a wall of sound, with the vocals overwhelmingly the one thing they listen to the most since they usually stand out front. The intricate sonic details that recording geeks (like myself) really get off on..well they just arent appreciated by the majority. Hence why I believe encoding at 256 isn't all that bad.

Im PERSONALLY all for the highest quality possible...and agree with you...if its available, why not?

 

[mr.666]

It's amazing to see people on these forums criticizing a service/provider (Amazon) that benefits everyone. Amazing.

w00master

AMAZON is well aware of what the record co's will attempt to rape you with later if it all works out. DONT LET THEM FOOL YOU! They'll sell you the vasoline for the reamming and band-aids to patch you back up too.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Why are all the companies anti Apple? Apple is responsible for all of this. I mean, why can't Apple be the "big dog" in one market for a change? Microsoft has dominated with their OS and other applications, but I don't recall them having these issues with other companies turning their backs on them or "sticking it to them".

I don't want Apple to become a giant monopoly abusing it's power like MS and I'm not sure why anyone would want that. There are lots of companies that have to tolerate M$ because M$ is so powerful just like there are lots of companies that have to tolerate Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart is so powerful. Before MS got busted for anti-trust violations do you really think companies like Dell or HP liked MS telling them how to run aspects of their business? Do you really think the movie studios like having companies like Wal-Mart dictating how the movie studios can distribute their products?

Competition keeps the market moving forward which is a good thing.


Lethal

 

[w00master]

AMAZON is well aware of what the record co's will attempt to rape you with later if it all works out. DONT LET THEM FOOL YOU! They'll sell you the vasoline for the reamming and band-aids to patch you back up too.

Guess what, that's when I'll find ANOTHER provider then. That's what this is COMPETITION. I go where I can to find what I need. Apple doesn't and shouldn't provide me with everything.

Do you buy everything through Apple? I hope not. So, why should Apple be my ONLY source? Right now Amazon is cheaper, has more selection in terms of DRM-free music, and the sound quality is just as good as iTunes Plus. Guess what, I'm gonna go there to buy the music that I want.

Once they change something to screw me over, guess what, I'll go somewhere else.

w00master

 

[audioruckus]

Guess what, that's when I'll find ANOTHER provider then. That's what this is COMPETITION. I go where I can to find what I need. Apple doesn't and shouldn't provide me with everything.

Do you buy everything through Apple? I hope not. So, why should Apple be my ONLY source? Right now Amazon is cheaper, has more selection in terms of DRM-free music, and the sound quality is just as good as iTunes Plus. Guess what, I'm gonna go there to buy the music that I want.

Once they change something to screw me over, guess what, I'll go somewhere else.

w00master

Hells Yes. I love Apple, have a macbook pro, 3 ipods, do all my recording with Logic, and use itunes for my music management as well as ALL my digital downloads...up until Amazon jumped into the scene with their high quality DRM free offerings. Now, I'm all for Amazon because they give me what I want more than iTMS. It's nothing personal.

People need to relax on this whole "iTunes is the only way" stuff. Amazon has really impressed me. I also liek Aime Street for some newer indie artists not available at iTMS and Amazon. There is a whole world out there!

 

[mr.666]

Guess what, that's when I'll find ANOTHER provider then. That's what this is COMPETITION. I go where I can to find what I need. Apple doesn't and shouldn't provide me with everything.

Do you buy everything through Apple? I hope not. So, why should Apple be my ONLY source? Right now Amazon is cheaper, has more selection in terms of DRM-free music, and the sound quality is just as good as iTunes Plus. Guess what, I'm gonna go there to buy the music that I want.

Once they change something to screw me over, guess what, I'll go somewhere else.

w00master

wow dude you dont get it. another provider wont help you, it'll be too late. you'll be looking a maybe $3.00 a song by then. amazon is only tempoaraly cheaper... believe it! when CD's first came out they we're $17 with promises that when the "caught on" manuf and dup cost went down prices would too. no such luck. Big oil see's peeps paying $3.50 a gal. cuz of a "shortage" when supplies return, you think you'll see $1.20 again? THE PROBLEM IS AT THE SOURCE. the only way will be a return to illegal D/L's -mad max style!

 

[LethalWolfe]

wow dude you dont get it. another provider wont help you, it'll be too late. you'll be looking a maybe $3.00 a song by then. amazon is only tempoaraly cheaper... believe it!

And your proof for us to "believe it!" is what now?

when CD's first came out they we're $17 with promises that when the "caught on" manuf and dup cost went down prices would too. no such luck.

Where do you shop 'cause I typically pay 10-15 dollars a CD and have for as long as I can remember.

Big oil see's peeps paying $3.50 a gal. cuz of a "shortage" when supplies return, you think you'll see $1.20 again?

Adjusted for inflation oil is cheaper now than it was in the 70's.


Lethal

 

[mr.666]

Guess what, that's when I'll find ANOTHER provider then. That's what this is COMPETITION. I go where I can to find what I need. Apple doesn't and shouldn't provide me with everything.

Do you buy everything through Apple? I hope not. So, why should Apple be my ONLY source? Right now Amazon is cheaper, has more selection in terms of DRM-free music, and the sound quality is just as good as iTunes Plus. Guess what, I'm gonna go there to buy the music that I want.

Once they change something to screw me over, guess what, I'll go somewhere else.

w00master

oh and COMPETITION would be the rec co's provideng the SAME DRM free content on BOTH apple AND amazon and seeing who sells the most then!

It's not about Apple or iTunes... It's about $.99.

 

[Jetson]

Apple's AAC tracks sound better than Amazon's MP3 tracks.

The MP3 tracks aren't bad - but AAC sounds so much better to my ears.

AAC codecs produce a copy that most closely resembles the original signal.

MP3 and WMA distort the signal appreciably.

Here is a link to an article showing oscilloscope analysis of various codecs.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2002/07/12/mobile_music/page6.html

 

[audioruckus]

wow dude you dont get it. another provider wont help you, it'll be too late. you'll be looking a maybe $3.00 a song by then. amazon is only tempoaraly cheaper... believe it! when CD's first came out they we're $17 with promises that when the "caught on" manuf and dup cost went down prices would too. no such luck. Big oil see's peeps paying $3.50 a gal. cuz of a "shortage" when supplies return, you think you'll see $1.20 again? THE PROBLEM IS AT THE SOURCE. the only way will be a return to illegal D/L's -mad max style!

$3 a song? Thats a tad on the dramatic side isnt it? I'd like to see you back that up with paperwork...

 

[w00master]

wow dude you dont get it. another provider wont help you, it'll be too late. you'll be looking a maybe $3.00 a song by then. amazon is only tempoaraly cheaper... believe it! when CD's first came out they we're $17 with promises that when the "caught on" manuf and dup cost went down prices would too. no such luck. Big oil see's peeps paying $3.50 a gal. cuz of a "shortage" when supplies return, you think you'll see $1.20 again? THE PROBLEM IS AT THE SOURCE. the only way will be a return to illegal D/L's -mad max style!

No, I don't think you get it. There are *ALWAYS* other sources for where I can buy my music. Always. I think the problem is that someone BESIDES APPLE is bringing a service that is excellent and you just cannot accept that. Grow up. I'll go where it benefits me, the consumer, the most. Besides, I can always rummage the CD bins. I did it before. I have no problem doing it again if so need be.

Also, bringing up oil prices in a discussion about where people buy their music? Wow, just wow. Two ENTIRELY different models. Two ENTIRELY different points of discussion.

I love Apple, but Apple isn't "God" to me. Apple is a company I love because it has brought brilliant products to me that I love to use, but they are not the "end all be all" thing in my life. There are more important things to me than a Tech company.

If wal-mart, best buy, whoever offered me a better deal than Apple for a product(s) that I want. Guess what, I'm gonna go there.

w00master