Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > EMI DRM Free Music

EMI DRM Free Music (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 11:24 PM
 
The "quality" argument is bogus, given that almost no one will actually be able to hear any difference anyway. Ultimately, all you're really paying for is the fair use rights you're already guaranteed by law and therefore should be getting for free.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 11:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
The "quality" argument is bogus, given that almost no one will actually be able to hear any difference anyway. Ultimately, all you're really paying for is the fair use rights you're already guaranteed by law and therefore should be getting for free.
Perhaps it is bogus, but the file is 2x larger, so some more bandwidth cost is inevitable. DRM or not, a 256kbps file would cost more.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
The "quality" argument is bogus, given that almost no one will actually be able to hear any difference anyway. Ultimately, all you're really paying for is the fair use rights you're already guaranteed by law and therefore should be getting for free.
You can hear the difference between 128 and 256 quite clearly. Anything above 192 is bogus, I agree, but 128 is pretty low quality.
     
zro
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The back of the room
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2007, 11:51 PM
 
You don't buy any rights with these files, you buy a license.
     
parsec_kadets
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Golden, CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2007, 12:42 PM
 
This story on Gizmodo disappoints me. According to an EMI senior VP...
Those stores can put songs in any format they want. The iTunes premium price and AAC 256 kbps format are Apple's Marketing decision.
So does that imply that EMI offered Apple non-DRM music at the same price as what they're paying now and Apple's the one saddling us with the extra 30 cents? Don't get me wrong, I'm excited about the extra quality, but if this is true then it leads me to believe that the skepticism Jobs received from his open letter may have been deserved. Is he really interested in freeing us from DRM because it's a huge failure and really has the consumer's best interests at heart, or did he just see it as an opportunity to make a quick buck? It also would then mean that someone (everyone else?) will offer non-DRM music for 99 cents.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2007, 01:20 PM
 
I disagree. If you want to convince the music companies that getting rid of DRM is a good idea, you have to have a means to show them that consumers value DRM-free music. The way to do that is to charge a different price for it.

I think that the increased bitrate confuses the issue somewhat in consumers' favor. That is, many consumers will pay the extra 30 cents just for the higher bitrate, but Apple can then go to the other music companies and "prove" to them that we will pay for DRM-free music.
     
macintologist
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2007, 03:32 PM
 
Anybody who claims they can hear the difference between 256k AAC and uncompressed AIFF are probably mentally disabled.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2007, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by macintologist View Post
Anybody who claims they can hear the difference between 256k AAC and uncompressed AIFF are probably mentally disabled.
There are people who claim to hear the difference between a pressed CD and a burned CDR bit by bit copy. What are they?

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2007, 03:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
There are people who claim to hear the difference between a pressed CD and a burned CDR bit by bit copy. What are they?
Millionaires, in all probability.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2007, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Salty View Post
This is kind of cool. Doesn't seem to be available in Canada. Thankfully most of the independent labels I listen to are somewhat owned by EMI. I could see myself downloading some higher quality versions, I don't know for sure that I'd want to really. I do like the idea of burning large MP3 mix CDs which i can't do as of now without screwing with a CD RW. It's not worth my time to do the 700+ tracks that I've bought on iTunes in the last two years. Besides thankfully I stripped some of those with JHymn anyway. Why? Am I gonna say I've never given an album away to a friend? Nope I have. At the same time I typically tell them to buy the stuff that they like. But often I just wanted to put it on a friend's computer.
Here you go:

<deleted -- Do we really need several pages of that?>



V
( Last edited by icruise; Apr 3, 2007 at 08:13 PM. )
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2007, 08:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by macintologist View Post
Anybody who claims they can hear the difference between 256k AAC and uncompressed AIFF are probably mentally disabled.
Or have better hearing than you. 256 is a big improvement over 128, but not as good as lossless. However, depending on where and how you listen to music, it may not matter. My friend was nuts when I compared $600 CD players and could easily tell the difference between them. I would have purchased a $1000 CD player if I could afford it.

Another thing to note that the iTMS compresses their tracks from the original source, which is higher quality than CD - it's possible that some tracks can sound better in AAC than the CD.
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2007, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo View Post
There are people who claim to hear the difference between a pressed CD and a burned CDR bit by bit copy. What are they?
Delusional.

When there are people like that, there are scams to take their money. Some of the more ridiculous products I've seen are little stands to put your speaker wire on so it doesn't touch the floor, and CD demagnetizers.
     
iDaver
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2007, 09:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mastrap View Post
You can hear the difference between 128 and 256 quite clearly.
I've tried. I can't. So will I pay extra for DRM-free music that takes up more space on my iPod? Doubtful.
     
macintologist
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2007, 09:49 PM
 
I'm in the same boat. I can't hear any compression artifacts in 128k aac. 128k mp3.. yes. 96k aac.. yes. 128k aac..? No.
     
G-Force
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Gainesville, FL, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2007, 08:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Well, the filesize for Apple lossless is huge in comparison. It's on average around 60% of the original PCM audio file, and the normal uncompressed audio is 1.4 Mbps.

You do the math.
I'm sure the filesize was a consideration. However, I suspect that most people downloading from ITMS are using broadband anyway. And if they have the lossless file, they can convert it to AAC in any bitrate they choose. Lossless provides options.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2007, 08:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by hayesk View Post
Delusional.

When there are people like that, there are scams to take their money. Some of the more ridiculous products I've seen are little stands to put your speaker wire on so it doesn't touch the floor, and CD demagnetizers.
I once saw an ad for a CD cleaning kit that was supposed to enhance the highs...
     
parsec_kadets
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Golden, CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2007, 02:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by macintologist View Post
I'm in the same boat. I can't hear any compression artifacts in 128k aac. 128k mp3.. yes. 96k aac.. yes. 128k aac..? No.
Wait a minute. Now I'm not an audiophile, and I'm usually satisfied by the music sold through iTunes. But isn't there no difference in sound quality between tracks recorded at the same bit rate but different formats? I thought 128k was 128k, regardless of whether it was AAC, MP3, or WMA. I thought the difference was in the file size such that a 128k AAC was a smaller file than a 128k MP3. Is it the other way around?
     
iDaver
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2007, 03:03 PM
 
AAC results in a slightly smaller file and a slightly higher sound quality at the same bit rate as MP3.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2007, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by parsec_kadets View Post
Wait a minute. Now I'm not an audiophile, and I'm usually satisfied by the music sold through iTunes. But isn't there no difference in sound quality between tracks recorded at the same bit rate but different formats? I thought 128k was 128k, regardless of whether it was AAC, MP3, or WMA. I thought the difference was in the file size such that a 128k AAC was a smaller file than a 128k MP3. Is it the other way around?
The bit rate does affect file size. And that is constant across the different formats. However, all formats are not created equal. AAC is the successor to MP3. You can think of it as an "audio MP4". In short, an AAC will have superior sound quality to an MP3 at the same bit rates. And an AAC can produce the same quality as an MP3 at a lower bit rate.

OAW
     
iDaver
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2007, 07:32 PM
 
OAW is correct. I don't know what I was thinking. I stand corrected.

Kilobits per second is the same regardless of encoding method. Import settings, such as variable bit rate, can affect file size.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2007, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by iDaver View Post
I've tried. I can't. So will I pay extra for DRM-free music that takes up more space on my iPod? Doubtful.
There's no DRM on them. So if you want you can make 64kbit files for your iPod. Doubles the amount of songs you can get on your Shuffle.
     
iDaver
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2007, 07:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
There's no DRM on them. So if you want you can make 64kbit files for your iPod. Doubles the amount of songs you can get on your Shuffle.
Oh yeah? How's that work? I've never down-converted to a smaller file size. How does that affect sound quality, say if I was to down-convert a 256Kbps AAC song file to 128Kbps? Would I end up with the same quality as buying 128Kbps to begin with? My understanding has been that converting already-compressed music is a no no.

Sounds like a good idea, what you're suggesting, if one is pressed for space.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2007, 08:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by iDaver View Post
Oh yeah? How's that work? I've never down-converted to a smaller file size. How does that affect sound quality, say if I was to down-convert a 256Kbps AAC song file to 128Kbps? Would I end up with the same quality as buying 128Kbps to begin with?
Theoretically, you're probably better of working from an uncompressed file, but personally I don't think it would result in an appreciable difference compared to files that were originally 128kbps.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2007, 08:15 PM
 
256 kps is a pretty darn good quality source. A downconverted file to 128 kbit might technically not be quite as good as one created from CD, but I doubt the difference is audible. And you are not downconverting for use with your $5000 home stereo. You are downconverting for use with your $80 portable music player for use on the train or plane.
     
iDaver
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2007, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
You are downconverting for use with your $80 portable music player for use on the train or plane.
That's a bit of an extreme condition you describe. I'd be down converting so that I can continue to have 400 songs on my nano; not just 200. I usually listen to my iPod in a quiet environment and while I don't profess to have the best ears, I do like good sound. 128K AAC has always sounded pretty good to me.

On another note, 95% of the music (a lot) I've bought from iTS has been full albums. So, the price increase for single songs at higher bit rate won't affect me much. What will affect me most is that my library size will begin to increase by a factor of two and my iPod won't hold as many songs (unless I down convert for that, which will increase my overall storage needs by a factor of three)! Removal of the DRM is really a non-issue for me.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2007, 09:46 PM
 
The shuffle, by the way, has an option to automatically down convert any music you sync to 128kbps. It might be nice if they did the same for all iPods.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 12:23 AM
 
How is iTunes's security now? Last time I checked, I was not really impressed. I didn't like it showing my credit card number in the clear.

I think this is a great move. DRM was a complete show-stopper for me. If I'm buying digital files, I want them to last forever, not just till the next standard comes along (see e.g. Microsoft's Plays for Sure). I'll buy the music now. The price increase isn't that bad.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 12:50 AM
 
When does iTunes show your credit card number at all? It's stored on Apple's site in your account information, so it isn't necessary to transmit the number or display it at any time (or so I would have thought).
     
zro
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The back of the room
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 02:45 AM
 
I'd buy them so SlimServer (or umpteen other piece of software) could have a go at them.
     
parsec_kadets
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Golden, CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
How is iTunes's security now? Last time I checked, I was not really impressed. I didn't like it showing my credit card number in the clear.

I think this is a great move. DRM was a complete show-stopper for me. If I'm buying digital files, I want them to last forever, not just till the next standard comes along (see e.g. Microsoft's Plays for Sure). I'll buy the music now. The price increase isn't that bad.
First, the only time your credit card info is displayed at all is when you go to the account information page, and you have to enter your password to even get there. The only time I ever go there is when I need to update my address, or my card expires. Second, I went to the page just now to see if it would show the full card number, and it doesn't. It only shows the last 4.

If security is still a concern, then don't allow iTunes to store your password. The first time you buy a song iTunes will ask you to login. Part of this dialog is a check box called "Remember password for purchasing." As long as you don't check that box iTunes will ask you for your password every time you buy a song. I trust iTunes a lot more than I trust a waitress to not write my card number down when I eat out.
     
TheMosco
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2007, 04:06 PM
 
I am thinking that the 30 cent price difference isn't going to last forever. I have worked with 2 companies that deal with distributing DRM Music, both dealing directory with the record labels instead of going through musicnet like some of the bigger WMA players. There is a business relationship that you have to respect, as frustrating as the labels can be.


If I were a record label, and I saw apple offering DRM free content at the same price as my music, I would be pretty pissed. I think apple is hoping that there will be a demand for the higher quality singles along with an increase in album sales out of EMI. Then they can go to the other labels and show them that selling music without DRM will work. People want it.

Now I could be completely wrong, and apple could be just looking to make some extra cash and force people to buy 160 gig ipods with all the space the songs take up, but lets not jump to any hasty conclusions.
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:34 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,