Skip to main content
Topic: EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes (Read 66909 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #25
I just want lossless..Is it so hard DRM free lossless!!! Imagine!

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #26
I saw this post on MacDailyNews.com and it was so good I am repeating it here:

"The big win here is that Apple is really cementing AAC as the "legal" audio standard, and stopping WMA from going any further."

I thought about the author's statement that I quoted above, and this new move to make 256K AAC the "de facto" music store (read iTunes) standard for HQ non-DRM audio will likely help to further replace MP3's popularity with AAC, and also serve to get rid of the spread of DRM-laded WMA audio files plus the proprietary WMA non-DRM audio file format as well.

Can we say goodbye to Microsoft's stranglehold on the audio file format... Goodbye WMA...Rest in peace.

Now Microsoft will have to also play and/or convert AAC/M4A files for use in Windows Media Player and XP/Vista, to avoid the EU coming down on them with fines for not being interoperable with the AAC/MPEG 4 audio international standard

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #27
That is indeed an interesting idea, specially considering WMA Standard's bitrates don't even go beyond 192kbps.

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #28
I can't see paying these kind of prices for lossy content.  People who spend a buck a track for lossy are either stupid or desperate.  Lossless is another story.  I'd pay a buck to get the entire track.

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #29
So now that we have 256K AAC as the "new base standard" to replace the old 128K AAC and MP3 sold via online stores, I guess I will ask the enevitable question:  When will he have a 256K AAC listening test on HA?

LAME 256K MP3 vs. iTunes 256K AAC encoder vs. Nero 256K AAC vs. Ogg Vorbis 256K vs. Coding Technology 256k AAC

How many of the above encoders have been tuned with 256K bitrate in mind? Perhaps now the developers will have to go back to re-tune/optimize them for the 256K bitrate, like they have been doing with 128K for years.

A more appropriate test would be one that compares first-generational transcodes to MP3/Vorbis/etc. for transparency by target bitrate.

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #30
I can't see paying these kind of prices for lossy content.  People who spend a buck a track for lossy are either stupid or desperate.  Lossless is another story.  I'd pay a buck to get the entire track.

The record label (EMI, in this case) wants people to buy full albums, hence the same price (usually $9.99) with no price increase for the higher quality, DRM-free 256K AAC versions.  256K Lossy is not bad, and Apple probably couldn't budge EMI to go for full-lossless at those prices.

Remember, that this is a watershed moment for digital music sales online. None of the Major 4 labels ever before has allowed any online music store to sell most of their catalogs as non-DRM music. Steve Jobs (Apple) broke down the wall with EMI, and has 3 more "Goliath's" to contend/negotiate with to agree to DRM-free, let alone lossless. I think 256K is a good "compromise" for now to get the other major players to even talk about removing the DRM. Steve Jobs tossed them a bit more money, for singles and not full albums, to try and persuade the other 3 to "play ball".

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #31
People who spend a buck a track for lossy are either stupid or desperate.


Or they're just not smug enough to believe they could hear the difference, hmmm?

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #32
Anyone know whether it's iTunes 256k CBR, or 256k "VBR" (which is really ABR)?

I agree that it's reasonable to ask for lossless tracks at $0.99, and I hope that this marks a step in that direction.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the additional bandwidth required to sell lossless albums is cheaper than the materials, manufacturing/packaging, distribution, etc. for selling compact discs.

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #33
yep, if you like the whole album, buying the CD is still cheaper for us but way more expensive for everyone else in the food chain.  so either the price difference has to narrow or album crappiness ratio has to increase.  I think this deal is another baby step towards the former.

downloads might be able to keep a little premium for the convenience/instant gratification factor.

Jsh

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #34
I'm kinda confused by all of this. Why would Apple release music in AAC at 256kbps?

AAC at 128kbps was pretty decent seeing that it was likely encoded directly from the source. It was by no means the best for the typical HA member, but it at least offered a good compromise for size vs. quality, that is for the average iTunes customer. If they had bumped up the quality to around 160-192kbps it probably would have been good enough for many HA members, but 256kbps seems to be a bit overkill. It's not good enough for the most puritan of audiophiles, yet it seems a little big for what mainstream users want, considering that they probably own either an iPod mini or nano and lack the room. The way I think if it, for the average listener, they are not going to hear a dramatic difference in quality, they are simply going to notice an increase in footprint and price. Audiophiles are not going to buy it because they probably would still rather have the CD. So what is the point?

I will say though that had they bumped the sample freq. to 96kHz that maybe something different.

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #35
seems a little big for what mainstream users want, considering that they probably own either an iPod mini or nano and lack the room.


Recall that iTunes already offers iPod shuffle owners the option of downcoding to 128kbps when syncing -- offering the same for the nano might be an option in the future.

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #36
I'm kinda confused by all of this. Why would Apple release music in AAC at 256kbps?
I think that you make a very good point.  256 is really a halfway house that doesn't suit anyone.  128 is fine for portable use, and 256 is not good enough for archiving.  I don't use iTunes, but if I did I would rather the choice of 128kbps DRM-free I think.

That said, it is still good news.  One would presume that they could offer 128kbps as well in the near future, and who knows, maybe even Apple Lossless or very high bitrate AAC.  I'm not sure I would be overly happy transcoding from 256kbps.
I'm on a horse.

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #37
I can't see paying these kind of prices for lossy content.  People who spend a buck a track for lossy are either stupid or desperate.  Lossless is another story.  I'd pay a buck to get the entire track.


Well then, call me stupid.  The iTunes Store is very useful for purchasing singles that are released months before the albums come out.  I would gladly spend $1.00 on a new single to get it here now than either have to hunt that CD single down in the store (which would easily cost $3.00 or more) or illegally download some internet radio rip that has terrible quality.  I don't purchase full albums off of iTunes and I don't purchase other tracks, just new singles.

Besides, if my lossy library consists of 128kbps VBR AAC files (I certainly can't hear the difference), then what loss do I endure by downloading single 128kbps VBR/CBR AAC files?

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #38
That is indeed an interesting idea, specially considering WMA Standard's bitrates don't even go beyond 192kbps.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but WMA 9.2 Standard can encode to over 320kbps at its max quality setting. From personal experience,  I can tell you that this capability has existed from at least version 9.0. Unsure about previous versions since I didn't use the codec then.
EAC>1)fb2k>LAME3.99 -V 0 --vbr-new>WMP12 2)MAC-Extra High

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #39
I will say though that had they bumped the sample freq. to 96kHz that maybe something different.

It would be difficult for that to have made any sense, since we're assuming their sources are CDs, and a CD's frequency is 44kHz. I would be quite surprised if Apple had access to every label's (whose content they provide) master tapes to provide iTunes with songs (that's also assuming that the content was recorded at 96kHz).


EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #41
Good move from Apple and EMI.

The upgrade from 128 to 256Kbps will just make other record companies look bad : 128K with DRM, WTF, will think people. Sure the bump was planned to make other record companies move.

Now the holy grail is DRM free Lossless. They'll have to do it some day. Popular electronic music
stores like junowdownload and beatport already have it for some time. It's expensive but it's worth it if you care about your music more about just playing it on you ipod or crappy PC speakers.

Btw I barf everytime I hear some people converting lossy to lossy : digital crap.

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #42
I can't see paying these kind of prices for lossy content.  People who spend a buck a track for lossy are either stupid or desperate.  Lossless is another story.  I'd pay a buck to get the entire track.

give it time ... this is a really excellent first step on the right direction ... also, full albums are cheaper than single songs.

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #43

I will say though that had they bumped the sample freq. to 96kHz that maybe something different.

It would be difficult for that to have made any sense, since we're assuming their sources are CDs, and a CD's frequency is 44kHz. I would be quite surprised if Apple had access to every label's (whose content they provide) master tapes to provide iTunes with songs (that's also assuming that the content was recorded at 96kHz).


Yes that's true if they did record off CDs, but is that what iTunes does? I doubt it.

Plus this little bit from Apple's announcement got me to thinking as well:


"DRM-free tracks from EMI will be offered at higher quality 256 kbps AAC encoding, resulting in audio quality indistinguishable from the original recording, for just $1.29 per song."


Now in order to make that statement even remotely true they would have to be encoding from the original recordings. Plus most original masters these days have a sampling freq. at 96kHz. So it is plausible they could do that.

Here's another interesting note from the release:


"Apple® today announced that EMI Music’s entire digital catalog of music will be available for purchase DRM-free (without digital rights management) from the iTunes® Store (www.itunes.com) worldwide in May."


This is also a little odd. Apple is announcing this a month in advance. Usually they would release the same day as the announcement, so why the hold up?

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #44
Btw I barf everytime I hear some people converting lossless to lossless : digital crap.
I'm not totally against it if needs must, but 256kbps would make me very uneasy.  Of course, as someone who archives to lossless I would only be totally happy with a lossless download. 128kbps is fine for a cheap 'n' cheerful fix though, like if you have a song going around you head and need to hear it, or you need a sudden nostalgia fix.

Anyway, I risk going too far OT...
I'm on a horse.

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #45
Quote
Btw I barf everytime I hear some people converting lossless to lossless : digital crap.


Unless there is some new revelation about how encoders work, lossless to lossless is... Lossless

And about the topic, I think DRM free is great. It is a step in the right direction. But I still wouldn't buy lossy files for that much.

If their objective is beating piracy, then having lossy files that cost money is not as good as free, possibly lossless music on P2P. The record companies will never give out free music, so the only way to beat piracy is to offer higher quality music.
And if you believe theres not a chance to die...

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #46


I will say though that had they bumped the sample freq. to 96kHz that maybe something different.

It would be difficult for that to have made any sense, since we're assuming their sources are CDs, and a CD's frequency is 44kHz. I would be quite surprised if Apple had access to every label's (whose content they provide) master tapes to provide iTunes with songs (that's also assuming that the content was recorded at 96kHz).


Yes that's true if they did record off CDs, but is that what iTunes does? I doubt it.

Plus this little bit from Apple's announcement got me to thinking as well:


"DRM-free tracks from EMI will be offered at higher quality 256 kbps AAC encoding, resulting in audio quality indistinguishable from the original recording, for just $1.29 per song."


Now in order to make that statement even remotely true they would have to be encoding from the original recordings. Plus most original masters these days have a sampling freq. at 96kHz. So it is plausible they could do that.
Sorry.  Welcome to marketing spin.  Apple, at one point, also tried to spin their 128Kbps AAC "as good as the original recording."  I think Jobs even implied it might be better than CD in one of the keynotes.  iTunes Music providers submit standard audio CDs compressed in Apple Lossless to Apple.  They are then encoded to 128Kbps AAC for sale... and now, it seems, they'll also be encoded to 256Kbps AAC for sale at a higher cost.

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #47
Quote
Btw I barf everytime I hear some people converting lossless to lossless : digital crap.


Unless there is some new revelation about how encoders work, lossless to lossless is... Lossless



edited  thanks

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #48
This is a great move by EMI and Apple.

It neatly shuts Norway up about iTunes DRM.

It goes to an area that subscription services cannot follow.

It improves the audio with double the bitrate. Lossless ain't happening folks. Buy that thing called a CD if you want lossless.

It removes barriers toward using iTunes and playing content on non Apple players like Squeezboxes and more.

If Apple can hit their goal of 2.5 million DRM free songs I predict no only will they not lose marketshare but they'll actually grow it.

I still buy CDs when there are 3 or more songs that I really like.  But not every album hits that requirement.  I'm glad that I have the option to get better quality tracks still at an affordable price and I don't need to worry about authorizations.  Cool

EMI and Apple to remove DRM from most of their music on iTunes

Reply #49
It neatly shuts Norway up about iTunes DRM.


There are more (and bigger) record companies than EMI in this world, and until iTS ONLY sells DRM-free files the ongoing case will not stop. Personally i hope that iTS will be shut down here just to make a point.
myspace.com/borgei - last.fm/user/borgei

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019