Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
|
He just admitted burning and ripping to get rid of DRM, i.e. encoding something (probably 128 kbps MP3) from a lossy 128 kbps AAC original. I'm guessing Luca isn't in the market for 256 kbps files for the sake of quality.
In all fairness, Apple-encoded 128 kbps AAC files are state of the art for lossy encodes at this bitrate. You could drive yourself nuts encoding with the finest open-source codecs in the world and still end up with something imperceptibly different. But that's not to say that there aren't songs which clearly benefit from 256 kbps AAC. Whether lossless gains you anything over 256 kbps AAC is less clear (other than the ability to make high-quality low-bitrate versions with other lossy codecs such as MP3). I'd bet only a few golden ears could tell the difference between 256 kbps Apple AAC and lossless in a blind ABX test, and even then you'd need "problem samples" such as synthetic electronic stuff. No-one on the planet can tell 256 kbps Apple AAC from 44.1 kHz 16-bit PCM for classical or similar. … engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
quote |
ಠ_ರೃ
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
Quote:
In the case of my iTunes music, though, I have so little of it and it's so inconvenient in its default state (protected AAC) that it was worth it to me to take the quality hit in order to be able to actually listen to my music when and where I want to. Also, by the time I resorted to burning and re-ripping (a practice I would not normally do), I had already sworn off the iTunes music store. In all honesty, though, I can't really tell the difference in quality between those re-ripped MP3s, Apple's standard AAC format, and my own MP3 files ripped straight from CDs. I don't have any high-end audio equipment, just a pair of decent Sennheiser headphones. |
|
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
This morning I had 1100 songs to be upgraded, now I have 1263. Good to know Apple is working hard to get the catalogue upgraded. Bad to know I just spent part of a gift certificate on a non-plus album about a week ago. Oh well.
|
quote |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
I like this move by Apple. Now they can compete with Amazon. Amazon sells 256 Kbs DRM-free MP3s. Some are cheaper than .99. Up until this announcement there was no rational reason to go with iTMS. Now their products are essentially similar. You can get MP3s and navigate trough the Amazon miasma of a website, or you can use iTunes with its seamless interface but get AAC that isn't as well supported. Reasonable decisions either way...
JTA |
quote |
rams it
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Seattle
|
I wish I was able to choose individual albums to upgrade. Like the CD I just bought last week.
At least let me upgrade my library in tiers, rather than all $100 worth at one time. You had me at asl ....... |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
Yeah, that kind of bugs me. I have to upgrade all the ones on the list, not just the songs I care about.
|
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
Eh... not exactly. Amazon had a leg up because they opened their store after 2 of 4 labels(plus many indies) went DRM-free, so they were able to claim "100% DRM free! woo!" but their catalogue was significantly smaller than the iTunes catalogue(which currently stands 10 million songs strong, wow). Now that the rest of the labels have gotten on board with DRM-free, the two services become very similar. Additionally, although iTunes has not sold $.69 songs before, They have had albums for as low as 5.99 for a long time.
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Clayton, NC
|
|
quote |
Not sayin', just sayin'
|
Good compromise. I like that Apple gets in on the no-DRM bandwagon finally, that songs are encoded at 256kbps, and that instead of my fear: $0.99, $1.29 and $1.79, we instead get $0.99 in the middle bracket. Very good deal overall IMO. I think consumers can comprehend the tiers, and hopefully a lot of album only tracks (10 minutes plus long) will go away. Anyone have confirmation on that last bit?
|
quote |
skates=grafs
Join Date: May 2005
Location: New York
|
I was really hoping they'd release a small, simple utility to strip DRM off of our already-purchased tracks. I really don't feel like paying just to free my files of DRM.
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
And doubling the bitrate...
|
quote |
@kk@pennytucker.social
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
As has been mention a few times before and I've mentioned a few times on Twitter, you're not paying to strip DRM off of your files.
You're paying to download a higher quality DRM-free file of the same song. The songs that you have already purchased were purchased with DRM. That much was certain when they were purchased. To get new DRM-free music, you have to buy new versions, which Apple is offering to you at a discounted rate. No more Twitter. It's Mastodon now. |
quote |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ireland
|
Will they be getting rid of DRM for Movies & Tv Shows?
|
quote |
@kk@pennytucker.social
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Not any time soon.
The TV studios are even worse than the record labels when it comes to DRM. |
quote |
skates=grafs
Join Date: May 2005
Location: New York
|
Quote:
They'd save on bandwidth costs! /slightly irrational response |
|
quote |
@kk@pennytucker.social
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
I'm not trying to defend Apple here in any way, but it's not just "essentially" stripping the DRM off.
You can keep your existing songs and they will play just as they have since you bought them. You're paying to download a new 256 Kbps AAC DRM free version of the 128 kbps FairPlay version that you already bought. A little different than just stripping the DRM off of the song you already have on your computer. No more Twitter. It's Mastodon now. |
quote |
skates=grafs
Join Date: May 2005
Location: New York
|
But why would you want to upgrade your songs? For the 256 encoding? Or the fact that it won't have DRM? I think, for most people, it's the latter. So yes, those people would essentially be paying for the stripping of DRM.
We have a fundamental difference with respect to the value of upgrading to 256 kbps AAC. For me, it is inconsequential. If i had the option of stripping the DRM for free from my already-purchased files or paying even 5 cents a song to replace them with iTunes plus versions, I would be perfectly happy with simply removing the DRM for free. The idea of paying for the same exact song (granted, not the same file) twice hurts my head |
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
|
quote |
M AH - ch ain saw
Join Date: May 2004
|
The only reason I'd bother upgrading the songs would be for the 256 encoding. The DRM makes even less of a difference? Unless I'm missing something.
|
quote |
@kk@pennytucker.social
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Quote:
I agree that most people would rather just take the DRM off of their existing files, but I'm sure that the record labels made sure that wouldn't be possible. They were bought under a previous contract between Apple and the labels, so I'm sure that the new deals made sure to note that it wouldn't be possible to simply strip the DRM from the existing files. No more Twitter. It's Mastodon now. |
|
quote |
skates=grafs
Join Date: May 2005
Location: New York
|
Yeah, maybe that's it. I did some research and it seems there were "utilities" available (as recently as iTunes 8.0.1) that stripped DRM off your iTunes purchases. I'm sure it isn't legal, but I will have no problem using such a utility if it becomes available for iTunes 8.0.2.
|
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
Quote:
(*yes I know it would be violating the user agreement eitherway, just sayin...) |
|
quote |
‽
|
Not true. Stripping the DRM violates the DMCA (and international equivalents like the EUCD), which states that an "effective" copy protection must not be circumvented. We can argue about whether that makes any sense (I don't believe it does), but it has been effective law for a while.
|
quote |
skates=grafs
Join Date: May 2005
Location: New York
|
The only reason I would strip the DRM if given the chance is because I have changed email addresses quite a bit since I started buying songs (and along with it, my Apple ID). So I have, I think, 6 different email address/password combos to remember. I'm sure that at some point I will get a new computer and not remember the Apple ID I used from 7 years ago.
|
quote |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: United Chavdom of Little Britain
|
I went onto the UK iTunes store this morning to check out what those price changes were like in pounds and pence. Everything was showing up as being iTunes+ for 79p (which was the old standard price). So I checked out the UK pricing announcement and guess what, despite everything moving over to iTunes+, the price has remained the same - no tiers. A quick glance at the French Apple site seems to indicate that this is the same in the rest of Europe.
So the thing that I'm wondering is, why were record companies so desperate for tiered pricing in the 'States but not Europe? "It's like a new pair of underwear. At first it's constrictive, but after a while it becomes a part of you." |
quote |
‽
|
|
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: United Chavdom of Little Britain
|
|
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
Page 2 of 3 Previous 1 [2] 3 Next |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
making alias for itunes library | milky | Genius Bar | 3 | 2008-02-17 14:13 |
help moving ITunes Folder | nggrant | Genius Bar | 0 | 2007-04-01 21:15 |
Apple will keep songs $.99 on iTunes (I'm making this up) | lectro | Speculation and Rumors | 10 | 2006-01-10 08:00 |
Best Price for Adobe CS2 Standard/Premium? | Mr Ten | Purchasing Advice | 5 | 2005-11-27 14:06 |
iTunes - subscription model ? | Franz Josef | Speculation and Rumors | 10 | 2005-06-10 02:15 |