Update: C|Net refutes the claims..we'll have to wait until Macworld it looks like
Well, we saw a preview a few weeks ago (and a week before that). For a brief period of time, you could update some of your Sony, Warner and Universal iTunes to high quality DRM free version. But that capability was taken down as quickly as it was put up. Likely just a false start.
If the end of Music DRM is tomorrow, Apple doesn't plan on having a big event for it. You'd think this would be a big show, but no invitations mean no party or liveblogs or anything fun. French website Eletron Libre has the goods:
...The signals are clear today. iTunes should offer catalogs of three majors Universal Music, SonyBMG Music and Waner [sic] rid of technological protection measures next Tuesday, Dec. 9. The transition to DRM Free should be at a global level...
If it ain't tomorrow, it will by Macworld. We wonder if this has anything to do with the Netgear announcement?
Will you miss DRM? Will you cry? How about when Apple turns off those validation servers and all of the old, DRM'd music is orphanned?
[Electron Libre via AppleInsider via Gizmodo]
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Comments
I hate that you can't
I hate that you can't selectively upgrade your library. I have to upgrade everything, even the crap I listened to once and hated.
Hated it?
If you listened to it once and hated it, why don't you just delete it from your library?
Re: Hated it?
Techgirl wrote:
>If you listened to it once and hated it, why don't you just delete it from your library?
Duhh, because we paid for it. Have you ever deleted any song you actually paid for?
Well if you had a ripped
Well if you had a ripped shirt would you keep it just b/c you bought it?
Yes. I back it up first, of
Yes. I back it up first, of course.
As much as I would like this
As much as I would like this to happen today, I believe we need to wait for Steve to announce this in January.
Were I live it is 1 am right
Were I live it is 1 am right now. That page for upgrading your library is back. You click itunes plus and its one of the options. Its $2.10 for 7 songs.
I'm wondering how you managed
I'm wondering how you managed to accumulate so many podcasts.
Am I missing something
Am I missing something here?
This offer has been around for a long, long time. I've checked it plenty of times over the past nine months or so and it has always had the same songs and albums listed.
I don't think this is anything new.
Well..
I'm not buying any music from iTunes until they can offer it to me in a lossless format, I'm not paying for 128kbps which is a fraction of the quality of a CD.
Billy, I have news for you:
Billy, I have news for you: CD audio is lossy compression.
Um... no it isn't... the
Um... no it isn't... the "compression" used in CD mastering is DYNAMIC compression (having to do with volume levels), not DATA compression!!!! CD's are full 16-bit PCM code, with a complete data stream...
Now, this is not to say that the original MULTITRACK recordings aren't at a higher sample and bit rate, as most modern DAW's are typically 96khz (or higher) sample rate with 24-bit (or 32-bit floating point) resolution. But, obviously, not too many consumers can play a 192khz 32-bit CD, so this gets reduced either during the mixdown or mastering stages of production.
Once a CD is pre-mastered for 44.1khz 16-bit, the data remains intact throughout the entire replication process and is still there when you buy the CD.
Sorry to be a stickler for details, but I'm tired of people getting this wrong!!!
You are technically correct,
You are technically correct, but bottom line, you can't get the fidelity back from the original master.
What everyone forgets is that the iTMS tracks are mastered from the 96/32 masters, so in theory, could sound better.
Also, people forget that iTunes Plus are 256kbps, not 128. It's pretty darn good.
I hate to break this to you,
I hate to break this to you, but CD audio is lossy when it comes to amount of information. Proof: CD audio can store limited information. Actual sound has infinite amount of information.
Of course you can argue that the CD audio covers the range audible to human ear. But let me point out it actually exceeds that range. The first thing advanced codecs such as AAC do is remove information human ear cannot possibly even hear. Just by doing that AAC achieves significant results.
Your ear doesn't know the difference between CD audio and 256 kbps AAC. Get over it.
OK... If you want to get
OK... If you want to get REALLY stupid about this, there is NOT A SINGLE MICROPHONE ON THE MARKET that has the frequency response and dynamic range that 192khz 32-bit audio is theoretically capable of. Not to mention that even the most state-of-the-art 24-bit D/A converter is not capable of providing the full 144dB theoretical dynamic range due to component limitations. So, using this argument, you could say ALL digital audio is "lossy", except you'd be WRONG because in audio "lossy" refers to information lost by some DATA COMPRESSION CODEC. (and YES, I CAN hear the difference between a 256kbps AAC file and a 44.1khz 16-bit uncompressed PCM file of the same material... it is quite significant if your ears are trained to listen that closely...) In CD production, data compression is NEVER used to reduce a file from 32 or 24 bits down to a 16-bit CD pre-master!!! Instead, us mastering engineers employ dithering... other times, we might simply add in an analog step between a D/A converter and an A/D converter and everything else works out all by itself. The biggest overlooked FACT is that most modern rock or pop CD's are mastered with only about the equivalent of a 4-bit resolution... and this trend is caused by record company and consumer preference... Blame them for crappy audio, not anything else...
44.1khz 16-bit audio is
44.1khz 16-bit audio is capable of 96 dB dynamic range and a frequency response from 4-22,050Hz, but it has been a documented fact that some humans can detect 50,000Hz or higher. AAC (and MP3) encoding actually MASKS the least significant portion of the audio in favor of what's most prominent in the forground, while severely rolling off the high-frequency response from about 12,000Hz up. What you end up losing is any "depth" in the audio, along with a good portion of the stereo detail and any reverb trails that were present in the unencoded source. To delude yourself that a 256kbps file is as good as a CD is a big mistake! In actuality, an AAC file, in some ways, is an equivalent to a mass-produced cassette tape without the hiss!
"but it has been a documented
"but it has been a documented fact that some humans can detect 50,000Hz or higher"
Really? You should quickly edit Wikipedia where it is meantioned on several articles on topics of ear, hearing and acoustics that human ear can normally detect frequencies only up to 20 kHz.
Do a search for Geoff
Do a search for Geoff Emerick... the legendary Beatles engineer... He had Rupert Neve (world-renowned recording console designer) do a test on Abbey Road's Neve console because one channel sounded different than all the others. As it turns out, after much analysis, Geoff was hearing the side-bands of frequencies above 50kHz in all the channels except for the one in question... which lead to a study by AES engineers to look into this phenomenon. It IS possible to perceive these frequencies, and their harmonics interact with the normal human auditory range. Why else would pro audio gear use a sample rate of 192kHz (which has a fequency response of 4-96,000Hz) if those frequencies don't make a difference? Why would they even bother wasting all the space the data from those frequencies takes up on a hard drive if it doesn't make a difference? Why do DVD's have a 96kHz sample rate and go up to 48,000Hz if it doesn't make a difference? Sometimes wikipedia doesn't cover all the bases... ESPECIALLY when it comes to AUDIO ENGINEERING.
YES! Finally someone who
YES! Finally someone who understands the Nyquist frequencies!!!
Sorry- I got the facts of
Sorry- I got the facts of the Emerick situation wrong... It was actually at George Martin's AIR studios where this took place, and 3 channels on the Neve in question had 3 mis-wired transformers that had perceiveable problems at 54kHz that Geoff was hearing. Either way, the guy could still hear it...
>>If you listened to it once
>>If you listened to it once and hated it, why don't you just delete it from your library?<<
It doesn't work that way, it updates what you bought and downloaded not what you still own.