Although still not lossless, a step in the right direction.

From Apple/EMI Press Conference Coverage

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=292927


Updates (Time is EDT, Chronological Order)
- 7:53am Audio Feed has become available
- 8:02 Music playing over audio feed now
- 8:06 Greetings...
- 8:09 Going to have to be patient a bit longer... live performances first.
- 8:10 Performance by The Good, The Bad, and The Queen
- 8:23 We are focused on giving the consumers a truly compelling experience
- 8:24 Our research indicates that consumers are willing to pay a higher price in order to play their music on any player.
- 8:24 Announcing premium downloads. Free from DRM, and higher sound quality.
- 8:25 Upgrade ability as well.
- From press release: $1.29 for premium tracks (DRM-less), $.99 for standard (DRM), and $.30 for upgrade
- 8:28 Steve takes stage.
- 8:29 "Next stage in the digital music revolution"
- 8:31 Premium tracks will be 256 kbps AAC
- 8:32 Available next month (May)
- From press release: All EMI music videos will also be available on the iTunes Store DRM-free with no change in price.
- 8:35 End of formal conference, begin of Q/A

- Q: When are the Beatles coming?
- A: Don't know yet.

- Q: You mentioned 2.5 million tracks available by year end... obviously that isn't just EMI...
- A: (Steve) Yes... that is our projection for other labels coming on board as well.

- Q: Now that the link between iTunes/iPod is broken, do you expect a decline in iPod sales?
- A: (Steve) I don't see a link, because you have always been able to buy music from elsewhere (CD's) and put it on your iPod. We're going to keep working to do the best job at what we do, and we are going to hope that consumers agree.

- Q: What's the point on keeping DRM on standard tracks?
- A: (Steve) We don't want to force-raise the price on anyone.

How long before the other record companies are forced to join in? I'm sure the independent companies will do so eagerly.

As for Sony/BMG, Universal & Warner -- I'm sure that the heads of a few record execs exploded this morning. But as much as they may despise Steve Jobs, I don't see how they will be able to hold out.

The BBC News website has more on this:

Apple boss Steve Jobs shared the platform with Mr Nicoli and said: "This is the next big step forward in the digital music revolution - the movement to completely interoperable DRM-free music."
He added: "The right thing to do is to tear down walls that precluded interoperability by going DRM-free and that starts here today."
Analyst Mark Mulligan, with Jupiter Research, said the announcement "changes not just the rules of the game, but the game itself".

BTW, they also mentioned that EMI albums will also be DRM-free and higher bit-rate, but without any change in price.

BTW, they also mentioned that EMI albums will also be DRM-free and higher bit-rate, but without any change in price.

That sucks. Albums are the same price but singles are $1.29? :confused:

Chris

Does this mean you could potentially get DSotM in this format and play it through the optical port of a macbook to a receiver and get all the wonderful goodness of SACD and DVD-A?

No, Google SACD or DVD-A to find out what those high res formats involve. Neither has any relevance for Apple, iTunes, Macs or optical ports. The best you could do is pick up the SACD of DSotM and import the hybrid redbook layer. If there were a DTS audio CD of DSotM, you could import that losslessly and your AVR would detect DTS, you'd get "real" DTS and surround but it would still be compressed (DTS is compressed) problem is I don't think there's an official DTS release of that title.

To me, there's nothing that sucks about this announcement, not even now paying slightly more for the higher bit rate. Win, win, win all around, except it does suck for the naysayers--music companies worrying about album sales dropping off, bang, Jobs throws them a bone by way of a little financial incentive to download an entire album, not to mention song/album upgrades for previously purchased EMI tracks, any residual EU pressure cut off at the knees, DRM and non-DRM, low and high bit rates, all coexisting on iTS--who'd have thunk it?

To me, there's nothing that sucks about this announcementTotally agreed! One interesting aspect, now, though, is that there will be 256kbps AAC tracks in the hands of copyright abiding consumers. Those tracks will be unique from anything we could digitize ourselves from CD's. Apple should be able to follow on the P2P sites how these tracks enter into the illegal download equation. Finally we'll get some real data to see how people may buy, then trade un-DRM'd music. Hopefully we'll see all of the chicken little Label nonsense dispelled, or at least clarified/quantified in the face of real data.

I'm sure Apple is watermarking these tracks somehow to 'track' the so to say. (Which I fully support, as long as I can play them on any device capable of playing AAC file unprotected) I, for one, will pay the premium when possible to support it and hope it catches on with more publishers.

This is fantastic news. When this thing goes live, I plan on jumping in and really buying alot of music. If we as consumers make this successful, perhaps movies will be next.

To me, there's nothing that sucks about this announcement...

Well I for one think it sucks I will be spending a lot more money on iTunes music most likely :P

-Jerry C.

No, Google SACD or DVD-A to find out what those high res formats involve. Neither has any relevance for Apple, iTunes, Macs or optical ports. The best you could do is pick up the SACD of DSotM and import the hybrid redbook layer. If there were a DTS audio CD of DSotM, you could import that losslessly and your AVR would detect DTS, you'd get "real" DTS and surround but it would still be compressed (DTS is compressed) problem is I don't think there's an official DTS release of that title.


Ahh, thanks for the clarification. Still, this announcement has got me pretty excited and I can't wait to start getting some of this.

I'll also be buying the non-DRM music, and upgrading my exsting stuff. I'm mainly interested in the no-limits interoperability, so I can play my entire music collection (with a growing percentage of iTMS purchased tracks) on anything I want -- any PC, any media extender, any Linux software..

The improved quality is also a plus. But, I'm curious if I'll be able to tell the difference between the two. I have decent audio equipment, but I'm no audiophile (obviously, if I'm buying highly compressed music today). I'll have to do a blind test of both formats. My skeptical side says that the difference will be minimal, and the quality increase was done mainly to make the price increase of non-DRM music more palatable.

I wonder how they'll work the song credits. I have a bunch of song credits from a credit card points program. I suppose they will only be good for .99 songs. Also, I hope my music will be upgradeable on a per-album basis, so I pay AlbumPrice*.29, not NumberOfSongs*.29.

Also, I hope my music will be upgradeable on a per-album basis, so I pay AlbumPrice*.29, not NumberOfSongs*.29.

Do you know that the DRM-free albums are the same price as the old albums? I haven't seen anything about upgrade prices for albums, but if the prices are the same, maybe it will be free. Or maybe not.

I have decent audio equipment, but I'm no audiophile (obviously, if I'm buying highly compressed music today). I'll have to do a blind test of both formats.There is a bunch of comparison information between mp3 and aac, and 128 vs 256 kbps AAC all over the web. People can compare the formats now by taking a CD, and digitizing it lossless, then converting a song to the various different formats and bitrates in iTunes. Then sit back and have someone switch them for a good blind test.

I went through this years ago when I started to digitize CDs, and I picked 256k AAC as the minimum bitrate that I found acceptable. So I digitized at 320k ;-). Today I would revisit that decision as storage is so cheap, that lossless is the only real way to go if you value fidelity.

But when I was doing my blindtests, I realized I had no way to compare the different sound files unless I had an idea of what the different formats and bit rates were doing. So I read up on it a bunch. Google is a good friend here (aac audio sound quality is a good start). Once I knew a bit about what the different compressors were doing, and how bit rate affected it, I knew what to listen for, and I could hear the differences between 128k and 256k AAC very readily in most material (though some of today's distortion-laced hit tunes that my daughter listens to actually sounded better at reduced bitrate, jk).

I think that anyone who values sound quality, has some listening experience and has a decent stereo system will hear enough difference in the two bitrates to pick one over the other. But the same person is likely to hear the differences and want to choose lossless over the 256k files for the same reasons. I think that it is much harder for the average listener to discern lossless over 256k AAC, though for a trained ear it isn't difficult. Unfortunately, time has taken its toll on my ears, and it is becoming more and more difficult to discern the difference between lossless and 256k for me. The days when I could hear the difference between a 48khz or 96khz digital recording in the studio, and the final CD product are long gone.

But for audiophiiles, I think that the whole 128k vs. 256k debate is a moot point, as most of us are looking for higher than CD quality recordings to whet our audio desire. The same goes for the DRM issue. While interesting, the move to DRM-less audio downloads will not have any impact on my purchasing behavior for audio. Now video, on the other hand is a whole 'nother story.

Do you know that the DRM-free albums are the same price as the old albums? I haven't seen anything about upgrade prices for albums, but if the prices are the same, maybe it will be free. Or maybe not.
Jobs explicitly stated that full album prices stay the same. If you buy a full album, you get the no DRM version.

I haven't seen any mention of full album upgrades. If the logic is followed through, the upgrade should be free.

I don't have much from EMI, but I have plenty of indy label music bought from iTunes that I would dearly love to upgrade.

Jobs explicitly stated that full album prices stay the same. If you buy a full album, you get the no DRM version.

I haven't seen any mention of full album upgrades. If the logic is followed through, the upgrade should be free.

I don't have much from EMI, but I have plenty of indy label music bought from iTunes that I would dearly love to upgrade.

I did not see that point about the album pricing. So, now the full album price is about the cost of 7 tracks. I guess that encourages people to buy more full albums. Along with the new "Complete My Album" feature, it seems like either Apple is trying to increase their sales or the music labels are feeling the pain of individual track sales rather than full albums (or both).

I did not see that point about the album pricing. So, now the full album price is about the cost of 7 tracks. I guess that encourages people to buy more full albums. Along with the new "Complete My Album" feature, it seems like either Apple is trying to increase their sales or the music labels are feeling the pain of individual track sales rather than full albums (or both).

It seems to me the record companies have always (going back to the days of vinyl) pushed album sales over singles. One of the reasons the iTunes store seemed like such a breakthrough in the beginning was that it didn't matter -- you could buy either and the price difference was minor.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this was a concession by Apple to the record companies. In fact, maybe this is a move to get more of them to agree to the conditions that EMI has agreed to.

Almost certainly. They are frightened at having to release 10 quality songs by the artist instead of a few per album. If all sales were to go online tomorrow, and people were willing to by just as many songs that they liked as before, the labels would still lose a huge percentage of their sales as the 95% of music that is bought offline is in album form, and you know people almost certainly want less than half of the songs they are maneuvered into purchasing this way.

BB

The improved quality is also a plus. But, I'm curious if I'll be able to tell the difference between the two. I have decent audio equipment, but I'm no audiophile (obviously, if I'm buying highly compressed music today). I'll have to do a blind test of both formats. My skeptical side says that the difference will be minimal, and the quality increase was done mainly to make the price increase of non-DRM music more palatable.


I've been an amateur musician my whole life, played a couple of insturments, and always had a small music studio. I don't have perfect picch and I'm almost 50 years old. I just took 3 songs of different type in CD quality, AAC 256k, and AAC 128k and listend to them using headphones, my studio monitors, and by home audio system. I listeded and compared diffent parts. In the end, I could not tell the difference between any of these. I'm sure some people probable can but for me it looks like AAC is fine. I'll probably rerip by CDs to AAC 256 anyway.

I've been an amateur musician my whole life, played a couple of insturments, and always had a small music studio. I don't have perfect picch and I'm almost 50 years old. I just took 3 songs of different type in CD quality, AAC 256k, and AAC 128k and listend to them using headphones, my studio monitors, and by home audio system. I listeded and compared diffent parts. In the end, I could not tell the difference between any of these. I'm sure some people probable can but for me it looks like AAC is fine. I'll probably re-rip by CDs to AAC 256 anyway.

I have never heard AAC at 256 kb/s, I will be the first to admit.

But I DEFINITELY can hear a difference between Apple lossless, MP3 at 320 kb/sand the original CD in my system (Marantz DV9600 as transport for CD's and as source for DVD-A and SACD), Marantz SR9600 receiver, connected through coaxial), Apple TV passing lossless via optical and AppleTV passing MP3@ 320 kb/s.

And beyond that, SACD and DVD-A are still way better than CD on the same music, IF the recording and mastering was done correctly (I specifi this because there are notable exceptions, as Nohra Jones original CD remastered to SACD from the CD).

I don't claim to have golden ears, but the difference is there.

I am not even close to buying my first piece of music encoded on a format that loses resolution. They aren't worthy.

Here is a www site where someone has put up samples of songs encoded using Apple Lossless format. One is done using the original source (a CD I am guessing), and the other is done from a 128kbps AAC source.

http://duxlist.com:81/


I got 3 of the 4 correct. But, the impression I came away with was that the difference was pretty subtle. The difference at 256kbps should be even smaller.

TJI ... did you listen to them on your PC ? or on your full sound system ...

I tried both my 15" MacBook Pro, and Core Duo Mini hooked via optical to my sound system. I didn't find it any easier to tell the difference on the stereo. I'm no audiophile, and I'm not sure I'm even picking up the right things to tell the difference.. In the songs I would detect a bit more depth to an instrument or more punch to a singer's voice. But, the difference was so subtle that I was not real confident in my guesses.

Looking at the results from the site, it seems like the people tested really couldn't tell the difference.. They were all close to 50%, pretty close to flipping a coin and guessing.

I still plan on buying the 256Kbps AAC files, but I'm more interested in the non-DRM aspect than any audio quality enhancement. I want to make sure I can play the music I've paid for any any device or computer, and regardless of how Apple changes their products/business in the future.