EMI and Apple sign deal to provide higher quality, non-DRM downloads

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contrastique /img/forum/go_quote.gif And costumers are not getting educated..they just buy what they are being offered imo.

You are likely right about that, unfortunately.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy /img/forum/go_quote.gif As it stands right now, this is probably a decent solution versus buying CDs if you only want one song off an album.

Exactly. The $1.29 charge is high, though.

 

[rhythmicmoose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnOYiN /img/forum/go_quote.gif If they are not going to sell lossless formats it's not really interesting IMO. Maybe in a few years they will.

Not so fast. This sets an extraordinarily important precedent for 1) increases in sound quality and 2) offering purchasable upgrades to the higher quality.

Right now lossless music collections aren't really a feasible option for most of the iTunes market. As drive price/capacity continues to fall, lossless becomes an increasingly likely move for Apple. But you're right, we're definitely a few years out.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmicmoose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not so fast. This sets an extraordinarily important precedent for 1) increases in sound quality and 2) offering purchasable upgrades to the higher quality. But you're right, we're definitely a few years out.

I agree, a good sign for the future, but not what I want. Lossy is still lossy, and sounds like it. Gimme FLAC already!!

Aside from which, eMusic already offers VBRs, and they are the only service that I regularly buy from. VBRs still don't sound as good as FLAC, but they are a big improvement over 128K or 256K. So why couldn't EMI have gone at least that far?

If they would sell me VBRs, I'd consider buying from them.

 

[goldenratiophi]

I'm sold. I could tell 128kbps iTunes AAC from lossless, but as hard as I try, I cannot tell 192 CBR AAC from lossless. 256 is more than good enough, and at $9.99 an album with no DRM and no driving to the CD store, I really don't see a reason I shouldn't use iTunes (at least for my EMI needs).

Also, if iTunes is ever able to sell lossless downloads, I'm sure they'll offer an upgrade opportunity similar to this one.

Now all we need are the indie labels and the other 3 of the Big 4 to allow this, and I'll be set.

 

[krmathis]

This is a huge step in the right direction. Dropping DRM and raise the bitrate from 128 to 256kbps. Hopefully their next step will be Apple Lossless files.
When that happens I will buy my second song on iTunes Store...

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree, a good sign for the future, but not what I want. Lossy is still lossy, and sounds like it. Gimme FLAC already!! Aside from which, eMusic already offers VBRs, and they are the only service that I regularly buy from. VBRs still don't sound as good as FLAC, but they are a big improvement over 128K or 256K. So why couldn't EMI have gone at least that far? If they would sell me VBRs, I'd consider buying from them.

Your reason doesn't make a lot of sense. 320kbps VBR MP3 is almost certainly inferior sounding to 256kbps VBR AAC. MP3 is old technology as far as audio coding goes... it's already 18 years old. Most of the really good work in audio coding was done in the mid 90s. The files Apple is offering here are as good as lossy gets. The AAC standard doesn't go beyond 256kbps VBR anyway (though it will do up to 320kbps CBR).

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenratiophi /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm sold. I cannot tell 192 CBR AAC from lossless. Now all we need are the indie labels and the other 3 of the Big 4 to allow this, and I'll be set.

If it's indie you want, you really should check out eMusic. They've got 1 million + tracks, all on indie labels, and everything is MP3 VBR encoded. With NO DRM of any kind.

You will find Arcade Fire, Joanna Newsome, Explosions in the Sky, etc...

They have a free tryout deal, where you get 25 free tracks, your choice, no limitations. This is a great way to explore the site, with no risk.

You DO have to provide a credit card number to get the trial, and you have to remember to cancel before the trial period ends, in order to avoid the first monthly charge (it's subscription based).

I've been a member since late '05, so my subscription terms are $20 for 90 tracks/month. The prices have since gone up, so I think new subscribers get 75 tracks/month for the same $20. Please check out the terms for yourself, if you are curious, as I signed up a long time ago.

Criticisms?

1) Unused tracks expire at the end of your month -- use 'em or lose 'em

2) Occasionally, you will come across an album with a track or two inexplicably unavailable (no explanation given, but I'm betting there's some sort of publishing BS behind this.)

3) The selection is truly broad, but not comprehensive. I've been puzzled by a few things they haven't had, and shocked to find certain other stuff, like some of the pre-Dookie Green Day.

4) The search function works well, but the site is not really well designed for browsing, in my opinion. There's an overwhelming amount of stuff, and I wish they would come up with a better metaphor for "thumbing through the bins."

5) No artwork/graphics.

Anyway, by now you probably think I work for them (I don't), so I should shut up.

 

[goldenratiophi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif If it's indie you want, you really should check out eMusic. They've got 1 million + tracks, all on indie labels, and everything is MP3 VBR encoded. With NO DRM of any kind. You will find Arcade Fire, Joanna Newsome, Explosions in the Sky, etc... They have a free tryout deal, where you get 25 free tracks, your choice, no limitations. This is a great way to explore the site, with no risk. You DO have to provide a credit card number to get the trial, and you have to remember to cancel before the trial period ends, in order to avoid the first monthly charge (it's subscription based). I've been a member since late '05, so my subscription terms are $20 for 90 tracks/month. The prices have since gone up, so I think new subscribers get 75 tracks/month for the same $20. Please check out the terms for yourself, if you are curious, as I signed up a long time ago. Criticisms? 1) Unused tracks expire at the end of your month -- use 'em or lose 'em 2) Occasionally, you will come across an album with a track or two inexplicably unavailable (no explanation given, but I'm betting there's some sort of publishing BS behind this.) 3) The selection is truly broad, but not comprehensive. I've been puzzled by a few things they haven't had, and shocked to find certain other stuff, like some of the pre-Dookie Green Day. 4) The search function works well, but the site is not really well designed for browsing, in my opinion. There's an overwhelming amount of stuff, and I wish they would come up with a better metaphor for "thumbing through the bins." 5) No artwork/graphics. Anyway, by now you probably think I work for them (I don't), so I should shut up.

I already use it!

But there's still lots of CDs I need to buy because they aren't on eMusic (like the new Decemberists album, because they switched over to Capitol. Oh, and of course all the non-indie bands).

Oh and by the way, the 3 bands you mentioned I all discovered on eMusic

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree, a good sign for the future, but not what I want. Lossy is still lossy, and sounds like it. Gimme FLAC already!! Aside from which, eMusic already offers VBRs, and they are the only service that I regularly buy from. VBRs still don't sound as good as FLAC, but they are a big improvement over 128K or 256K. So why couldn't EMI have gone at least that far? If they would sell me VBRs, I'd consider buying from them.

Besides what Wodgy already said... they are selling you VBRs. AAC is inherently VBR encoding even if it's the non-VBR setting in iTunes, but it will likely be VBR officially providing a "larger bitrate swing". And finally VBR isn't the golden bullet. Give me 192 CBR any day over 128 VBR. Plus this only means anything if all other variables are equal, not the scenario with eMusic and iTunes. I think you'd have difficulty finding many now who think eMusics -aps MP3s (many titles) are superior to iTunes 256 AACs (many titles).


EDIT: And for anyone following this news on various technical sites, there were many that are arguing this is a bad move because "only audiophiles" can hear the difference of bitrates, that 128 is an AAC sweet-spot, and this is just a waste of HD space and bandwidth (and implying people may have to transcode down to 128 to save space). See please one group, anger another.

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif EDIT: And for anyone following this news on various technical sites, there were many that are arguing this is a bad move because "only audiophiles" can hear the difference of bitrates, that 128 is an AAC sweet-spot, and this is just a waste of HD space and bandwidth (and implying people may have to transcode down to 128 to save space). See please one group, anger another.

Great point!

Apple (and a few other companies) could give the songs away for free along with a new house in Malibu and supermodel boy- or girl-friend and people would still complain

--Chris

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif And finally VBR isn't the golden bullet.

No, it isn't. I want lossless, not MP3, not AAC, not WMA, not OGG, not any lossy format. Which this isn't.

I'm really not aware of, or concerned with, the vagaries of different lossy compression algorithms. As far as I am concerned, it's all sleight-of-hand intended to compensate for the absence of information that has been discarded. A dubious proposition any way you look at it.

I buy from eMusic because, to my ears, the files they sell sound far better than the 128k files sold at iTunes. If someone offered me lossless, I'd be gone like a cool breeze.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif As far as I am concerned, it's all sleight-of-hand intended to compensate for the absence of information that has been discarded. A dubious proposition any way you look at it.

I think this is a fair point. My ears aren't such that I can tell much beyond a certain lossy threshold, but I'm not a big fan of the lack of disclosure by Apple about the fact that they are selling the lowest "acceptable" quality and that it is not CD-equivalent.