[KeithEmo]

   
Meridian's new codec will include DRM.  It would be a proprietary format that would require licensing fees for anyone to be able to use it.  Any device would have to include a certified chipset and consumers would be thrown back into the proverbial dark ages again.  Even the master of all things convenient and techy is against DRM, as Apple has removed this from all of their AAC files.
 
While I personally don't believe the new Meridian format makes any real differences in audio quality to what already exists, it is more technically advanced, but the greatest advantages are not beneficial to the consumer.  There isn't any traditional competition to keep things in check.  Distribution is already completely locked down, and I don't want the flexibility of how and where I use my media to be under such a burdensome control by the same conglomerates.  

 
I do agree - that DRM is a pain in the butt - and well worth making a fuss about.
 
(Unfortunately, these days, there's no way to get commercial acceptance for a new compression format unless it includes DRM. It will be interesting to see how they position it. The file size is still much bigger than other lossy compression formats, and they seem to be positioning it (technically) as "all of the audible sound quality of 24/192 with a file size similar to 16/44k". I can see this as a benefit to streaming services, who will "talk up" the higher quality, but otherwise a very hard claim to justify. They've also floated a few claims that it will actually sound better than "regular high res files" - which seems like it will be an uphill climb to prove. (Presumably, you'll be able to buy high-res albums in the new format, and they're hoping that you'll believe that there's at least a slight difference in quality, and that you'll ignore the DRM. Since the industry in general seems convinced that DRM at least cuts down on illegal copying, it seems like that will provide them with excellent incentive to help Meridian sell it to customers.)
 
It will also be interesting to see if the new Meridian encoder ever makes its way to consumer products (if it will let you encode your own 24/192k FLACs, and give you a file size similar to a standard CD-quality WAV, then some people will embrace it for that reason).

 

[OddE]

Since the industry in general seems convinced that DRM at least cuts down on illegal copying, it seems like that will provide them with excellent incentive to help Meridian sell it to customers.)

 
-One would believe that the recording industry had learned from past fubaring and had come to realize by now that DRM is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot. With a thermonuclear warhead. Twice.
 
Like nag screens on DVD/blu-rays, DRM is a hassle only for your paying customers; the pirates aren't bothered by it.
 
Since when did annoying your paying customers while giving the pirates a demonstrably better (and cheaper!) product make good business sense?
 
Sigh.

 

[KeithEmo]

   
-One would believe that the recording industry had learned from past fubaring and had come to realize by now that DRM is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot. With a thermonuclear warhead. Twice.
 
Like nag screens on DVD/blu-rays, DRM is a hassle only for your paying customers; the pirates aren't bothered by it.
 
Since when did annoying your paying customers while giving the pirates a demonstrably better (and cheaper!) product make good business sense?
 
Sigh.

 
Interesting question..... I sure wish they'd stop putting those previews on DVDs and Blu-Rays - the ones you can't always skip.
(And DVDs and Blu-Rays DO also have DRM anti-copy systems on them - they haven't stopped doing that either.)

 

[OddE]

  (And DVDs and Blu-Rays DO also have DRM anti-copy systems on them - they haven't stopped doing that either.)

 
-My point exactly; any DRM device is bound to fail sooner rather than later - and as far as being a consumer goes, the very best you can hope for with a DRMed product is that it will not be an inconvenience.
 
Heck, back in the day when various DRM schemes were employed on plastic discs looking an awful lot like red book CDs, I found myself on several occasions having to either source a de-DRMed copy online or stripping the disc of the DRM and making a red book-compliant copy in order to be able to listen to a title I had paid good money for.
 
For all intents and purposes, the presence of an anti-copy scheme forced me to copy the discs, costing both time and money - and, in some jurisdictions, thankfully not the one I live in, turn me into a criminal in the process.
 
And don't even get me started on the whole DIVX debacle...
 
Basically, any business model which is centered on protecting you from your paying customers is a doomed one, and it amazes me that the lesson has not yet sunk in.

 

[castleofargh]

I remember downloading torrents of stuff I owned several times because it was such bother to rip it to put on my DAPs. that's how messed up DRMs are, it makes you regret paying for something.
 
 

 

[goodyfresh]

  I remember downloading torrents of stuff I owned several times because it was such bother to rip it to put on my DAPs. that's how messed up DRMs are, it makes you regret paying for something.
 
 
 

Wow, so when I wasn't looking this turned into a debate about Digital Rights Management instead of one about sound science?  Hahaha
 
There's all kinds of other policies going on these days in that regard.  LIke all the music download services which have an EULA in which people have to basically agree that they DON'T ACTUALLY OWN THE MUSIC they are paying to download, so that if they ever lose the copy  they downloaded before, they have to pay all over to download it again.
 
Myself, my own super-extensive CD collection is back home somewhere in a box in my mom's basement in Maryland, and I gave up on redownloading things with iTunes or any other download service a long time ago after my umpteenth hard-drive over the years died on me, so the vast majority of music I now possess is stuff that I bought in the past, but then didn't feel like buying all over again (since that is stupid and unfair) and thus proceeded to torrent, instead.  And, not gonna lie, when I am told abuot a band or musician that "you should totally check out, dude," I don't just go and buy their stuff. . .I torrent it first to see if it will be worth actually going and paying for. If any of you are copyright lawyers, then whatever, go ahead and lynch me.  Lmao.

 

[OddE]

 
There's all kinds of other policies going on these days in that regard.  LIke all the music download services which have an EULA in which people have to basically agree that they DON'T ACTUALLY OWN THE MUSIC they are paying to download, so that if they ever lose the copy  they downloaded before, they have to pay all over to download it again.

 
-I am quite possibly mistaken, as I only own about a dozen digital downloads (Mostly of albums I have since purchased on CD or vinyl - basically, albums I WANTED to listen to ASAP upon release, and my local record store didn't have them on release day...) - but don't most download services offer at least a limited number of re-downloads once you login to your account? (I just logged onto cdon.com where I bought an album five years ago - it states that I have four downloads left of that title, 320kbps mp3) I may just be lucky, though - consumer protection laws in Norway are pretty strongly in favour of the customer.)
 

  Myself, my own super-extensive CD collection is back home somewhere in a box in my mom's basement in Maryland, and I gave up on redownloading things with iTunes or any other download service a long time ago after my umpteenth hard-drive over the years died on me,

 
-The solution to that problem is enterprise-grade disks, (hardware) RAID and NAS storage. (For audio purposes, storage is effectively free nowadays - for the equivalent of $600, I have redundant off-site storage for (approx) 6,000 CDs with cloud backup as an extra insurance. I have no intent of ever ripping my CDs again if I can help it.

 

[goodyfresh]

   
-I am quite possibly mistaken, as I only own about a dozen digital downloads (Mostly of albums I have since purchased on CD or vinyl - basically, albums I WANTED to listen to ASAP upon release, and my local record store didn't have them on release day...) - but don't most download services offer at least a limited number of re-downloads once you login to your account? (I just logged onto cdon.com where I bought an album five years ago - it states that I have four downloads left of that title, 320kbps mp3) I may just be lucky, though - consumer protection laws in Norway are pretty strongly in favour of the customer.)
 
 
-The solution to that problem is enterprise-grade disks, (hardware) RAID and NAS storage. (For audio purposes, storage is effectively free nowadays - for the equivalent of $600, I have redundant off-site storage for (approx) 6,000 CDs with cloud backup as an extra insurance. I have no intent of ever ripping my CDs again if I can help it.

And that "limited number" is where the issue lies.  You have BOUGHT that music.  You should have a right to UNLIMITED re-downloads of it!  Sheesh.  Lol.  And also yeah, the consumer protection laws here in the United States are absolute crap and are completely in favor of the corporations.  You should see what the iTunes user license agreement is like here in the U.S.  You basically have to sign over your very soul, lol.

 

[OddE]

And that "limited number" is where the issue lies.  You have BOUGHT that music.  You should have a right to UNLIMITED re-downloads of it!

-I don't agree, actually. I've bought it, and should be expected to look after it - after all, if I'd lost the actual CD, very few people would expect the record company to give me a new one (though that is exactly what GD Music does, or at least did - I once lost a Dick's Picks CD and got a new one for a token fee.)

Arguably, the download deal leaves me better off (if I wasn't such a sucker for shelves full of music, that is!) - I can lose the file four times, and still the seller will give me a new copy, even several years after original purchase!

(Note that the files in question are DRM-free, so I can have a gazillion backup copies if I like.)

Anyway, I've managed to derail this thread from its most recent derailment; perhaps we should start a new one titled "DRM: Spawn of Satan" or something like it...

 

[goodyfresh]

-I don't agree, actually. I've bought it, and should be expected to look after it - after all, if I'd lost the actual CD, very few people would expect the record company to give me a new one (though that is exactly what GD Music does, or at least did - I once lost a Dick's Picks CD and got a new one for a token fee.)

Arguably, the download deal leaves me better off (if I wasn't such a sucker for shelves full of music, that is!) - I can lose the file four times, and still the seller will give me a new copy, even several years after original purchase!

(Note that the files in question are DRM-free, so I can have a gazillion backup copies if I like.)

Anyway, I've managed to derail this thread from its most recent derailment; perhaps we should start a new one titled "DRM: Spawn of Satan" or something like it...

The difference between losing files and losing a physical CD is that the former can happen through no fault of one's own, due to the fact that storage such as hard-drives can fail completely unpredictably.

 

[RRod]

 
The difference between losing files and losing a physical CD is that the former can happen through no fault of one's own, due to the fact that storage such as hard-drives can fail completely unpredictably.

 
Basically there are a lot of people for whom "don't lose the CD" is a much easier concept than "maintain a backup." It's easy to forget that not everyone is a nerd, especially folks who didn't have cell phones in utero.

 

[OddE]

The difference between losing files and losing a physical CD is that the former can happen through no fault of one's own, due to the fact that storage such as hard-drives can fail completely unpredictably.

 
-Which is why you maintain (at least!) an additional copy on an independent medium, preferably located off-site. (While a small inconvenience, I find it a price I am more than willing to pay to ensure both my music collection and, more importantly, my photos are safely kept through any calamity short of full-scale nuclear war - in which case my albums and photos would probably be the least of my worries...)
 
 

 

[goodyfresh]

   
-Which is why you maintain (at least!) an additional copy on an independent medium, preferably located off-site. (While a small inconvenience, I find it a price I am more than willing to pay to ensure both my music collection and, more importantly, my photos are safely kept through any calamity short of full-scale nuclear war - in which case my albums and photos would probably be the least of my worries...)
 
 

I don't currently have access to almost 200Gb external storage-space, which is what it would cost me to back up my entire music library.  Just saying.

 

[OddE]

  I don't currently have access to almost 200Gb external storage-space, which is what it would cost me to back up my entire music library.  Just saying.

 
-Fair enough, though I would consider investing in a $70 500GB external hard drive for peace of mind. (Price checked at a Norwegian retailer; price includes 25% sales tax)
 
Anyway, we've derailed the derailment of the original derailment, so I guess I had better call it a night.
 
And, in case there was any doubt - I much prefer my CDs and LPs to digital downloads, but IMHO downloads can be a useful option if done right (No DRM, multiple, ideally unlimited re-downloads)

 

[Roly1650]

I don't currently have access to almost 200Gb external storage-space, which is what it would cost me to back up my entire music library.  Just saying.

Our local Walmart has been selling a 1tb, usb drive for $20. Formatted for Mac, but no big deal to reformat for any os. You may have to try a few Walmart's and move things around on the shelf to find them, but they're there.