How close is lossless to AIFF? Anyone have the numbers or details?
Assuming you mean sound quality, if it's not 100% identical, then it's not really lossless, is it?
Lossless compression algorithms are designed so that the results of compression/decompression are exactly identical to the original. Assuming the raw data extracted from your CD is accurate (not always true), you will be able to reconstruct an exact copy from data in any lossless-compressed format (including Apple Lossless and FLAC.)
Steve Jobs just said what was the only logical response he could make to the situation he was in. For others its not as logical or its an inconvenient truth. We are all just sitting and waiting on what they are going to do. We should just do something about this ourselves just like Steve Jobs did. Its only logical. Right?
It's not viable for audiophiles (apparently, like yourself.) But I'd argue that no lossy format, including iTunes purchases wouldn't be viable for audiophiles.
Re-ripping does cause a loss in quality, but in many circumstances, that's not a problem. For instance, when I play songs in my car, wind and road noise make it impossible to hear what's been lost.
Terrific points.
Our ears adjusted to CDs (digital) from analog (vinyl) -- you should have heard the arguments then! MP3 re-burns losing some bits and bytes and hence supposedly losing aural quality is trivial posturing, by comparison.
Heck, that was nothing compared to how our ears adjusted to a new-fangled invention called the equal-tempered scale a couple of hundred years ago.
The history of evolution of music as sound is continually one of dumbing down our aural capabilities, but eventually, we adjust and know no better (just like frogs in slowly boiling water).
Well, let's not stop at the Music Labels, because we all know it's wrong for them to try and protect their profits.
OPEN UP OSX FOR IT TO WORK ON ALL PC'S. If all DL'd music should be able to play on any player, then all OS's should be able to work on any PC (meeting spec requirements of course)
I pretty well agree. If they use the analogy that CDs will play anywhere, but iTunes music files won't, then I can see they think that's wrong. (Now some CDs have copy protection on them and they won't play on all players, but consumers kicked up such a stink that that's being fixed.)
Instead of talking about OSX working on all PCs, maybe they should be saying that iPhoto has to run on all OSes as well? (I know... the application is a separate issue to the protection on it). Or further, that Microsoft must publish the word document spec so it opens on any computer. Can OpenOffice & TextEdit open Word documents that are password protected?
Instead of talking about OSX working on all PCs, maybe they should be saying that iPhoto has to run on all OSes as well?
More generally, iLife should be totally cross-platform, not just for philosophical reasons, but for profit and shareholder value reasons. Just as I cannot now live without Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, I cannot without iLife. Microsoft owns my work life (albeit on an Apple platform); Apple owns my non-work life.
A quarter-billion PCs are sold annually, worldwide. Even if priced really low, say $25 per PC, and even if just 10% adopt it (at that price, many more would), that is $625 million in extra revenues per year from iLife, forever, for Apple, almost all of it pure profit. That is 30+% of Apple's net income for all of 2006.
At Apple's current P/E, you (meaning the reader, not GregAlexander) do the math!
I think that a protected iTunes song playing on multiple systems is analogous to a proprietary file working on multiple systems... probably more than the analogy of a CD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
More generally, iLife should be totally cross-platform, not just for philosophical reasons, but for profit and shareholder value reasons.
I'd love to see any apple product work with any non-apple product (and work best with other Apple products) - maximise sales. And on the other side of the argument is "if Apple does this, people will have less reason to buy a Mac (or other Apple product that would normally be forced to bundle with). But that discussion would take this thread way off track
Here's an idea burn a .05 cent cd of your music and re-import it. Done! NO DRM!
How many times do I have to listen to some noob repeat this questionable advice over and over again, in this "I've got it all figured out, why don't you?" tone, with said noob being utterly clueless about the sound quality problems (and/or very bloated file sizes) that result from burning and re-ripping?
[QUOTE=SDW2001;1040095]Well, you know me...not exactly a hippie rebel. But one thing makes me want to take to the streets and scream"Fight the Power" more than anything else, and that's the goddamned RIAA and the recording industry in general. They are heartless, dickless, visionless, short sighted pieces of monkey shit if I've ever seen one.
WOOHOO! Damn the man! Fight the power! Tell those arses at the RIAA what you think of them brother!
... one thing makes me want to take to the streets and scream"Fight the Power" more than anything else, and that's the goddamned RIAA and the recording industry in general.
Before you start firing shots everywhere, be sure you aim it at the right target.
The RIAA is a lobbyist group. They don't write contracts and they don't deal with any artists. The record labels (which are RIAA members) are the ones who write the contracts.
You could completely outlaw the RIAA, and musicians would continue getting screwed over. You need to take your complaints to Sony/BMG, EMI, Universal/Vivendi, and Warner. They dictate to the RIAA, not the other way around. And they don't always act in unison.
Comments
How close is lossless to AIFF? Anyone have the numbers or details?
Assuming you mean sound quality, if it's not 100% identical, then it's not really lossless, is it?
Lossless compression algorithms are designed so that the results of compression/decompression are exactly identical to the original. Assuming the raw data extracted from your CD is accurate (not always true), you will be able to reconstruct an exact copy from data in any lossless-compressed format (including Apple Lossless and FLAC.)
It's not viable for audiophiles (apparently, like yourself.) But I'd argue that no lossy format, including iTunes purchases wouldn't be viable for audiophiles.
Re-ripping does cause a loss in quality, but in many circumstances, that's not a problem. For instance, when I play songs in my car, wind and road noise make it impossible to hear what's been lost.
Terrific points.
Our ears adjusted to CDs (digital) from analog (vinyl) -- you should have heard the arguments then! MP3 re-burns losing some bits and bytes and hence supposedly losing aural quality is trivial posturing, by comparison.
Heck, that was nothing compared to how our ears adjusted to a new-fangled invention called the equal-tempered scale a couple of hundred years ago.
The history of evolution of music as sound is continually one of dumbing down our aural capabilities, but eventually, we adjust and know no better (just like frogs in slowly boiling water).
Well, let's not stop at the Music Labels, because we all know it's wrong for them to try and protect their profits.
OPEN UP OSX FOR IT TO WORK ON ALL PC'S. If all DL'd music should be able to play on any player, then all OS's should be able to work on any PC (meeting spec requirements of course)
I pretty well agree. If they use the analogy that CDs will play anywhere, but iTunes music files won't, then I can see they think that's wrong. (Now some CDs have copy protection on them and they won't play on all players, but consumers kicked up such a stink that that's being fixed.)
Instead of talking about OSX working on all PCs, maybe they should be saying that iPhoto has to run on all OSes as well? (I know... the application is a separate issue to the protection on it). Or further, that Microsoft must publish the word document spec so it opens on any computer. Can OpenOffice & TextEdit open Word documents that are password protected?
Instead of talking about OSX working on all PCs, maybe they should be saying that iPhoto has to run on all OSes as well?
More generally, iLife should be totally cross-platform, not just for philosophical reasons, but for profit and shareholder value reasons. Just as I cannot now live without Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, I cannot without iLife. Microsoft owns my work life (albeit on an Apple platform); Apple owns my non-work life.
A quarter-billion PCs are sold annually, worldwide. Even if priced really low, say $25 per PC, and even if just 10% adopt it (at that price, many more would), that is $625 million in extra revenues per year from iLife, forever, for Apple, almost all of it pure profit. That is 30+% of Apple's net income for all of 2006.
At Apple's current P/E, you (meaning the reader, not GregAlexander) do the math!
Gosh, it is such a no-brainer.
More generally, iLife should be totally cross-platform, not just for philosophical reasons, but for profit and shareholder value reasons.
I'd love to see any apple product work with any non-apple product (and work best with other Apple products) - maximise sales. And on the other side of the argument is "if Apple does this, people will have less reason to buy a Mac (or other Apple product that would normally be forced to bundle with). But that discussion would take this thread way off track
Here's an idea burn a .05 cent cd of your music and re-import it. Done! NO DRM!
How many times do I have to listen to some noob repeat this questionable advice over and over again, in this "I've got it all figured out, why don't you?" tone, with said noob being utterly clueless about the sound quality problems (and/or very bloated file sizes) that result from burning and re-ripping?
WOOHOO! Damn the man! Fight the power! Tell those arses at the RIAA what you think of them brother!
S
... one thing makes me want to take to the streets and scream"Fight the Power" more than anything else, and that's the goddamned RIAA and the recording industry in general.
Before you start firing shots everywhere, be sure you aim it at the right target.
The RIAA is a lobbyist group. They don't write contracts and they don't deal with any artists. The record labels (which are RIAA members) are the ones who write the contracts.
You could completely outlaw the RIAA, and musicians would continue getting screwed over. You need to take your complaints to Sony/BMG, EMI, Universal/Vivendi, and Warner. They dictate to the RIAA, not the other way around. And they don't always act in unison.