The suggestion that audiophiles are a major demographic of interest is well...
I'm not sure if it really is all that laughable. Surely audiophiles buy way more music per-person than other demographics? So, the fact there aren't many is counterbalanced by the amount of music each one buys. One would think that they'll be attracted by this new offering due to the bit rate increase more than anything else.
I suppose it also depends how you define audiophile. I guess I don't really fit, I suppose I'm more of an "audio enthusiast". How many of those are there?
In what universe is the comment "It would be really great if the DRM free songs didn't complement the "normal" tunes, but *replaced* them..." considered to be "bit*h bit*h nag nag"?
I think referring to it as "bitching and nagging" was going a bit OTT, but dacloo was moaning about the price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco
Mind your own business.
This is "my own business" because you posted in a public forum that I can read. It would be none of my business if you'd sent it as a PM.
Are they not easily available in each country that has an iTunes store? Various different places sell them here in the UK.
Probably. Easily available meaning my local Apple store had not opened yet and I don't believe that I've seen them anywhere else. Of course, I haven't looked that hard. And this was 2004 I think? Can't recall but it wasn't a current gen Nano but the previous plastic one.
This is good news, the only two small anoyances right now are; 1. The tracks cost more, if one still wants to go with .99c a song thing that will still encompass DRM. Contrary to some beliefs in this thread I don't think this is a risky move, it can only mean higher sales and more profit for both companies IMO. 2. The other little niggle now is the gap where only a certain amount of songs on iTunes will be DRM free thus causing confusion. "Is this a DRM free song?" "Will the song I'm searching for be DRM free" Etc. etc.
I think a better idea would have been to drop DRM completey for all EMI content and keep existing bitrate songs DRM free and .99c, and make them also 1.29c at double bitrate. This is the only solution IMO that could please all people properly, both consumers and audiophiles.
Most people don't know or care about DRM. Most people have a very small percentage of purchased music on their iPods. This is just another layer of choice for audiophiles and the huge number of whiners who still won't buy from iTunes at .99c, $1.29, whatever... I'm 100% for EMI's willingness to take the leap.
I'm not sure if it really is all that laughable. Surely audiophiles buy way more music per-person than other demographics? So, the fact there aren't many is counterbalanced by the amount of music each one buys. One would think that they'll be attracted by this new offering due to the bit rate increase more than anything else.
I suppose it also depends how you define audiophile. I guess I don't really fit, I suppose I'm more of an "audio enthusiast". How many of those are there?
Um...if you provide any industry statistics I'm more than willing to accept the correction. Whatever the definition used in the survey is acceptable as long as it isn't too odd.
I'm also unwilling to assert that 256K lossy AAC is acceptable for audiophiles but not being in that demographic I don't really know. I dunno that I'd still classify myself as "enthusiast" given how little I listen to music as an independent activity anymore (ie not leave something playing the background).
I might use that as a definition: An audiophile is someone that makes listening to music a significant independent activity of thier lives.
But I dunno what that does to audiophiles that are always tweaking their setups over just listening...
Um...if you provide any industry statistics I'm more than willing to accept the correction.
My post wasn't intended as a correction, more of a musing really; hence the scattering of question marks, supposes, guesses, thinkings etc. I don't know one way or the other. I don't have any surveys or such like to offer, sorry.
I'm also unwilling to assert that 256K lossy AAC is acceptable for audiophiles
Indeed. That's what made me add the "depends how you define audiophile" comment at the end of my post. I'm sure there are plenty that would turn their nose up at anything less than lossless, probably without even listening first. (There are even some crackpots who like to pretend that lossless sounds different because "compression is compression"! If they really do hear a difference, it's a perfect example of psychosomatic influences upon perceived audio quality). Personally, listening on an iPod through Sure e3C earphones, I can't tell the difference between uncompressed and 128 kbps AAC, but I can hear the difference when listening through a HiFi amp + speakers. At 256 kbps AAC, I can't hear that difference any more, so this change of bitrate is most welcome from my point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
I might use that as a definition: An audiophile is someone that makes listening to music a significant independent activity of thier lives.
According to that definition, I used to be one. Over the last few years I haven't really had the time
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
But I dunno what that does to audiophiles that are always tweaking their setups over just listening...
My post wasn't intended as a correction, more of a musing really; hence the scattering of question marks, supposes, guesses, thinkings etc. I don't know one way or the other. I don't have any surveys or such like to offer, sorry.
I didn't take it as such (correction) but of the entire post that was the only sarcastic part so if I were wrong then correction would be appropriate...
But given the relative failure of audiophile formats and smallness of market for "audiophile" grade components I'd say its a small segment. I guess some folks count Pioneer Elite as audiophile grade *cough*Tweeter*cough* but I think typically most audiophiles would not.
My big beef is with car audio systems: why can't any of those (as far as I know) play AAC burnt to CD-Rs (as they do MP3s)? It is convenient to have a couple of CD-Rs with hundreds of songs in them lying around in my car, rather than carry my iPod with me at all times.....
Pioneer sells car CD players that can play AAC files from CD's. They tend to be on the higher end of the price scale though. I'm sure there are other brands but that is the one that I can speak of off the top of my head.
Pioneer sells car CD players that can play AAC files from CD's. They tend to be on the higher end of the price scale though. I'm sure there are other brands but that is the one that I can speak of off the top of my head.
I looked on Crutchfield. They offer Pioneer, Sony, Alpine, Kenwood,
Panasonic, and Clarion CD/receivers which play MP3,WMA,AAC CDs.
Except that I don't agree. Whwt they've done is fair, and is a result of a carefully negotiated compromise.
I agree. Why whine over an extra 30cents? Just pay 99cents for your music and if you want drm free just pull the cushions off the couch and get the rest of it.
No thanks Apple. If you are truly committed to DRM free music, then the only choice should MP3 files. If the goal is to use truly portable and universally playable music, then MP3 is the only choice. Kudos to Steve Jobs and Apple for taking the industry down this path, but to offer non DRM AAC files...they missed the mark.
No thanks Apple. If you are truly committed to DRM free music, then the only choice should MP3 files. If the goal is to use truly portable and universally playable music, then MP3 is the only choice. Kudos to Steve Jobs and Apple for taking the industry down this path, but to offer non DRM AAC files...they missed the mark.
I don't agree at all. AAC is a superior codec to mp3. Just petition your hardware provider to provide AAC support via a firmware update.
This is fantastic news. And this is a product I would buy. I do not shop on the iTunes music store because of DRM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
No, you still need an iPod to play AAC files, and you can still only sync iPods with iTunes. This announcement mean dick all to people who want to use a different player or different software.
Research your views before throwing out such statements. Other music players do support AAC (not all, but many) as has already been established in this thread. More music players will support AAC as time progresses, AAC is a far superior standard to the archaic mp3, and it is also far more stable as a format. This is a wonderful step in the right direction. Oh, and if a company can get business from the iTunes Music Store, they will be much more interested in embracing this standard.
That said, here are two specific points.
“No, you still need an iPod to play AAC files…”
No you don’t. You can use these tracks with any other program compatible with AAC. Furthermore, some other programs will happily convert the AAC tracks for you, and you can convert these tracks in iTunes yourself! If you want mp3 files, convert them to mp3 in iTunes, and use them anywhere you want. The bit rate is high enough that you can do this without any serious loss in quality. How come nobody has mentioned this?
“This announcement mean[s] disk [to] all [the] people who want to use a different [mp3] player…”
No, it doesn’t. You can get these high quality tracks from iTunes, transfer or port them over to your other players or programs, and be as happy as ever. You get all the other benefits of the iTunes music store too. Easy browsing, downloading, well-populated information, album artwork. You just have to work a little more to do it, but you should already be used to that as you’re not using an iPod.
No thanks Apple. If you are truly committed to DRM free music, then the only choice should MP3 files. If the goal is to use truly portable and universally playable music, then MP3 is the only choice. Kudos to Steve Jobs and Apple for taking the industry down this path, but to offer non DRM AAC files...they missed the mark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
I don't agree at all. AAC is a superior codec to mp3. Just petition your hardware provider to provide AAC support via a firmware update.
As Mr. H says, AAC is a superior codec. Mp3 only became "standard" because there was no viable alternative to it when digital music took off, I mean really what is the point of using .wav's in the early 90's when a HD was hardly bigger than a CD?
Now we have many alernatives, and while I may personally prefer Vorbis to AAC, if I were to be looking at a new handheld device, I would most likely look for AAC over vorbis simply because of the hardware requirements. Vorbis uses more processing power, and therefor more battery as well.
Currently, if I want music on my portable, I transcode for the portable from Vorbis to mp3, why, because my player is over 4 years old and the only thing that supported AAC at the time was the iPod. Granted my player supports Vorbis out of the box, and that was why I got it, but it drains at least 40% more battery to use it that way.
Now as has been said, pretty much every new phone on th market supports at least AAC if not AAC+, which adds the ability to perceptually keep the same sound at half the size. On a portable, or an internet stream, the tradeoff in real quality is not a huge deal, and they are still higher quality than a 64bit mp3 which is what would need to be used to get close to the same size file.
As time passes more and more players will support AAC out of the box, will they drop mp3 support? Only if the lawsuits make it too cost prohibitive to use anymore, or the perceieved number of songs that would be used with that antiquicated format is at a low enough percentage that they can just include an auto transcoder in the transfer app. Heck, Sony already does this for ATRAC-3... not that it is a good format, but it is there.
Comments
The suggestion that audiophiles are a major demographic of interest is well...
I'm not sure if it really is all that laughable. Surely audiophiles buy way more music per-person than other demographics? So, the fact there aren't many is counterbalanced by the amount of music each one buys. One would think that they'll be attracted by this new offering due to the bit rate increase more than anything else.
I suppose it also depends how you define audiophile. I guess I don't really fit, I suppose I'm more of an "audio enthusiast". How many of those are there?
Really?
In what universe is the comment "It would be really great if the DRM free songs didn't complement the "normal" tunes, but *replaced* them..." considered to be "bit*h bit*h nag nag"?
I think referring to it as "bitching and nagging" was going a bit OTT, but dacloo was moaning about the price.
Mind your own business.
This is "my own business" because you posted in a public forum that I can read. It would be none of my business if you'd sent it as a PM.
Are they not easily available in each country that has an iTunes store? Various different places sell them here in the UK.
Probably. Easily available meaning my local Apple store had not opened yet and I don't believe that I've seen them anywhere else. Of course, I haven't looked that hard. And this was 2004 I think? Can't recall but it wasn't a current gen Nano but the previous plastic one.
Vinea
This is good news, the only two small anoyances right now are; 1. The tracks cost more, if one still wants to go with .99c a song thing that will still encompass DRM. Contrary to some beliefs in this thread I don't think this is a risky move, it can only mean higher sales and more profit for both companies IMO. 2. The other little niggle now is the gap where only a certain amount of songs on iTunes will be DRM free thus causing confusion. "Is this a DRM free song?" "Will the song I'm searching for be DRM free" Etc. etc.
I think a better idea would have been to drop DRM completey for all EMI content and keep existing bitrate songs DRM free and .99c, and make them also 1.29c at double bitrate. This is the only solution IMO that could please all people properly, both consumers and audiophiles.
Most people don't know or care about DRM. Most people have a very small percentage of purchased music on their iPods. This is just another layer of choice for audiophiles and the huge number of whiners who still won't buy from iTunes at .99c, $1.29, whatever... I'm 100% for EMI's willingness to take the leap.
I think referring to it as "bitching and nagging" was going a bit OTT, but dacloo was moaning about the price.
A bit? And according to you, disagreeing is synonymous with "moaning"?
And according to you, disagreeing is synonymous with "moaning"?
No, not necessarily. I don't think dacloo's post is a full-blown moan, but it's on its way there.
I'm not sure if it really is all that laughable. Surely audiophiles buy way more music per-person than other demographics? So, the fact there aren't many is counterbalanced by the amount of music each one buys. One would think that they'll be attracted by this new offering due to the bit rate increase more than anything else.
I suppose it also depends how you define audiophile. I guess I don't really fit, I suppose I'm more of an "audio enthusiast". How many of those are there?
Um...if you provide any industry statistics I'm more than willing to accept the correction. Whatever the definition used in the survey is acceptable as long as it isn't too odd.
I'm also unwilling to assert that 256K lossy AAC is acceptable for audiophiles but not being in that demographic I don't really know. I dunno that I'd still classify myself as "enthusiast" given how little I listen to music as an independent activity anymore (ie not leave something playing the background).
I might use that as a definition: An audiophile is someone that makes listening to music a significant independent activity of thier lives.
But I dunno what that does to audiophiles that are always tweaking their setups over just listening...
Vinea
Um...if you provide any industry statistics I'm more than willing to accept the correction.
My post wasn't intended as a correction, more of a musing really; hence the scattering of question marks, supposes, guesses, thinkings etc. I don't know one way or the other. I don't have any surveys or such like to offer, sorry.
I'm also unwilling to assert that 256K lossy AAC is acceptable for audiophiles
Indeed. That's what made me add the "depends how you define audiophile" comment at the end of my post. I'm sure there are plenty that would turn their nose up at anything less than lossless, probably without even listening first. (There are even some crackpots who like to pretend that lossless sounds different because "compression is compression"! If they really do hear a difference, it's a perfect example of psychosomatic influences upon perceived audio quality). Personally, listening on an iPod through Sure e3C earphones, I can't tell the difference between uncompressed and 128 kbps AAC, but I can hear the difference when listening through a HiFi amp + speakers. At 256 kbps AAC, I can't hear that difference any more, so this change of bitrate is most welcome from my point of view.
I might use that as a definition: An audiophile is someone that makes listening to music a significant independent activity of thier lives.
According to that definition, I used to be one. Over the last few years I haven't really had the time
But I dunno what that does to audiophiles that are always tweaking their setups over just listening...
My post wasn't intended as a correction, more of a musing really; hence the scattering of question marks, supposes, guesses, thinkings etc. I don't know one way or the other. I don't have any surveys or such like to offer, sorry.
I didn't take it as such (correction) but of the entire post that was the only sarcastic part so if I were wrong then correction would be appropriate...
But given the relative failure of audiophile formats and smallness of market for "audiophile" grade components I'd say its a small segment. I guess some folks count Pioneer Elite as audiophile grade *cough*Tweeter*cough* but I think typically most audiophiles would not.
Vinea
My big beef is with car audio systems: why can't any of those (as far as I know) play AAC burnt to CD-Rs (as they do MP3s)? It is convenient to have a couple of CD-Rs with hundreds of songs in them lying around in my car, rather than carry my iPod with me at all times.....
Pioneer sells car CD players that can play AAC files from CD's. They tend to be on the higher end of the price scale though. I'm sure there are other brands but that is the one that I can speak of off the top of my head.
Pioneer sells car CD players that can play AAC files from CD's. They tend to be on the higher end of the price scale though. I'm sure there are other brands but that is the one that I can speak of off the top of my head.
I looked on Crutchfield. They offer Pioneer, Sony, Alpine, Kenwood,
Panasonic, and Clarion CD/receivers which play MP3,WMA,AAC CDs.
Why don't you wait until someone actually makes that complaint before you go off on a rant?
Or do you like arguing with imaginary foes?
"I hate when people say XXXX"
"I see, but no one's said that..."
"Well, they will!"
Well if a sentence that starts with "It sucks though" is not indicative of a complaint to you I don't know what is
Except that I don't agree. Whwt they've done is fair, and is a result of a carefully negotiated compromise.
I agree. Why whine over an extra 30cents? Just pay 99cents for your music and if you want drm free just pull the cushions off the couch and get the rest of it.
No thanks Apple. If you are truly committed to DRM free music, then the only choice should MP3 files. If the goal is to use truly portable and universally playable music, then MP3 is the only choice. Kudos to Steve Jobs and Apple for taking the industry down this path, but to offer non DRM AAC files...they missed the mark.
I don't agree at all. AAC is a superior codec to mp3. Just petition your hardware provider to provide AAC support via a firmware update.
No, you still need an iPod to play AAC files, and you can still only sync iPods with iTunes. This announcement mean dick all to people who want to use a different player or different software.
Research your views before throwing out such statements. Other music players do support AAC (not all, but many) as has already been established in this thread. More music players will support AAC as time progresses, AAC is a far superior standard to the archaic mp3, and it is also far more stable as a format. This is a wonderful step in the right direction. Oh, and if a company can get business from the iTunes Music Store, they will be much more interested in embracing this standard.
That said, here are two specific points.
“No, you still need an iPod to play AAC files…”
No you don’t. You can use these tracks with any other program compatible with AAC. Furthermore, some other programs will happily convert the AAC tracks for you, and you can convert these tracks in iTunes yourself! If you want mp3 files, convert them to mp3 in iTunes, and use them anywhere you want. The bit rate is high enough that you can do this without any serious loss in quality. How come nobody has mentioned this?
“This announcement mean[s] disk [to] all [the] people who want to use a different [mp3] player…”
No, it doesn’t. You can get these high quality tracks from iTunes, transfer or port them over to your other players or programs, and be as happy as ever. You get all the other benefits of the iTunes music store too. Easy browsing, downloading, well-populated information, album artwork. You just have to work a little more to do it, but you should already be used to that as you’re not using an iPod.
No thanks Apple. If you are truly committed to DRM free music, then the only choice should MP3 files. If the goal is to use truly portable and universally playable music, then MP3 is the only choice. Kudos to Steve Jobs and Apple for taking the industry down this path, but to offer non DRM AAC files...they missed the mark.
I don't agree at all. AAC is a superior codec to mp3. Just petition your hardware provider to provide AAC support via a firmware update.
As Mr. H says, AAC is a superior codec. Mp3 only became "standard" because there was no viable alternative to it when digital music took off, I mean really what is the point of using .wav's in the early 90's when a HD was hardly bigger than a CD?
Now we have many alernatives, and while I may personally prefer Vorbis to AAC, if I were to be looking at a new handheld device, I would most likely look for AAC over vorbis simply because of the hardware requirements. Vorbis uses more processing power, and therefor more battery as well.
Currently, if I want music on my portable, I transcode for the portable from Vorbis to mp3, why, because my player is over 4 years old and the only thing that supported AAC at the time was the iPod. Granted my player supports Vorbis out of the box, and that was why I got it, but it drains at least 40% more battery to use it that way.
Now as has been said, pretty much every new phone on th market supports at least AAC if not AAC+, which adds the ability to perceptually keep the same sound at half the size. On a portable, or an internet stream, the tradeoff in real quality is not a huge deal, and they are still higher quality than a 64bit mp3 which is what would need to be used to get close to the same size file.
As time passes more and more players will support AAC out of the box, will they drop mp3 support? Only if the lawsuits make it too cost prohibitive to use anymore, or the perceieved number of songs that would be used with that antiquicated format is at a low enough percentage that they can just include an auto transcoder in the transfer app. Heck, Sony already does this for ATRAC-3... not that it is a good format, but it is there.