Post by trog @ 11:11am 08/01/09 | 54 Comments
The Electronic Frontier Foundation have boldly declared that "DRM is good and fully dead for digital music", but also urges us not to forget that DRM isn't just about music, with a wrap-up of Apple's other DRM systems and how they attempt to provide safeguards to eliminate competition and cripple interoperability.
Latest Comments
54 Comments
Show
Follow Us
Advertisement
Log In
Posted 11:16am 08/1/09
I might actually start buying music now!
Posted 11:26am 08/1/09
Posted 11:33am 08/1/09
Posted 11:33am 08/1/09
Yep, i would certainly consider paying for that. Though i imagine they don't stand to gain that much more by offering it.
Posted 11:34am 08/1/09
Posted 11:46am 08/1/09
Posted 11:51am 08/1/09
Apple have had non-DRM music for at least a year now.
They have ~192 - ~256 quality mp3's, and have had them for a while now :p
Posted 02:33pm 08/1/09
edit: Yeah I know Billy, it's just too damn easy, I havn't got new music for like over a year anyway.
last edited by Fireblood at 14:33:02 08/Jan/09
Posted 12:00pm 08/1/09
Posted 12:03pm 08/1/09
that's still lossy... as any mp3 is... even 320kpbs bwidth.
i'll buy wavs online but not mp3s... thats like buying a thumbnail of a painting imo :D
Posted 12:06pm 08/1/09
Posted 12:10pm 08/1/09
See i totally disagree... i find with most songs you dont hear much of difference but you do if the songs has alot of instruments in it... or really soft voices in the background of the song...
Posted 12:15pm 08/1/09
Posted 12:19pm 08/1/09
Posted 12:23pm 08/1/09
bollucks. you n the ipod generation just wouldn't know what audio quality is because ya listen to everything from a s***** source & never on a decent sound system :D most ppl can tell an mp3 from a wav on a decent sound system.
Posted 12:27pm 08/1/09
Posted 12:28pm 08/1/09
Posted 12:36pm 08/1/09
Can you even tell the difference between 256 and 320?
Posted 12:59pm 08/1/09
Posted 01:02pm 08/1/09
Worst analogy ever.
A better analogy would be the difference between 2 hi res jpegs, 1 lossless the other at the lowest level of compression (ie. only a little bit of lossy), then zooming out say 2 or 3 times so you can see the picture on your standard lcd monitor thats not colour corrected and has a healthy layer of dust and grime...
Very very few people can pick a well encoded 320k vbr
http://www.soundexpert.info/coders320.jsp
Most of the double blind tests I have seen done people start to struggle beyond 192k vbr, beyond 200 the good encoders are basically imperceptible ( http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36465 ).
So people in environments conducive to listening to music with appropriate gear still have trouble percieving the differences.
Now ... lets take that put it on some cheap earphones/speakers and play it in an environment with background noise (car/train/office). Small buzzes and hiss from electrical interference. Probably playing it back on a cheap chinese made device... yeah you need wavs cos that 320k vbr sounds so wrong ...
The test was done in a single room, using some decent gear (around 15k euros worth, including a 7k euro Seinhiser tube amplifier
Translated and quoted
ie. The testers picked the 256 sample as the cd just as often as they picked the cd sample.
Posted 01:40pm 08/1/09
most people can't tell blu-ray from std dvd... so there's no reason to buy blu-ray eh!? most ppl can't tell the difference between a 1024*768 plasma & a larger res plasma... no need for those larger plasmas then i guess!
back to yur 30fps is sufficient arguments bubblehead! :D
Posted 01:46pm 08/1/09
I'd happily pay more for higher quality stuff though. It's the f*****g Internet and computers and stuff, it's not like they can't do it trivially. They're just doing it because there's no market demand for the higher quality stuff.
Posted 01:50pm 08/1/09
He backed up his argument with cited research. You replied with a poorly constructed s***-fling, may as well have just rolled your face over the keyboard.
Posted 01:52pm 08/1/09
f*** oath
Posted 01:55pm 08/1/09
I've ripped a few of my CDs at Apple Lossless and its very hard but you can notice a tiny bit of a difference between high quality MP3 and lossless. But its minute and most of the time ambient sound occludes the difference you might hear.
I'd rather have 500 more MB per album than be able to hear 0.1% better sound.
last edited by 3dee at 13:55:21 08/Jan/09
Posted 02:02pm 08/1/09
If you can't tell the difference (I couldn't) ? ... a fool and his money are easily parted (hence why monster cables exist ...) Why buy a Full HD TV and then sit so far away from it that you are essentially getting 720p or worse res ?
bandwidth ? Storage ? If storage was unimportant why do people buy a 16G iphone over an 8 ? or a 8G mp3 player over a 1G ? Why download a SD tv show or 720P when a 1080P exists ? ....
Bulls***, even my folks who have fake lenses in their eyes can see the difference on a big enough tv. But if you are watching it on a 26" crt (or any SD tv) in your bedroom, yeah why bother (ps. blu-ray sucks)
I think the drugs have rattled something loose demon. If framerate was so godly how come when I had the only v2-12meg sli setup in Brisbane I was still getting smashed by the likes of NC, whitey, dethon and kabas on old clunkers ? Surely the fact I was trippling their frame rates should have given me some god mode or something ? Not to mention being totally irrelevant to the arguement and nothing more then a personal attack (did I attack you ?)
People listened to this stuff on high end audio gear and could not pick the differences reliably. But hey joe gumby on his itunes and ipod with their cheapy headphones ... they can tell the difference!!!
If you happen to be skilled enough to tell the difference then god/zenu/subatomic particles bless you, or even if you can't but it makes you happy to think that you can, then happy days! But you are the extremely rare exception. The F1 driver of the audio world so to speak. Most people want the significantly quicker download and significantly more files on their mp3 device over an insignificant difference in quality.
Posted 02:27pm 08/1/09
anywys... buy yur s***** mp3s if yas wanna... i'll stick to downloading them for free & deleting them after i've listened to them a few times & buying the quality music on cd/dvd with nice cover artwork.
& i know this is kinda like reverse trolling ... but sif dethon evah had a clunker rig to game on.. i mean, c'mon! ;p
Posted 02:33pm 08/1/09
no they cant
Posted 02:33pm 08/1/09
Posted 02:36pm 08/1/09
Posted 02:38pm 08/1/09
Posted 03:28pm 08/1/09
I'll confess. I was in Myer the other day, and I almost bought a Kelly Clarkson CD (stay with me) out of the bargain bin - wasn't looking for it, just happened to see it there.
But then I got to thinking: There's dozens of copies of it there, clearly they haven't sold as it's pretty old, and they're probably not going to re-order more copies of it. So really, the label have already been paid their wholesale fee, and she's already made the probably $1.80 or something she'd get in royalties of a full-priced CD, with the rest going to the label. So for the sake of maybe $2 that they've already been paid, and a remaining $3 that goes whereever, why the hell would I bother to buy it, when I would then have to admit to owning a Kelly Clarkson CD, and can instead just get away with admitting (if ever necessary) to there being one or two songs that I happen to like on my iPod.
More unusual might be that I type this as I listen to a track from the soundtrack from Hook. And that my "record labels are scum" rant used the words "Kelly Clarkson" multiple times to illustrate a point.
Posted 03:32pm 08/1/09
last edited by HerbalLizard at 15:32:55 08/Jan/09
Posted 03:52pm 08/1/09
Posted 04:59pm 08/1/09
You are farking useless at music if you can't tell the difference between mp3 and cd.
Either that or you need to upgrade that horrible aiwa stereo you have.
Some recording companies are offering flac, its good to see.
http://www.somarecords.com/artists/slam/
Posted 05:14pm 08/1/09
Posted 08:14pm 08/1/09
Posted 08:32pm 08/1/09
I would though if my songs came with a guitar hero version.
Posted 08:45pm 08/1/09
well i for one can tell the difference between most normal MP3's and CD/WAV on a very easily - then again i work with audio for a living, but its not that hard to hear the difference. I can see reasons for wanting WAV's, as they are pure and untouched, almost an "analogue" medium in comparison to a MP3.
last edited by SquarkyD at 20:45:39 08/Jan/09
Posted 08:50pm 08/1/09
it doesnt matter what the tune/beat/rhythem is, neither does it matter the situation, in this case its pure science of %THD vs the origional source.
Its all about finding your bottle neck as well, i can assure you than 99.99% of people out there buying MP3's are using onboard soundcards, iPods and other devices with very average DA's in them. Purchase of a descent playback source will do so much more for your listening pleasure than buying WAV's vs a 192khz MP3 ever will.
Posted 09:10pm 08/1/09
P.s That IS personal attack.
Posted 09:14pm 08/1/09
Posted 09:40pm 08/1/09
Posted 10:55am 09/1/09
Posted 02:29pm 09/1/09
Posted 02:37pm 09/1/09
The kind of muppet that doesn't realise they're getting a s***** deal with DRM and cares more about listening to music than trying to decipher crazy acronyms like AACS, CPPM, XCP, DMCA, RIAA, HDCP, CSS, MPAA, & EFF.
Posted 03:14pm 09/1/09
Sure my position isn't legally defensible, but morally? I reckon it is.
Posted 03:28pm 09/1/09
Posted 03:39pm 09/1/09
But you're robbing Apple of their $0.30 income to jailbreak each song. Justin Long is going to have to start eating PAL because you decided to download some communism!
Posted 03:44pm 09/1/09
Posted 03:51pm 09/1/09
Posted 07:30pm 09/1/09
http://www.wmatomp3-converter.com/digital-media-converter-pro.html
Posted 07:58pm 09/1/09
No way you work in audio ...
"normal MP3s" ... what the f*** does that mean ? my normal mp3 is a 192k or greater vbr. Most people I know rip at 128k vbr cos that what the default in their app is. I'd agree I can occasionally hear artifacts etc in 128k. But in 320k ?
demon was saying he can tell the difference between a 320k lossy format over a wav
You agree you can tell the difference between a 320k vbr and a wav ?
F*** its another superman... or did you miss the bit where demon made the claim that 320k mp3s are s*** "thumbnails"
For late comers ....
No one is saying you can't tell a 128k s***** rip from a wav. But the claim is a 320k professional lossy format vs a wav.
Posted 08:20pm 09/1/09