# Apple going to no copy protection?!?



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

Just heard on CNBC Apple will change iTunes to no copy protection? Wow, I bet Sony will sue them into the next century...or the last.


----------



## veloze (Jul 2, 2007)

Kool!! the best part my daughter is going to purchase some of her favorite music for merely 0.69 cents, and without that DRM crap.

Here's the article:

Apple cuts iTunes pricing, eases copy protection - Tech and gadgets- msnbc.com


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

sqshoestring said:


> Just heard on CNBC Apple will change iTunes to no copy protection? Wow, I bet Sony will sue them into the next century...or the last.


Why? This is only something new to iTunes. Napster, Rhapsody, Amazon and dunno who else has had a deal with the 4 major record companies which includes Sony for a while now. It's only iTunes that has been negotiating all this time and has only had EMI on board.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

Why...I would never buy an ipod because of it but I did get a new mp3 player for Christmas. You just can't have portability and backup with it IMO...and I don't want it. I had a lot of mp3 and wav on my PC once and the drive dumped, how nice. Far as Sony, who wants to buy from a company that wants to sue you....let alone the DMCA and other things. They lost me for life unless they are the only choice.


----------



## psteele (Aug 5, 2008)

They are also doubling the bitrate of ALL itunes songs to 256kbps aac.

Its actually in effect right now...8 million songs, the other 2 million will be done by the end of this quarter...makes buying music from itunes much more feasible. 128kbps aac sounds like hot garbage to me, besides the fact that it was drm protected.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

Maybe there were too many people like me out there that would not buy that junk. I know near everyone I have talked to said the same thing aside from their hefty price. I don't think I know anyone with an ipod except people that bought them for their kids. One person into it that I know says he will only use loss-less compression for his own music and mp3 for a few things.

I figured years ago I would be able to drop a pile of music on a DVD for my car but they kept that from happening. Its so much of a pain to deal with I just don't. A few CDs I rotate are good enough, but I'll have to use my new player now. Maybe I'm lucky in that I don't have much car time lately.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Just a little heads up but a 256k file encoded with a modern compression algorithm is indistinguishable from the original wav when compared in a double blind test. Now, if the person can't get over the negative hype that goes around, then the lesser is gonna sound like crap.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

psteele said:


> They are also doubling the bitrate of ALL itunes songs to 256kbps aac.


Hmm. Might have to rethink my antipathy to iTMS now. I'd pay 70 cents for an AAC256 song that was catchy and not too sonically demanding. Such as the recent Sia remixes. Not something I thought I wanted to keep forever, but for a lot of stuff that's where iTMS should have been all along.



t3sn4f2 said:


> Just a little heads up but a 256k file encoded with a modern compression algorithm is indistinguishable from the original wav when compared in a double blind test. Now, if the person can't get over the negative hype that goes around, then the lesser is gonna sound like crap.


I think for a majority of the music out there, and a majority of playback systems, that is probably correct, but I'd like to see a cite for that kind of claim. I still fear that there are some artifacts that might be audible over top-notch headphones, which for me is enough to demand the full file.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

DS-21 said:


> Hmm. Might have to rethink my antipathy to iTMS now. I'd pay 70 cents for an AAC256 song that was catchy and not too sonically demanding. Such as the recent Sia remixes. Not something I thought I wanted to keep forever, but for a lot of stuff that's where iTMS should have been all along.
> 
> 
> 
> *I think for a majority of the music out there, and a majority of playback systems, that is probably correct, but I'd like to see a cite for that kind of claim. I still fear that there are some artifacts that might be audible over top-notch headphones, which for me is enough to demand the full file.*


I came to that conclusion from that other sites  music experiment thread. I know it was a higher bit rate then 256k but since online stores _should_ use VBR, then we can conclude that they would give the same results as the higher bit rate files.

Plus this to.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/500339-post29.html


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Although, I am worried about one thing that came to my attention yesterday. 

I was listen to the sample clip of Black Velvet (Alannah Myles, Alannah Myles) on iTunes and when I compared it to the same track on my Rhapsody subscription, the Rhapsody file sounded lower in volume then the iTunes sample. 

This puts some doubt in my mind that I will get a compressed file from the record company that is the same as the CD file but just with the compression. 

You buy the MP3 or AAC album online, pay close to CD price if it's a newer album, and enjoy a faulty version with no way of ever knowing it.


----------



## Spasticteapot (Mar 5, 2007)

t3sn4f2 said:


> Just a little heads up but a 256k file encoded with a modern compression algorithm is indistinguishable from the original wav when compared in a double blind test. Now, if the person can't get over the negative hype that goes around, then the lesser is gonna sound like crap.


I'd like to see who made the double-blind test, and who was in it.

Most people can't tell the difference between $200 speakers and $2,000 speakers.

EDIT:

Also, modern recordings are compressed to heck.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Spasticteapot said:


> I'd like to see who made the double-blind test, and who was in it.
> 
> Most people can't tell the difference between $200 speakers and $2,000 speakers.
> 
> ...


Can't really show you proof, but do you know I am wrong or are you just curious?


----------



## psteele (Aug 5, 2008)

There are distingusihable artifacts present even in 320kbps mp3. aac has unique compression artifacts to it that are different from mp3 even though it is a more efficient codec; i wonder how much different a 256kbps aac file would be compared to a 256~320kbps mp3 or the original uncompressed music.

@t3sn4f2, the clips are most of the time different than the actual files you download...usually more compressed


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

psteele said:


> There are distingusihable artifacts present even in 320kbps mp3. aac has unique compression artifacts to it that is different from a 128kbps mp3 as it is a more efficient codec; i wonder how much different a 256kbps aac file would be compared to a 256~320kbps mp3 or the original file
> *
> @t3sn4f2, the clips are most of the time different than the actual files you download...usually more compressed*


That's what is weird about it, the iTunes clip should be 128K AAC at most and my Rhapsody is a 192K WMA. I haven't had a chance to compare more files but hopefully it is just a one time thing where they messed up the encoding process ion the Rhapsody file.

Unless you meant the clips have more dynamic compression, which isn't likely since other quick comparos I've done don't have that obvious difference.


----------



## psteele (Aug 5, 2008)

oh, i see what you mean...


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

$2K and 200 speakers...either way you ought to get the music you paid for in a high sonic quality format, how I or you play it is none of their business.

What POs me is here it is 2009 and what, we have faulty music? All our big broadband crap and high technology and you want me to swallow some compressed music that is worse quality than when CDs came out in *1982*....that is *27* F YEARS in my quick calculation. Old ANCIENT CDs that scratch and are near impossible to open/handle easily are still the standard? Get real, at least send some vaseline with my low quality compressed music or give me the junk for free IMO. What happened to better? Lets start making cars from 1982 and see how many we can sell. On the other hand that is typical for the music industry. Oops, typical for a lot of government and other companies today.


----------

