iTunes 'not CD-quality'


Recommended Posts

DRM Wise, WMA is poor compared to Apple's DRM.

The Problem with WMA is that when you purchase music on one computer you can only play i ton that computer. If you do reformat you can only restore licenses so many times as it thinks you are restoring it to a different computer.

Of course you can burn to CD and rerip to get rid of the DRM but then there is some quality loss.

How does that make it poor? one has proven more secure than the other, it's true Microsoft's DRM is more restrictive but that does not make it poor, do you even understand the meaning of that word?

DRM Wise, WMA is poor compared to Apple's DRM.

The Problem with WMA is that when you purchase music on one computer you can only play i ton that computer. If you do reformat you can only restore licenses so many times as it thinks you are restoring it to a different computer.

Of course you can burn to CD and rerip to get rid of the DRM but then there is some quality loss.

Well it hasn't been cracked to date, seems pretty strong to me.

Well it hasn't been cracked to date, seems pretty strong to me.

If you can play it, you can crack it. Audio loopback, CD-RW, or TotalRecall sound driver; take your pick. However, how much music that's on P2P came from WMA's that we extracted this way? And how much came from AACs from the iTMS? To me, there doesn't seem to be much point, as you can go out, get the CD, rip it, and get better quality than going from WMA -> MP3 or whatever.

I can't believe what you are saying.  You are just nitpicking now.

If I was nit-picking I'd point out the places where you say "there" when you mean "their".

The fact is that most analysts believe that Apple claims to have more of the market and unit share than they really do have.
Alex Salkever is the only person that I can find who has written an article to that end, do you know of others that I don't?
Apple owns so right there your claim of 70% can be dismissed as meaningless.

The 70% of legal online music downloads is recorded by nielson soundscan which is the same company tracking physical music sales to determine which CD's are "hits" and which are not. It's not too hard to follow Apple's line of reasoning to support their claims of 70% of the high-end MP3 player market.

If you can find sales numbers for the Rio, Creative Labs, Archos, and iRivier, etc. we could figure out what the high-end MP3 market player statistics are like. For whatever reason I can't find any figures after 20 minutes of googling.

And the CNN article you referred to was also talking about the entire world and not just the "countries that have legal online music stores doing business there"

The 50% market share claim was made by Phil Schiller in early may (after q2 results were posted) and he was specifically talking about the four largest markets. CNN dropped the qualifiers of "america, japan, and western europe", BusinessWeek did not leave that information out, nor did it dispute apple's claim of 50% market share in those markets (they're the ones who started talking about world wide numbers)

World-wide apple is claiming about 30% of the MP3 player market - the data in your article does not refute that claim, nor would it make a terribly strong case for reasons already mentioned. In the markets Apple mentioned they claim 50% of the market, you can make of that what you will.

Are you aware of any music stores operating in China or Pakistan or is it safe to assume that western europe, japan, america, and canada are home to the majority of legal online music sales? I looked and couldn't find anything there; the major ones in north america and europe do not have a presence there.

Anyway, I'm not going to even bother responding to somebody who is twisting things to fit his argument.

Can you plug your own ears and sing, or would you like me to call someone to help you?

,Jul 5 2004, 23:40] I regularly download VBR files from usenet that are higher quality, but the size increase is quite substantial.

*edit*

Legally, yes, iTMS has the "best" quality downloads.  Unfortunately, I no longer use my iPod.

Doesn't that Russian site have better quality files? It's legal too... allofmp3.com

If you can play it, you can crack it. Audio loopback, CD-RW, or TotalRecall sound driver; take your pick. However, how much music that's on P2P came from WMA's that we extracted this way? And how much came from AACs from the iTMS? To me, there doesn't seem to be much point, as you can go out, get the CD, rip it, and get better quality than going from WMA -> MP3 or whatever.

Didn't have to do nearly that much to get past fairplay though, which was what I was getting at.

Doesn't that Russian site have better quality files? It's legal too... allofmp3.com

it's only legal if you live in Russia if you read their T&C.

You know, now that you mention it, argue all you want about the iPod's market share, but I've honestly never seen anyone have a hard drive player other than the iPod. I've seen a lot of flash ones out on the street, but never see iRivers or Zens, or any of those.

You definitely see people here with irivers lol. One of my mates actually has ipod headphones on his though because he can't afford an ipod and is ashamed of the way his iriver looks.

DRM Wise, WMA is poor compared to Apple's DRM.

The Problem with WMA is that when you purchase music on one computer you can only play i ton that computer. If you do reformat you can only restore licenses so many times as it thinks you are restoring it to a different computer.

Of course you can burn to CD and rerip to get rid of the DRM but then there is some quality loss.

actually, unlike the FairPlay DRM that Apple uses, the WM DRM is actually much better. the WM DRM actually does what it is supposed to do and has not been crackede since version 7. which do you think would be more practical to use (in the eyes of the recording companies)? if the license allows it, you can burn it to a CD, put it on a portable device, and so on.

i dont understnad why you think that the FairPlay DRM is better than the WM DRM. recently the FairPlay one has been cracked only a couple of months after each release, while the WM one hasnt been cracked since v7 (hadto say it twice).

STV

I don't like any of this here new-fangled eMPeeThree technolology. Give me a good old vinal record anyday :p

You know the sound quality off one of those records is crap compared to what you can get off a CD or even a tape but all those LP fanatics argue that music just isnt the same without a record's imperfections *shrugs*

To each his own, personally 160kbps AAC works fine for me :yes:

DRM Wise, WMA is poor compared to Apple's DRM.

The Problem with WMA is that when you purchase music on one computer you can only play i ton that computer. If you do reformat you can only restore licenses so many times as it thinks you are restoring it to a different computer.

Of course you can burn to CD and rerip to get rid of the DRM but then there is some quality loss.

Not true, and it doesn't even matter. The license can be re-issued by the owner. Plus, WMA has better renewability then Fairplay.
but apple claimed it did. thats the whole point.

also, about the ipods having low sound quality, although i probably wont hear much of a difference, why get an ipod when you can get an iriver?

I was replying to the post above me when i stated that, the post was that wma or mp3 or something was cd quality at 96kbps. Please learn to read before quoteing a post.

For those who claim to hear the difference in anything encoded above 192Kbs AAC, you are lying. Simply, our ears are only adapted hear certain range, and that is 20-20,000 Hz. It doesn't matter what we claim to hear, it simply isn't audible to our brains. Animals, yes, humans, no.

umm you're not very educated on this matter are you? that range is "theoretical" just like our scale used to measure sight. using your judgement it would then be impossible for anyone to have vision better than 20/20. knowing that the eye doctors rated me as having better than "perfect" vision, i can say theoretical ranges and scales are stupid.

also, nothing is audible to our brains (unless you believe in esp). we have these things called ears for the sole purpose of converting things which are audible into signals our brains can understand. to say that everyone has the same exact quality of ear hardware is pretty ludicrous.

i can hear the difference between 256kbps mp3 and cd a lot of the time. it depends on what i'm listening through and what type of music i'm listening to. sometimes i can ever hear the difference between 320kbps mp3 and cd. and sorry to say, i'm not lying.

this whole thread just reminds me of linux vs windows vs os x debates. it never goes anywhere. half the people are uneducated on the matter and still trying to state their opinions as objective truth. really frustrating.

anyone who cares about digital audio quality is going to know about lossy audio compression at least somewhat, and most of them who care a whole lot about it aren't going to be buying from the itunes music store. the people who are buying the songs are either 1. completely oblivious to the concepts of audio encoding and wouldn't care even if you offered a lossless version or 2. know what they are buying and are fine with it.

so what's the point in this news article?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      459
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!