Press releases:

"EMI Music launches DRM-free superior sound quality downloads across its entire digital repertoire"

"Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the iTunes Store"

Initially this surprise announcement that came out April 1st was though to be an "April Fools" joke, but has since been confirmed by the media (including WSJ, News.com, Reuters and the AP).

256 kBit/s AAC, DRM-free music will be the "premium" product on iTunes (free on EMI albums or 30 cents more = $1.29 a track on single tracks). If you already purchased an EMI records album, the 256 kBit/s DRM-free AAC album will be a free upgrade.

If you bought EMI individual tracks from iTunes in the past, there is a 30 cent upgrade price to get the 256 kBit/s DRM-free track, or else use the new "Complete My Album" feature to get a discount on album upgrade pricing, based on previous tracks purchased. Apple will still offer existing tracks for $0.99 in 128 kBit/s AAC format with DRM - for other labels' songs and for EMI tracks as well - as a "standard" pricing option.

Excellent development! I hope this applies to other mainstream download stores too and not just to iTMS

According the the WSJ article, it appears it should eventually trickle down to other online music stores also, but will likely start with Apple iTunes first. We shall see, the announcement is a little over 3 hours away (as of the time of this post).

you saw the publication date of this story right? 4/1 - april fools day. I assume its a joke.

Is it still april 1st anywhere?

This is NOT A JOKE. It is real. You can verify by doing a Google News search for the words: apple emi
Here is link to Google News search on this: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=ap...sa=N&tab=wn

All the majors are carrying the story: Reuters, AP, WSJ, News.com, USAToday, Forbes, CNBC, etc.

There is even a web videocast link on the http://www.emigroup.com web site now. Starts at 8AM Eastern time.

So, since they have stated that they will be offering their songs in the MP3 format, will iTS be selling 128kbps mp3 files then?

If that's the case, especially if they use Apple/iTunes's MP3 encoder, the results will be pure crap quality purchases.

I will still stick to buying the CD and ripping/encoding myself, until i get DRM-free lossless files that i can buy online at a cheaper price than what the physical CD with a casing and everything costs in the music store over here.

As to whether or not the story's true, it started with the WSJ, who're unlikely to post crap.

As for bitrate, we'll see. 128kbps MP3s would be ridiculous. But then again, we are talking about the mainstream music industry here. These people would burn salad if asked to make it. I think I'd be more surprised if they came up with a solution that fit general consumer needs than if they didn't. After all, 128kbps MP3s would pretty much help keep CDs viable, and we all know how much the industry loves ancient business models.

Also, because it's Apple you can forget about the files being LAME encoded.

As for the needs of folks like us: FLAC downloads, pleeeease!... all I'll say about that is a chuckle and a sigh .

Nobody knows the format yet. The press conference has yet to start (about and hour and half remains). Once I hear what format Apple/EMI will be using, I will post the details here in this thread.

It could be a lossless format for all we know (Apple Lossless and/or an iTunes converter to/from FLAC). This follows Apple's Steve Jobs' "open letter" a few months ago where he urged the 'major labels' to remove DRM restrictions on digital music.

Apple wants to sell iPods, so the format will most probably stay in the realm of AAC and Apple-Lossless.

This is definitely excellent news.

I hope this comes with a bitrate increase. Even to 160kbps would be enough to get me to switch to using iTunes exclusively for music.

Now where are all the people screaming "HE'S DOING IT FOR THE PUBLICITY"?

I never thought that in the first place. I think Jobs meant just what he said: Apple would sooner not have to maintain the DRM and have the contractual obligation to fix it whenever it's broken in short order.

Bill G still believes in DRM--hell, look how protection for "premium content" has been baked-in for Vista. But Steve Jobs is smart enough to know it's like Canute calling back the waves. Plus MS's business revolves around software, so they look to tie people in to their software, their formats, their DRM. Apple mostly makes its money off hardware sales, where margins are higher, so is free of the need to completely dominate, by fair means or foul, in order to be highly profitable.

However, what Jobs wants and what EMI is prepared to allow are different matters. I'm waiting to hear whether this is about DRM-free music, the Beatles, or both. My guess is the third option, but I think the question is still open. I think if EMI has decided to go with DRM-free content through the iTS it will be in the form of MPEG4 audio at 128kbps CBR. Not what everybody wants, but that's the emerging industry standard, and it'll suit a lot of people and also save complicating matters.


ADDED:

BTW, live webcast from EMI in 20 minutes or so:

http://www.emigroup.com/Default.htm

Site bogged down page not loading argh!

HAHA: WMA or Real Player only.


AHAHAHA


AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAAAA

EMI you are complete idiots

Yeah, and I suppose content protection isn't a part of OSX either Apple will have to comply with AACS, etc. if they want native playback of HD discs. Besides, none of the protections are an issue if the content isn't protected in the first place. Also, IIRC, some of the hacks for FairPlay just didn't work on OSX, but they worked on Windows.


I don't think Jobs is doing it for publicity. But I also think that, like any businessperson, he's motivated by profit, not ideals. In other words, he'd still be behind DRM if it presented a more profitable route for Apple. It's been widely written by pundits that FairPlay existed more to lock iTMS customers into the Apple ecosystem than for the labels' sake. Now that the drawbacks of DRM are being made public and iTMS sales growth is slowing, it makes sense to spur growth by dropping the protections. Make no mistake about it - vendor lock-in is as big a goal (if not bigger) for Apple than it is for MS, precisely because they sell and develop both hardware and software.

The difference between Apple and MS is that they're a lot better at PR than MS ever will be. They've done to the music business what MS did to PCs - strike a deal with the mainstream producers that left them in effective control of the bulk of the market. As such, they can easily outplay MS and other competitors just as MS has (for the most part) easily fended off software competition.

None of this is about Jobs being angel from heaven, or being a publicity hog. He's just an astute businessman who made the first move and is reaping the rewards.

The official EMI press release is here: http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press18.htm

Here is what is going to be announced (from press release)

"Apple's iTunes Store is the first online music store to receive EMI's new premium downloads. Apple has announced that iTunes will make individual AAC format tracks available from EMI artists at twice the sound quality of existing downloads, with their DRM removed, at a price of $1.29/€1.29/£0.99. iTunes will continue to offer consumers the ability to pay $0.99/€0.99/£0.79 for standard sound quality tracks with DRM still applied. Complete albums from EMI Music artists purchased on the iTunes Store will automatically be sold at the higher sound quality and DRM-free, with no change in the price. Consumers who have already purchased standard tracks or albums with DRM will be able to upgrade their digital music for $0.30/€0.30/£0.20 per track. All EMI music videos will also be available on the iTunes Store DRM-free with no change in price."

It will be AAC at double the bandwidth (256k) DRM-free for $1.29 a track or 30 cents extra if you already bought an EMI track from iTunes. Or buy the album and get 256k premium encoded DRM files with no premium of album price.

What a load of rot! Where did I write, "Steve Jobs is an angel from heaven"? I said he was "smart" and that Apple's business model didn't require DRM.

And it's a done deal now, as I thought:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/scie...rops+drm/375352

HAHA! What a rip-off!
Hence, you are better of being a "pirate". The music is JUST as available, completely DRM-free and in high quality rips (usually).

Fees for re-encodes???? COME ON!

Also any EMI albums bought on iTunes will stay the same price, with NO DRM and higher quality.

256kbps AAC is DRM free, CONFIRMED!

Holy crap! I thought for sure since the original news articles referred to were posted on the 1st it was a joke...I was quite wrong. I do think their approach is not the best. While I agree with DRM free, I think what they really need to do is reduce the price to encourage more people to buy more music. If the music was more reasonably priced and drm free there would be little incentive for people to suffer through p2p networks.

256kbps is really good. Too bad the price is ludicrous. Now to see what the other stores will offer

Today the music industry removes DRM. What's next? Bill Gates basing the next Windows on Linux?

I don't know what to say. I'm just... But hell, it's great with double bandwidth - But why don't they just take it all the way to lossless? But the path are not as long anymore

So now that we have 256K AAC as the "new base standard" to replace the old 128K AAC and MP3 sold via online stores, I guess I will ask the enevitable question: When will he have a 256K AAC listening test on HA?

LAME 256K MP3 vs. iTunes 256K AAC encoder vs. Nero 256K AAC vs. Ogg Vorbis 256K vs. Coding Technology 256k AAC

How many of the above encoders have been tuned with 256K bitrate in mind? Perhaps now the developers will have to go back to re-tune/optimize them for the 256K bitrate, like they have been doing with 128K for years.

I think this is fantastic news!

Yes, too bad about the price premium, but remember that other DRM-free shops (like e.g. Bleep, who offer VBR MP3 files) also have comparable prices.

And 256kbps AAC is certainly "good enough" for me. Yes, it's still not lossless, but at this quality level I don't think I'll be able to hear any artifacts. For some purposes, I'll need to transcode to MP3 (car radio, el cheapo MP3 flash player for running), but in those cases I don't need 100% transparent sound anyway.


Never. This would be useless since almost nobody would be able to hear a difference between the encoded files.

I just want lossless..Is it so hard DRM free lossless!!! Imagine!

I saw this post on MacDailyNews.com and it was so good I am repeating it here:

"The big win here is that Apple is really cementing AAC as the "legal" audio standard, and stopping WMA from going any further."

I thought about the author's statement that I quoted above, and this new move to make 256K AAC the "de facto" music store (read iTunes) standard for HQ non-DRM audio will likely help to further replace MP3's popularity with AAC, and also serve to get rid of the spread of DRM-laded WMA audio files plus the proprietary WMA non-DRM audio file format as well.

Can we say goodbye to Microsoft's stranglehold on the audio file format... Goodbye WMA...Rest in peace.

Now Microsoft will have to also play and/or convert AAC/M4A files for use in Windows Media Player and XP/Vista, to avoid the EU coming down on them with fines for not being interoperable with the AAC/MPEG 4 audio international standard

That is indeed an interesting idea, specially considering WMA Standard's bitrates don't even go beyond 192kbps.

I can't see paying these kind of prices for lossy content. People who spend a buck a track for lossy are either stupid or desperate. Lossless is another story. I'd pay a buck to get the entire track.

A more appropriate test would be one that compares first-generational transcodes to MP3/Vorbis/etc. for transparency by target bitrate.

The record label (EMI, in this case) wants people to buy full albums, hence the same price (usually $9.99) with no price increase for the higher quality, DRM-free 256K AAC versions. 256K Lossy is not bad, and Apple probably couldn't budge EMI to go for full-lossless at those prices.

Remember, that this is a watershed moment for digital music sales online. None of the Major 4 labels ever before has allowed any online music store to sell most of their catalogs as non-DRM music. Steve Jobs (Apple) broke down the wall with EMI, and has 3 more "Goliath's" to contend/negotiate with to agree to DRM-free, let alone lossless. I think 256K is a good "compromise" for now to get the other major players to even talk about removing the DRM. Steve Jobs tossed them a bit more money, for singles and not full albums, to try and persuade the other 3 to "play ball".

Or they're just not smug enough to believe they could hear the difference, hmmm?

Anyone know whether it's iTunes 256k CBR, or 256k "VBR" (which is really ABR)?

I agree that it's reasonable to ask for lossless tracks at $0.99, and I hope that this marks a step in that direction. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the additional bandwidth required to sell lossless albums is cheaper than the materials, manufacturing/packaging, distribution, etc. for selling compact discs.

yep, if you like the whole album, buying the CD is still cheaper for us but way more expensive for everyone else in the food chain. so either the price difference has to narrow or album crappiness ratio has to increase. I think this deal is another baby step towards the former.

downloads might be able to keep a little premium for the convenience/instant gratification factor.

Jsh

I'm kinda confused by all of this. Why would Apple release music in AAC at 256kbps?

AAC at 128kbps was pretty decent seeing that it was likely encoded directly from the source. It was by no means the best for the typical HA member, but it at least offered a good compromise for size vs. quality, that is for the average iTunes customer. If they had bumped up the quality to around 160-192kbps it probably would have been good enough for many HA members, but 256kbps seems to be a bit overkill. It's not good enough for the most puritan of audiophiles, yet it seems a little big for what mainstream users want, considering that they probably own either an iPod mini or nano and lack the room. The way I think if it, for the average listener, they are not going to hear a dramatic difference in quality, they are simply going to notice an increase in footprint and price. Audiophiles are not going to buy it because they probably would still rather have the CD. So what is the point?

I will say though that had they bumped the sample freq. to 96kHz that maybe something different.

Recall that iTunes already offers iPod shuffle owners the option of downcoding to 128kbps when syncing -- offering the same for the nano might be an option in the future.

I think that you make a very good point. 256 is really a halfway house that doesn't suit anyone. 128 is fine for portable use, and 256 is not good enough for archiving. I don't use iTunes, but if I did I would rather the choice of 128kbps DRM-free I think.

That said, it is still good news. One would presume that they could offer 128kbps as well in the near future, and who knows, maybe even Apple Lossless or very high bitrate AAC. I'm not sure I would be overly happy transcoding from 256kbps.

Well then, call me stupid. The iTunes Store is very useful for purchasing singles that are released months before the albums come out. I would gladly spend $1.00 on a new single to get it here now than either have to hunt that CD single down in the store (which would easily cost $3.00 or more) or illegally download some internet radio rip that has terrible quality. I don't purchase full albums off of iTunes and I don't purchase other tracks, just new singles.

Besides, if my lossy library consists of 128kbps VBR AAC files (I certainly can't hear the difference), then what loss do I endure by downloading single 128kbps VBR/CBR AAC files?

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but WMA 9.2 Standard can encode to over 320kbps at its max quality setting. From personal experience, I can tell you that this capability has existed from at least version 9.0. Unsure about previous versions since I didn't use the codec then.

It would be difficult for that to have made any sense, since we're assuming their sources are CDs, and a CD's frequency is 44kHz. I would be quite surprised if Apple had access to every label's (whose content they provide) master tapes to provide iTunes with songs (that's also assuming that the content was recorded at 96kHz).

Headroom for the watermark?

Good move from Apple and EMI.

The upgrade from 128 to 256Kbps will just make other record companies look bad : 128K with DRM, WTF, will think people. Sure the bump was planned to make other record companies move.

Now the holy grail is DRM free Lossless. They'll have to do it some day. Popular electronic music
stores like junowdownload and beatport already have it for some time. It's expensive but it's worth it if you care about your music more about just playing it on you ipod or crappy PC speakers.

Btw I barf everytime I hear some people converting lossy to lossy : digital crap.

give it time ... this is a really excellent first step on the right direction ... also, full albums are cheaper than single songs.

Yes that's true if they did record off CDs, but is that what iTunes does? I doubt it.

Plus this little bit from Apple's announcement got me to thinking as well:


"DRM-free tracks from EMI will be offered at higher quality 256 kbps AAC encoding, resulting in audio quality indistinguishable from the original recording, for just $1.29 per song."


Now in order to make that statement even remotely true they would have to be encoding from the original recordings. Plus most original masters these days have a sampling freq. at 96kHz. So it is plausible they could do that.

Here's another interesting note from the release:


"Apple® today announced that EMI Music’s entire digital catalog of music will be available for purchase DRM-free (without digital rights management) from the iTunes® Store (www.itunes.com) worldwide in May."


This is also a little odd. Apple is announcing this a month in advance. Usually they would release the same day as the announcement, so why the hold up?

I'm not totally against it if needs must, but 256kbps would make me very uneasy. Of course, as someone who archives to lossless I would only be totally happy with a lossless download. 128kbps is fine for a cheap 'n' cheerful fix though, like if you have a song going around you head and need to hear it, or you need a sudden nostalgia fix.

Anyway, I risk going too far OT...

Unless there is some new revelation about how encoders work, lossless to lossless is... Lossless

And about the topic, I think DRM free is great. It is a step in the right direction. But I still wouldn't buy lossy files for that much.

If their objective is beating piracy, then having lossy files that cost money is not as good as free, possibly lossless music on P2P. The record companies will never give out free music, so the only way to beat piracy is to offer higher quality music.

Sorry. Welcome to marketing spin. Apple, at one point, also tried to spin their 128Kbps AAC "as good as the original recording." I think Jobs even implied it might be better than CD in one of the keynotes. iTunes Music providers submit standard audio CDs compressed in Apple Lossless to Apple. They are then encoded to 128Kbps AAC for sale... and now, it seems, they'll also be encoded to 256Kbps AAC for sale at a higher cost.

edited thanks

This is a great move by EMI and Apple.

It neatly shuts Norway up about iTunes DRM.

It goes to an area that subscription services cannot follow.

It improves the audio with double the bitrate. Lossless ain't happening folks. Buy that thing called a CD if you want lossless.

It removes barriers toward using iTunes and playing content on non Apple players like Squeezboxes and more.

If Apple can hit their goal of 2.5 million DRM free songs I predict no only will they not lose marketshare but they'll actually grow it.

I still buy CDs when there are 3 or more songs that I really like. But not every album hits that requirement. I'm glad that I have the option to get better quality tracks still at an affordable price and I don't need to worry about authorizations. Cool

There are more (and bigger) record companies than EMI in this world, and until iTS ONLY sells DRM-free files the ongoing case will not stop. Personally i hope that iTS will be shut down here just to make a point.