[Jenn]

Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the iTunes Store
DRM-Free Songs from EMI Available on iTunes for $1.29 in May
CUPERTINO, California‹April 2, 2007‹Apple® today announced that EMI
Music¹s 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. 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. In addition, iTunes customers will be able to easily upgrade
their entire library of all previously purchased EMI content to the
higher quality DRM-free versions for just 30 cents a song. iTunes will
continue to offer its entire catalog, currently over five million songs,
in the same versions as today‹128 kbps AAC encoding with DRM‹at the same
price of 99 cents per song, alongside DRM-free higher quality versions
when available.
³We are going to give iTunes customers a choice‹the current versions of
our songs for the same 99 cent price, or new DRM-free versions of the
same songs with even higher audio quality and the security of
interoperability for just 30 cents more,² said Steve Jobs, Apple¹s CEO.
³We think our customers are going to love this, and we expect to offer
more than half of the songs on iTunes in DRM-free versions by the end of
this year.²
³EMI and iTunes are once again teaming up to move the digital music
industry forward by giving music fans higher quality audio that is
virtually indistinguishable from the original recordings, with no usage
restrictions on the music they love from their favorite artists,² said
Eric Nicoli, CEO of EMI Group.
With DRM-free music from the EMI catalog, iTunes customers will have the
ability to download tracks from their favorite EMI artists without any
usage restrictions that limit the types of devices or number of
computers that purchased songs can be played on. DRM-free songs
purchased from the iTunes Store will be encoded in AAC at 256 kbps,
twice the current bit rate of 128 kbps, and will play on all iPods, Mac®
or Windows computers, Apple TVs and soon iPhones, as well as many other
digital music players.
iTunes will also offer customers a simple, one-click option to easily
upgrade their entire library of all previously purchased EMI content to
the higher quality DRM-free format for 30 cents a song. All EMI music
videos will also be available in DRM-free format with no change in price.

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the iTunes Store
DRM-Free Songs from EMI Available on iTunes for $1.29 in May
CUPERTINO, California Music¹s 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. 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. In addition, iTunes customers will be able to easily upgrade
their entire library of all previously purchased EMI content to the
higher quality DRM-free versions for just 30 cents a song. iTunes will
continue to offer its entire catalog, currently over five million songs,
in the same versions as today128 kbps AAC encoding with DRM price of 99
cents per song, alongside DRM-free higher quality versions
when available.
³We are going to give iTunes customers a choice our songs for the same
99 cent price, or new DRM-free versions of the
same songs with even higher audio quality and the security of
interoperability for just 30 cents more,² said Steve Jobs, Apple¹s CEO.
³We think our customers are going to love this, and we expect to offer
more than half of the songs on iTunes in DRM-free versions by the end of
this year.²
³EMI and iTunes are once again teaming up to move the digital music
industry forward by giving music fans higher quality audio that is
virtually indistinguishable from the original recordings, with no usage
restrictions on the music they love from their favorite artists,² said
Eric Nicoli, CEO of EMI Group.
With DRM-free music from the EMI catalog, iTunes customers will have the
ability to download tracks from their favorite EMI artists without any
usage restrictions that limit the types of devices or number of
computers that purchased songs can be played on. DRM-free songs
purchased from the iTunes Store will be encoded in AAC at 256 kbps,
twice the current bit rate of 128 kbps, and will play on all iPods, Mac®
or Windows computers, Apple TVs and soon iPhones, as well as many other
digital music players.
iTunes will also offer customers a simple, one-click option to easily
upgrade their entire library of all previously purchased EMI content to
the higher quality DRM-free format for 30 cents a song. All EMI music
videos will also be available in DRM-free format with no change in price.

Well, I guess it is a step in the right direction. But it gets us back only
to a point just short of "CD Quality". Now how about a "super-premium" SACD
or DVD-A multi-channel" release?

[Bill Riel]

In article ,
says...

As Arny will confirm, 256 kbs is definitely distinguishable in mp3. How
does AAC perform at this bitrate?

In my experience, AAC tends to be better than mp3 - I'd expect 256 kbs
to be pretty good, though I wouldn't be surprised if differences could
be detected in some cases. Still, it's much better than 128.

--
Bill

[Bill Riel]

In article ,
says...

"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...

As Arny will confirm, 256 kbs is definitely distinguishable in mp3. How
does AAC perform at this bitrate?

In my experience, AAC tends to be better than mp3 - I'd expect 256 kbs
to be pretty good, though I wouldn't be surprised if differences could
be detected in some cases. Still, it's much better than 128.

--
Bill

With mp3, even at 320K, I can hear the difference even on speech.

You would almost certainly be able to detect differences with 256 Kbs
AAC then. While I'm not entirely sure, I suspect that 256k AAC is pretty
close to 320k mp3 in quality.

While I admit I haven't done any extensive comparisions, I personally
haven't been able to detect differences at this level of compression, so
I'd probably be happy with 256K AAC.

--
Bill

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Jenn" wrote in
message
...
Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the
iTunes Store DRM-Free Songs from EMI Available on iTunes for $1.29 in
May CUPERTINO, California Music¹s 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.
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. In addition, iTunes customers will be able to
easily upgrade their entire library of all previously
purchased EMI content to the higher quality DRM-free
versions for just 30 cents a song. iTunes will continue
to offer its entire catalog, currently over five million
songs, in the same versions as today128 kbps AAC
encoding with DRM price of 99 cents per song,
alongside DRM-free higher quality versions when available.
³We are going to give iTunes customers a choice our
songs for the same 99 cent price, or new DRM-free
versions of the same songs with even higher audio quality and the
security of interoperability for just 30 cents more,²
said Steve Jobs, Apple¹s CEO. ³We think our customers
are going to love this, and we expect to offer more than
half of the songs on iTunes in DRM-free versions by the
end of this year.² ³EMI and iTunes are once again teaming up to move the
digital music industry forward by giving music fans
higher quality audio that is virtually indistinguishable
from the original recordings, with no usage restrictions
on the music they love from their favorite artists,²
said Eric Nicoli, CEO of EMI Group. With DRM-free music from the EMI
catalog, iTunes
customers will have the ability to download tracks from
their favorite EMI artists without any usage
restrictions that limit the types of devices or number
of computers that purchased songs can be played on.
DRM-free songs purchased from the iTunes Store will be encoded in AAC
at 256 kbps, twice the current bit rate of 128 kbps, and will play on
all iPods, Mac® or Windows computers, Apple TVs and soon
iPhones, as well as many other digital music players.
iTunes will also offer customers a simple, one-click
option to easily upgrade their entire library of all
previously purchased EMI content to the higher quality
DRM-free format for 30 cents a song. All EMI music
videos will also be available in DRM-free format with no
change in price.

Well, I guess it is a step in the right direction. But
it gets us back only to a point just short of "CD
Quality". Now how about a "super-premium" SACD or DVD-A
multi-channel" release?

Yeah, SACD and DVD-A provide such impressive-looking specifications. Just
what Harry needs to enjoy music - impressive specifications.

[dizzy]

Signal wrote:

99c is too much for a single track download already IMO, considering
the lower overheads involved vs a hard copy, the compromised quality,
lack of liner notes/artwork.

Not if, like so many CD's, there's only a couple really good songs
with having...

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Well, I guess it is a step in the right direction. But
it gets us back only to a point just short of "CD
Quality". Now how about a "super-premium" SACD or DVD-A
multi-channel" release?

Yeah, SACD and DVD-A provide such impressive-looking
specifications. Just what Harry needs to enjoy music -
impressive specifications.
How about saying distortion and artefact free, uncompressed,
analog sounding, multichannel music that is superior to CD?

Regards TT

PS Noted I gave you what you asked for and you have not
commented on my post Spectral Analyses 192/24 that has
been up for over a month!

[Harry Lavo]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
[snip]

Well, I guess it is a step in the right direction. But it gets us back
only
to a point just short of "CD Quality". Now how about a "super-premium"
SACD
or DVD-A multi-channel" release?

But we would need Thiel earbuds.

Hey, there's an idea! I wonder if Jim T has thought of that? :-)
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Jenn" wrote in
message
...
Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the
iTunes Store DRM-Free Songs from EMI Available on iTunes for $1.29 in
May CUPERTINO, California Music¹s 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.
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. In addition, iTunes customers will be able to
easily upgrade their entire library of all previously
purchased EMI content to the higher quality DRM-free
versions for just 30 cents a song. iTunes will continue
to offer its entire catalog, currently over five million
songs, in the same versions as today128 kbps AAC
encoding with DRM price of 99 cents per song,
alongside DRM-free higher quality versions when available.
³We are going to give iTunes customers a choice our
songs for the same 99 cent price, or new DRM-free
versions of the same songs with even higher audio quality and the
security of interoperability for just 30 cents more,²
said Steve Jobs, Apple¹s CEO. ³We think our customers
are going to love this, and we expect to offer more than
half of the songs on iTunes in DRM-free versions by the
end of this year.² ³EMI and iTunes are once again teaming up to move the
digital music industry forward by giving music fans
higher quality audio that is virtually indistinguishable
from the original recordings, with no usage restrictions
on the music they love from their favorite artists,²
said Eric Nicoli, CEO of EMI Group. With DRM-free music from the EMI
catalog, iTunes
customers will have the ability to download tracks from
their favorite EMI artists without any usage
restrictions that limit the types of devices or number
of computers that purchased songs can be played on.
DRM-free songs purchased from the iTunes Store will be encoded in AAC
at 256 kbps, twice the current bit rate of 128 kbps, and will play on
all iPods, Mac® or Windows computers, Apple TVs and soon
iPhones, as well as many other digital music players.
iTunes will also offer customers a simple, one-click
option to easily upgrade their entire library of all
previously purchased EMI content to the higher quality
DRM-free format for 30 cents a song. All EMI music
videos will also be available in DRM-free format with no
change in price.

Well, I guess it is a step in the right direction. But
it gets us back only to a point just short of "CD
Quality". Now how about a "super-premium" SACD or DVD-A
multi-channel" release?

Yeah, SACD and DVD-A provide such impressive-looking specifications. Just
what Harry needs to enjoy music - impressive specifications.

Thanks for your gratuitous nonsense, Arny. Hope it makes you happy.

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Well, I guess it is a step in the right direction. But
it gets us back only to a point just short of "CD
Quality". Now how about a "super-premium" SACD or DVD-A
multi-channel" release?

Yeah, SACD and DVD-A provide such impressive-looking
specifications. Just what Harry needs to enjoy music -
impressive specifications.

How about saying distortion and artifact free,

That would be any digital format.

uncompressed,

That's easy, just don't compress it!

analog sounding,

Sounding like any extant practical analog record/playback technology would
be a gigantic step backwards for digital.

multichannel music

44/16 can do that.

that is superior to CD?

How can you improve on something that is already sonically transparent?

PS Noted I gave you what you asked for and you have not
commented on my post Spectral Analyses 192/24 that has
been up for over a month!

Your spectral analysis shows some odd, unnatural artefacts 20 KHz. The
recording is horribly flawed, technically speaking. The only thing that
makes it listenable is the fact that the artefacts are 20 KHz where they
can't be heard, anyway.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Soundhaspriority" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...
Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the iTunes Store
DRM-Free Songs from EMI Available on iTunes for $1.29 in May
CUPERTINO, California Music¹s 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. DRM-free tracks from EMI will be
offered at higher quality 256 kbps AAC encoding, resulting in audio
quality indistinguishable from the original recording

As Arny will confirm, 256 kbs is definitely distinguishable in mp3. How
does AAC perform at this bitrate?

I haven't compared it to CD, but it sure is better than 128.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t...
In article
,
says...
As Arny will confirm, 256 kbs is definitely
distinguishable in mp3. How does AAC perform at this
bitrate?

In my experience, AAC tends to be better than mp3 - I'd
expect 256 kbs to be pretty good, though I wouldn't be
surprised if differences could be detected in some
cases. Still, it's much better than 128. --
Bill

With mp3, even at 320K, I can hear the difference even on
speech.

Right up and until the level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled
listening test! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Jenn" wrote in
message
...
Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the
iTunes Store DRM-Free Songs from EMI Available on iTunes
for $1.29 in May CUPERTINO, California Music¹s 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.
DRM-free tracks from EMI will be offered at higher
quality 256 kbps AAC encoding, resulting in audio
quality indistinguishable from the original recording

As Arny will confirm, 256 kbs is definitely
distinguishable in mp3. How does AAC perform at this
bitrate?

Allegedly AAC is up to twice as efficient as MP3 in its use of bandwidth.
IOW 256 kbps MP3 = 128 kbps AAC. In reality, AAC is better, but not *that*
much better.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg swallows its energy pill and cranks up its Kroopaganda
machine.

With mp3, even at 320K, I can hear the difference even on
speech.

Right up and until the level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled
listening test!

.... not a single one of which you have ever undertaken, you smarmy pile
of crap.

;-)

Arnii's inhibition module is broken again. Every time he posts his
smarmy-winky, we know exactly what he's up to:

http://www.citizenlunchbox.com/monke...rayformojo.gif





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Jenn" wrote in
message
...
Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the
iTunes Store DRM-Free Songs from EMI Available on iTunes
for $1.29 in May CUPERTINO, California Music¹s 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.
DRM-free tracks from EMI will be offered at higher
quality 256 kbps AAC encoding, resulting in audio
quality indistinguishable from the original recording

As Arny will confirm, 256 kbs is definitely
distinguishable in mp3. How does AAC perform at this
bitrate?

Allegedly AAC is up to twice as efficient as MP3 in its use of bandwidth.
IOW 256 kbps MP3 = 128 kbps AAC. In reality, AAC is better, but not *that*
much better.

Evidence, Arny. Details please. Did you use ABX. ABC/hr. What levels
did you test. What wee the statistical results. What are the telltale
distortions noted and documented by the testing. What equipment did you
use. What setting. What music. What time of day. Inquiring minds want to
know....after all that is a statement of opinion requiring PROOF!

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Jenn" wrote in
message
...
Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the
iTunes Store DRM-Free Songs from EMI Available on
iTunes for $1.29 in May CUPERTINO, California
Music¹s 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. DRM-free tracks
from EMI will be offered at higher quality 256 kbps
AAC encoding, resulting in audio quality
indistinguishable from the original recording

As Arny will confirm, 256 kbs is definitely
distinguishable in mp3. How does AAC perform at this
bitrate?

Allegedly AAC is up to twice as efficient as MP3 in its
use of bandwidth. IOW 256 kbps MP3 = 128 kbps AAC. In
reality, AAC is better, but not *that* much better.

Evidence, Arny.

What's unclear about *allegedly*?

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message

"Jenn" wrote in
message
...
Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the
iTunes Store DRM-Free Songs from EMI Available on
iTunes for $1.29 in May CUPERTINO, California
Music¹s 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. DRM-free tracks
from EMI will be offered at higher quality 256 kbps
AAC encoding, resulting in audio quality
indistinguishable from the original recording

As Arny will confirm, 256 kbs is definitely
distinguishable in mp3. How does AAC perform at this
bitrate?

Allegedly AAC is up to twice as efficient as MP3 in its
use of bandwidth. IOW 256 kbps MP3 = 128 kbps AAC. In
reality, AAC is better, but not *that* much better.

Evidence, Arny.

What's unclear about *allegedly*?

What is unclear about it is that is not the opinion in question....the
opinion is "In reality, AAC is better, but not *that* much better". Don't
play dumb, Arny.

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Well, I guess it is a step in the right direction. But
it gets us back only to a point just short of "CD
Quality". Now how about a "super-premium" SACD or
DVD-A
multi-channel" release?

Yeah, SACD and DVD-A provide such impressive-looking
specifications. Just what Harry needs to enjoy music -
impressive specifications.

How about saying distortion and artifact free,

That would be any digital format.

So MP3 @ 128kbs is perfect?


uncompressed,

That's easy, just don't compress it!

Sorry, my error here, I meant to say "lossless". Being and
old timer I still associate "compression" with "lossy"
formats


analog sounding,

Sounding like any extant practical analog record/playback
technology would be a gigantic step backwards for digital.

Only at lower bitrates.

multichannel music

44/16 can do that.

Not on Red Book CD!


that is superior to CD?

How can you improve on something that is already sonically
transparent?

see above


PS Noted I gave you what you asked for and you have not
commented on my post Spectral Analyses 192/24 that
has
been up for over a month!

Your spectral analysis shows some odd, unnatural artefacts
20 KHz. The recording is horribly flawed, technically
speaking. The only thing that makes it listenable is the
fact that the artefacts are 20 KHz where they can't be
heard, anyway.
I never said it was a perfect recording only an example of a
readily available commercial recording that has a lot of
sound energy 25kHz.

IMHO it sounds very pleasant (except some vocals are too
closely miked) and down mixing it to 44.1/16 makes it sound
"harsh". BTW I haven't ABXed it as I cannot get your
program to work at 192/24 or, as I have previously said,
managed a DBT at the two different sample rates other than
crude source swapping.

Regards TT

[dizzy]

Signal wrote:

dizzy wrote:

Signal wrote:

99c is too much for a single track download already IMO, considering
the lower overheads involved vs a hard copy, the compromised quality,
lack of liner notes/artwork.

Not if, like so many CD's, there's only a couple really good songs
with having...

I suppose, but how keen are you on paying extortionate prices? My
point is with significantly lower overheads, downloads should cost
less. At $1.30 per track, majors are laughing all the way to the bank.

I smoke cigars that cost $10. $1.30 for a really good song is a
bargain, IMO.

The increased quality plus the lack of DRM makes me MUCH more likely
to download music. I was kind of ticked-off when I first tried
itunes, and quickly learned that I could not play the song that I just
payed-for on another PC (withoug jumping through hoops). Plus,
128kb/s is quite lame.

I think this is a great step foward.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in
message

"Jenn" wrote in
message
...
Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the
iTunes Store DRM-Free Songs from EMI Available on
iTunes for $1.29 in May CUPERTINO, California
Music¹s 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. DRM-free tracks
from EMI will be offered at higher quality 256 kbps
AAC encoding, resulting in audio quality
indistinguishable from the original recording

As Arny will confirm, 256 kbs is definitely
distinguishable in mp3. How does AAC perform at this
bitrate?

Allegedly AAC is up to twice as efficient as MP3 in its
use of bandwidth. IOW 256 kbps MP3 = 128 kbps AAC. In
reality, AAC is better, but not *that* much better.

Evidence, Arny.

What's unclear about *allegedly*?

What is unclear about it is that is not the opinion in
question....the opinion is "In reality, AAC is better,
but not *that* much better". Don't play dumb, Arny.

Actually Harry, it is you who are playing dumb, or at least poorly-informed.

The comparison between AAC and MP3 was discussed some years ago on RAO by
JJ, who was instrumental in running the MPEG tests. Where were you? The
results of those test are on the web, and I've cited them here many times.
TheEG group test procedures and results were also published in the JAES.

Again Harry, its not my job to educate you or do your research for you,
especially given that you've rebuffed my many attempts to help you with your
many problems with gross ignorance about audio.

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Well, I guess it is a step in the right direction. But it gets us back
only to a point just short of "CD
Quality". Now how about a "super-premium" SACD or
DVD-A
multi-channel" release?

Yeah, SACD and DVD-A provide such impressive-looking
specifications. Just what Harry needs to enjoy music -
impressive specifications.

How about saying distortion and artifact free,

That would be any digital format.

So MP3 @ 128kbs is perfect?


uncompressed,

That's easy, just don't compress it!

Sorry, my error here, I meant to say "lossless". Being
and old timer I still associate "compression" with "lossy"
formats


analog sounding,

Sounding like any extant practical analog record/playback
technology would be a gigantic step backwards for
digital.
Only at lower bitrates.

multichannel music

44/16 can do that.

Not on Red Book CD!


that is superior to CD?

How can you improve on something that is already
sonically transparent?

see above


PS Noted I gave you what you asked for and you have not
commented on my post Spectral Analyses 192/24 that
has
been up for over a month!

Your spectral analysis shows some odd, unnatural
artefacts 20 KHz. The recording is horribly flawed,
technically speaking. The only thing that makes it
listenable is the fact that the artefacts are 20 KHz
where they can't be heard, anyway.
I never said it was a perfect recording only an example
of a readily available commercial recording that has a
lot of sound energy 25kHz.

I don't think so. It looks pretty wimpy compared to the recordings I've
posted at www.pcabx.com. And the content 25 KHz is highly contaminated
with some kind of ultrasonic noise.

IMHO it sounds very pleasant (except some vocals are too
closely miked) and down mixing it to 44.1/16 makes it
sound "harsh". BTW I haven't ABXed it as I cannot get
your program to work at 192/24 or, as I have previously
said, managed a DBT at the two different sample rates
other than crude source swapping.

My program works fine at 192/24 if you have an appropriate audio interface.
The only caveat is that both sources have to have the same format. This
isn't a practical problem because it is possible to upsample lower sample
rate program material without affecting it sonically. BTW, the problem with
mismatched sample rates isn't a problem with the program, its a problem that
is common to audio interfaces - they tend to be a bit messy while they are
chagning formats.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in
message

"Jenn" wrote in
message
...
Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the
iTunes Store DRM-Free Songs from EMI Available on
iTunes for $1.29 in May CUPERTINO, California
Music¹s 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. DRM-free tracks
from EMI will be offered at higher quality 256 kbps
AAC encoding, resulting in audio quality
indistinguishable from the original recording

As Arny will confirm, 256 kbs is definitely
distinguishable in mp3. How does AAC perform at this
bitrate?

Allegedly AAC is up to twice as efficient as MP3 in its
use of bandwidth. IOW 256 kbps MP3 = 128 kbps AAC. In
reality, AAC is better, but not *that* much better.

Evidence, Arny.

What's unclear about *allegedly*?

What is unclear about it is that is not the opinion in
question....the opinion is "In reality, AAC is better,
but not *that* much better". Don't play dumb, Arny.

Actually Harry, it is you who are playing dumb, or at least
poorly-informed.

The comparison between AAC and MP3 was discussed some years ago on RAO by
JJ, who was instrumental in running the MPEG tests. Where were you? The
results of those test are on the web, and I've cited them here many times.
TheEG group test procedures and results were also published in the JAES.

"some years ago" I wasn't even monitoring RAO....I only started here because
I discovered you were over here badmouthing me after you got kicked out of
RAHE. Moreover, I have pretty close to zero interest in recording or
downloading compressed files, so it is not a subject I spend much time on.

Since you are the one demanding that "evidence" back up every assertion, why
did you at least not cite the source or a brief summary of the basis for
your opinion? After all, you presented it as "reality". Or is belief in a
double-standard one of your core values?


Again Harry, its not my job to educate you or do your research for you,
especially given that you've rebuffed my many attempts to help you with
your many problems with gross ignorance about audio.

I've rebuffed your lies and faith-based "science", Arny. I have no problem
with truth. And ignorance of audio...especially home hi-end audio...is not
exactly my weakness, since my knowledge of it extends from the present day
all the way back to 1949.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in
message

"Jenn" wrote in
message
...
Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the
iTunes Store DRM-Free Songs from EMI Available on
iTunes for $1.29 in May CUPERTINO, California
Music¹s 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. DRM-free tracks
from EMI will be offered at higher quality 256 kbps
AAC encoding, resulting in audio quality
indistinguishable from the original recording

As Arny will confirm, 256 kbs is definitely
distinguishable in mp3. How does AAC perform at
this bitrate?

Allegedly AAC is up to twice as efficient as MP3 in
its use of bandwidth. IOW 256 kbps MP3 = 128 kbps
AAC. In reality, AAC is better, but not *that* much
better.

Evidence, Arny.

What's unclear about *allegedly*?

What is unclear about it is that is not the opinion in
question....the opinion is "In reality, AAC is better,
but not *that* much better". Don't play dumb, Arny.

Actually Harry, it is you who are playing dumb, or at
least poorly-informed.

The comparison between AAC and MP3 was discussed some
years ago on RAO by JJ, who was instrumental in running
the MPEG tests. Where were you? The results of those
test are on the web, and I've cited them here many
times. TheEG group test procedures and results were also
published in the JAES.

"some years ago" I wasn't even monitoring RAO....

Not my problem, Harry.

But here, I ran into this, which might help you out:

http://www.telos-systems.com/techtalk/00222.pdf

I only
started here because I discovered you were over here
badmouthing me after you got kicked out of RAHE.

Pot:Kettle:Black

Moreover, I have pretty close to zero interest in
recording or downloading compressed files, so it is not a
subject I spend much time on.

Then Harry why are you troubling us with your useless musings about it?

Since you are the one demanding that "evidence" back up
every assertion, why did you at least not cite the source
or a brief summary of the basis for your opinion?

Actually Harry, I only look for support for assertions that look suspect to
me, such as many of yours.

After all, you presented it as "reality". Or is belief in a
double-standard one of your core values?

Let's talk about double standards Harry. You're making all sorts of
accusations against me about things that I've already properly supported
here at least once.

Again Harry, its not my job to educate you or do your
research for you, especially given that you've rebuffed
my many attempts to help you with your many problems
with gross ignorance about audio.

I've rebuffed your lies and faith-based "science", Arny.

What faith-based science, Harry? I'm the guy who has cited the JAES as
much if not more than anybody in the history of Usenet.

I have no problem with truth.

Except when it is inconvenient. You've recently even admitted that, Harry.

And ignorance of
audio...especially home hi-end audio...is not exactly my
weakness, since my knowledge of it extends from the
present day all the way back to 1949.

Well sue me Harry, my knowlege of home high end audio only goes back to the
middle 1950s.

As far as knowlege of current home high end audio goes - it is true that I
don't keep up with the latest names to drop.

Your problem Harry is that you actually believe a lot of the urban legends
that are much of the backbone of the weird side of high end audio in the
present day.

It's too bad that you work so hard avoiding practical experience with
modern-day audio. I've seen some evidence that getting some real world
experience has had some benefits for our friend Robert. I daresay that if
you pursued recording as diligently as he has been in the present day, you'd
disabuse yourself of much of the High End Myth and Legend that makes you go
around in circles these days.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:

Pot:Kettle:Black


Arny:Toilet:Brown


Actually Harry, I only look for support for assertions that look suspect to
me,


Arny's bad scientific mind, at work!!


- it is true that I
don't keep up with the latest names to drop.


Not true, you've dropped turds, bricks, number 2's , wet willies,
poopers,
crappies, kaka, and doo-doo. You have probably dropped more **** than
that!


..

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

don't keep up with the latest names to drop.

Not true, you've dropped turds, bricks, number 2's , wet willies,
poopers, crappies, kaka, and doo-doo. You have probably dropped more **** than that!

Is there such a thing as feces envy?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
Clyde Slick said:

don't keep up with the latest names to drop.

Not true, you've dropped turds, bricks, number 2's , wet willies,
poopers, crappies, kaka, and doo-doo. You have probably dropped more **** than that!

Is there such a thing as feces envy?


It firmed up as Arny approached 60.

[Bill Riel]

In article ,
lid says...


The increased quality plus the lack of DRM makes me MUCH more likely
to download music.

I think the lack of DRM is the really big news here - I'm hoping it
forces other labels to follow suit.

And like you, I'm much more enthusiastic about purchasing downloadable
music in this format than the current offerings.

--
Bill