KVR Audio

Deb Onair · Post by **Deb Onair** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:49 pm

AUTO-ADMIN: Non-MP3, WAV, OGG, SoundCloud, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter and Facebook links in this post have been protected automatically. Once the member reaches 5 posts the links will function as normal.

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67 ... tw=rss.TOP (http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html?tw=rss.TOP)

Interesting about the DRM and Intels new CPUs and Hollywood.

DEB

hollownail · Post by **hollownail** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:39 pm

Right, swithc to a whole new platform that will cost a lot of money and time, and possibly company instability just for DRM? I think not.
Although it was odd that Steve stated it was partly because the PPC roadmap will not get high enough, quick enough for them, that they still don't have 3 ghz ppc.
Weird, cuase thats what the xbox 360 uses, 3 3.2 ghz ppc processors.
And there will always be a way around DRM. it will be a pain in the ass, but yeah, always a way around. And who wants to d/l 9 gigs for a full dvd9 movie? Even with broadband, that will take a while.

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:50 pm

Will this mean that Logic is coming back to PC? How ironic!

glaucomys · Post by **glaucomys** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:46 pm

" Will this mean that Logic is coming back to PC? How ironic! "

hehehe! yes.. I am in tears laughing about exactly that!

Glau

Charlie · Post by **Charlie** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:10 pm

hollownail wrote:Weird, cuase thats what the xbox 360 uses, 3 3.2 ghz ppc processors.

The Xbox chip is a custom design which is owned by Microsoft.

Jeremy_NSL · Post by **Jeremy_NSL** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:10 pm

hollownail wrote:I think not.
Although it was odd that Steve stated it was partly because the PPC roadmap will not get high enough, quick enough for them, that they still don't have 3 ghz ppc.
Weird, cuase thats what the xbox 360 uses, 3 3.2 ghz ppc processors.

afaik, the xbox 360 powerpc processors are much simpler silicon, built to reach higher raw speeds and save costs. They aren't really comparable to the G5. Plus Microsoft owns the silicon 'plans' to these cpus, so Apple may have had to pay big bucks to use any variation of the xbox 360 cpu.

And who wants to d/l 9 gigs for a full dvd9 movie? Even with broadband, that will take a while.

Do people download 700mb of .wav files to get a CD on Itunes? No, they download the 50mb AAC version. It will be the same with movies - they will be compressed in mpeg4 (probably very similar to xvid/divx) and will probably be around 700mb each.

I'm not saying it will work, but it will be doable. Tons of people are downloading illegal dvd-rips every day, and just like illegal music downloaders when Itunes came out - some will go legit. Its obvious there is some big money to be made here, but whether the DRM aspect is worth a platform shift...

Doubtful, it will inevitably get cracked. But without at least an valiant attempt at DRM, the movie companies won't sign on, I guess.

zai · Post by **zai** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:12 pm

No, Logic will be running on a Mac OSX platform, not Windows. As fas as I understands....

Zai

hollownail · Post by **hollownail** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:40 am

floyd wrote:
And who wants to d/l 9 gigs for a full dvd9 movie? Even with broadband, that will take a while.

Do people download 700mb of .wav files to get a CD on Itunes? No, they download the 50mb AAC version. It will be the same with movies - they will be compressed in mpeg4 (probably very similar to xvid/divx) and will probably be around 700mb each.

I'm not saying it will work, but it will be doable. Tons of people are downloading illegal dvd-rips every day, and just like illegal music downloaders when Itunes came out - some will go legit. Its obvious there is some big money to be made here, but whether the DRM aspect is worth a platform shift...

Doubtful, it will inevitably get cracked. But without at least an valiant attempt at DRM, the movie companies won't sign on, I guess.[/quote]

I could see compression being done, but it's won't be like that. For myself, I think dvix sucks compared to the real thing. And sorry, I'm not going to buy/rent a movie to d/l unless it's full dvd quality myself. I doubt they'll get it lower than, lets say 4 gigs, about a dvd5 size file.
Maybe they can, I dunno, but if I'm paying for a movie, it better be damn better than divx.
Especially for those of us who want to output it to a projector or a hdtv. must have progressive scan at least.

Jeremy_NSL · Post by **Jeremy_NSL** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:05 am

hollownail wrote:I could see compression being done, but it's won't be like that. For myself, I think dvix sucks compared to the real thing. And sorry, I'm not going to buy/rent a movie to d/l unless it's full dvd quality myself. I doubt they'll get it lower than, lets say 4 gigs, about a dvd5 size file.
Maybe they can, I dunno, but if I'm paying for a movie, it better be damn better than divx.
Especially for those of us who want to output it to a projector or a hdtv. must have progressive scan at least.

First: Apple has been working on a new variant of mpeg4 video compression, called h.264 (I think?). Its quality is supposedly miles beyond anything you've seen on older divx's. And yes they will use this technology - it isn't profitable or practical to expect people to download 4-9 gbs, as you alluded to in your first message. It will be some form of mpeg4 video.

Second: Yes it won't be dvd-quality, not perfect for your hdtv. But thats not the market they are going for. My guess is if Itunes songs are $1 each, movies may be $5 each - so the price of a rental gets you a permenant copy of a movie in near-dvd quality. Thats some competition for Blockbuster! If you are a hdtv videophile, you'll surely want the new HD-DVD standard discs instead, but then those will be $30+ per disc I'd think.

I'm not saying you should like/endorse this plan, just saying that is what Apple is going for. And this strategy did work for Itunes, so its certainly possible it will work for movies.

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:12 am

It's not really permanent though if you lose the license file and can't re-download it? Napster for example, lets you download any song you've bought before at no extra charge. But what if you forget your account details? Or quite simply, what if these companies change their policy?

I think its a good move for business types, but a bad move for the hard working barely affording an internet connection blue collar worker.

egbert · Post by **egbert** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:22 am

glaucomys wrote:" Will this mean that Logic is coming back to PC? How ironic! "

hehehe! yes.. I am in tears laughing about exactly that!
Glau

It will be interesting to see whether in fact the move to Intel processors makes the Mac any more accessible to other software and vice versa - whether Mac software can be run elsewhere - eg on an OSX install on a third-party PC.

There is a clear statement from Apple that the Intel Macs will not use "Open Firmware". It sounds therefore as though Mac software will not be able to run on anything that Apple did not sell. While the firmware could conceivably be hacked or cloned or something I suspect that a Mac will serve as a large hardware dongle - an effective block to moving Mac Apps onto PCs.

spaceman · Post by **spaceman** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:53 am

zai wrote:No, Logic will be running on a Mac OSX platform, not Windows. As fas as I understands....

Zai

funny how people keep mixing up CPU with OS

we can't all be techies but that's the equivalent of sticking a paper in your cd drive to fax it

as zai pointed out here, Logic is OSX (which happens to run on Mac/IBM)..

popsych · Post by **popsych** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 9:29 am

My belief is that if MACs are priced agressively compared to wintels, about $50-100 more than your average off the shelf HP/Sony and are open to run Windows without any problems then I can see Apple achieving getting much higher sales than what they currently are.

I know i'm already drooling about being able to use the same PC to write my music in Logic 7 and then use SAMP to do my mixdown. I was already thinking of buying a MAC to do just that and then i would need 2 machines.

Furthermore coders now only need to optimize for one processor architecture and with the same spec machines it's just your choice of tools not performance that would lead you to decisions about a platform.

Another exciting thought is that builting a layer which could allow the same exact plugin to work on MAC or PC could be very much achievable. (Are you listening Emapple, Steinberg, Ableton and Mackie).

As for the firmware, i doubt it will be an emulator. Too costly and complex to implement.

I really am drooling and hope to see the new MA(P)Cs pop out soon as I'm at the stage of buying a new system.

etherdesign · Post by **etherdesign** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:59 pm

Just because Intel is making the chip doesn't mean it's going to be using x86 compatible architecture, I really don't see Apple going for that.

Borogove · Post by **Borogove** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 9:24 pm

etherdesign wrote:Just because Intel is making the chip doesn't mean it's going to be using x86 compatible architecture, I really don't see Apple going for that.

They've stated they're using the x86 architecture. The development kits are Pentium 4s.

The real reason for Apple's Intel switch .... ?