News SanDisk, record labels introduce new music format

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/09/22/sandisk-record-labels-introduce-new-music-format/1

SanDisk has introduced a new physical music format dubbed slotMusic in conjunction with the four major record labels.

 

The idea is nice, but its going to be too easy to lose them

 

very nice idea.

 

If your going to buy a drm-free physical product why not just buy cd's and rip em, i don't get this.

 

Pointless, it's just a micro SD card that comes pre-loaded with a few songs.

 

You forgot to mention the hefty premium they will charge for "making it all fit on just one SD card"...

But I definitely agree: Pointless.

 

Well... an album is just a cd with music burnt onto them. Heck, buy vinil!

Veles, weak excuse.

I think its a nice idea. If its 1gb cards, maybe we can have more music for the price of less?! Even better, withour DRM? Pretty nice. Finally seems like people are getting things through their thick skulls!

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 320 lower than CD quality? Also, encoding in a lossless format such as mp3 will undoubtedly turn off the hi-fi'ers.

 

It's a good idea, but, as previously mentioned, it would be too darn easy to lose a bunch of microSD cards. Also, if these cost anything over about $10 USD, it just wouldn't be worth it.

 

Much like one can do now on the micro sd card that came free with your phone. Phones, car hifi and most devices that use micro-sd are such low audio quality that you'd be better ripping at a lower vbr and getting more on your own free to <£5 card. Proxes I still don't get it your supporting paying a (probable) premium for a card with lossy encoding, all its saving is the few minutes it takes to rip a cd and copy the results to a card and loosing the space taken up by the filler on most albums.

 

Where do you get free microSD cards with your phone. I guess i got ripped off spending $5 on mine.

 

I don't get it? Why is it a weak excuse? You're just buying a small microSD card for a premium price because it comes with a few songs. Yeah no DRM, whoopty-****ing-doo, none of my mp3s have DRM on them anyway.

Your "Heck, buy vinyl" comment is rather retarded. Why buy a CD? It's higher quality than you can get with most mp3 downloads and it's incredibly easy to rip to your computer. You're effectively buying whatever quality mp3s you like, without any DRM, and a backup of those mp3s. With prices online it's not really any more expensive than buying an album of mp3s off an online music store. When you buy a vinyl, unless you have some rather expensive kit you can't get it ripped to a computer.

 

If the cards are 1gb they should be able to fill it with lossless music, not "up to" 320kbps. 320kbps should be the minimum, not the maximum.

 

A CD is 320kbps. You were complaining about the quality, thats why i suggested vinyl, thats real lossless.
Obviously the reason they chose mp3 is because it works on pretty much anything. I'd rather they have it in FLAC but that wouldn't sell as much now would it? Advanced Modern Capitalism baby!

But heck, with such strong opposition your showing towards a first-step away from DRM from big companies, they might as well keep the DRM and you just keep torrenting those albums.

 

If they're properly encoded, I defy you to tell the difference in a blind test between 320 kbps MP3 and the CD original. The overwhelming majority of people (I'm talking 99.9%+) can't even tell lame -v2 (~190 kbps) or even -v4 (~165 kbps). Re "minimum not maximum", note that 320 kbps is the maximum bitrate supported by the MP3 standard.

However, I agree that, as a matter of principle, lossy compression shouldn't be used where it isn't needed, as it hampers your ability to re-encode to a lower bitrate (say to fit more tracks on your MP3 player) without generation loss. There is no reason why an album shipped on a 1GB SD card should be lossily compressed - given the maximum capacity of a CD is less than 1GB, you could have uncompressed CD audio on there, or you could use FLAC or a similar lossless codec. If they're worried about compatibility, they should have a high quality (say -v2 / 190 kbps) MP3 version for maximum compatibility and a FLAC version for archival / re-encoding purposes. Both would easily fit on a 1GB card. This is how all my new music is ripped - high quality MP3 for on the go, lossless (FLAC) for listening at home and to avoid having to re-rip if I choose e.g. to switch to OGG Vorbis in future. As and when I have time, I'll go back and re-rip all my old CDs to FLAC as well.

 

But its still a step back, its just an expensive less ubiquitous way of getting your music if you want to buy your music in a physical medium and DRM free buy cds. This is not an alternative to itunes, not that i can see, its a way to push another format on the market one only need look at mini disk to see how much the market needs it.

 

No, a CD is not 320 kbps, though it is virtually indistinguishable from a well encoded 320 kbps MP3. CD audio is uncompressed 44.1 kHz, 16-bit stereo (i.e. 44,100 x 16 x 2 = ~1,410 kbps).

As I say in my previous post, they could (should?) have FLAC and a sensible high bitrate MP3 (e.g. lame -v2, which is transparent to almost all listeners on studio quality equipment), both of which for a standard single album would easily fit on a 1GB SD card.

Why do you say vinyl is "lossless"? Every time you listen to an LP, it degrades ever so slightly in quality as the needle carves out the groove just a little. Try listening to an old LP that has been played often (especially if it has been played on lower quality decks, which tend to do more damage as the styli are of a lower quality and the arms are poorly balanced, so the stylus weighs more heavily on the groove), and tell me it is "lossless". Now put your favourite MP3 or CD on repeat for a hundred years and tell me if it has degraded.

 

If they are doing 1gb why not have it in 2 formats the album in **** mp3 at like 192kbs and then everything in flac at lossless. Then everyone is happy and hi-fiers will really like it because the loseless is a direct studio rip making it a lot better than what they could have gotten off a CD.

 

:facepalm: Oh man... Queue the DRM issues again, regardless what they say, lol.

Honestly, for the money, I'd just get my own cards and drop my own personal rips onto it for a fraction of the cost.

 

NYT 'sauce' says that they'll cost $7-10 USD... that's about the price of a CD (in the US), isn't it?