Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Music Sing

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 316 posts

Re: Apple Music Sing

#221

Post by RC_ITR »

notpushkin wrote: post #203
reaperducer wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it makes more sense to do that processing once in the datacenter. Since Apple is all about on-device processing with so many of its features, going back-and-forth to the data center doesn't seem to be its style these days. That's more of a Google thing. And no one can accuse Apple of telling its advertisers that you start your day with Funky Cold Medina.

There's a reason Apple's preferring on-device processing: user privacy. This doesn't make sense for music (stems, lyrics) since it's not listener's data.

>There's a reason Apple's preferring on-device processing:

It makes it so you have to buy new devices sooner.

The privacy thing is a nice side-benefit and PR thing, but let's be realistic here.

EDIT: Just to remind everyone, we are literally in a thread about a new device feature that is trivial to do in the cloud, which Apple chooses to do on-device, which makes it only a feature for its newest generation of products...

Re: Apple Music Sing

#222

Post by cschep »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #8

> and can be enjoyed on iPhone, iPad, and the new Apple TV 4K But the old Apple TV 4K is not powerful enough for displaying text on a TV, even though any old iPhone is? I get that they want to push device and service adoption but they should pick a lane, either push users to upgrade devices, or push to sign up to paid services. Pushing for both at the same time is greedy.

What if the top comment wasn't the MOST cynical take possible at any given time? :D

What is cool about HN though is that maybe an Apple engineer will show up anonymously and give us the low down about why. In my short experience at Apple there were plenty of problems but NOT shipping things to customers to make money was not even remotely one of them. Bending over backwards on ancient radars to support the iPhone 6 sucks up an enormous amount of time!

Re: Apple Music Sing

#223

Post by rootusrootus »

racl101 wrote: post #82
jrochkind1 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came here with that question, why don't they call this karaoke? Wondered if "karaoke" is trademarked? (or patented?!) It doesn't seem to me likely that they didn't think their audience would know the word "karaoke" at this point, but I don't know.

Cause Karaoke has cheesy or corny perception. Have you ever seen those cringe looking karaoke CD compilations of famous songs. They always look cheap. And if Apple knows anything is how to market / rebrand the same old shit and sell it to the masses at really marked up prices for profit.

> And if Apple knows anything is how to market / rebrand the same old shit and sell it to the masses at really marked up prices for profit.

They're also pretty good at taking a product that is about 75% of the way to being great, and pushing it that last bit. Hell, that's arguably why they are so successful. They're not really inventors, they are perfectors.

Re: Apple Music Sing

#224

Post by brap »

To anyone wondering how this will work, since the post didn’t say:

> The feature won’t see users switching over to music tracks that already have the vocals removed, however. Instead, it’s relying on an on-device machine learning algorithm that processes the music in real time, Apple says. The algorithm isolates the vocals from the rest of the song, allowing users to adjust their volume accordingly using a new slider button in the Apple Music app.

(TechCrunch)

I wonder how well this will work. Especially when some songs apply all sorts of wacky effects on vocals. Sometimes it’s not even clear to a human what should be considered vocals and what’s part of the instrumental. The context matters too. Maybe they’re using the lyrics as a signal?

Re: Apple Music Sing

#225

Post by meibo »

reaperducer wrote: post #172
Thorrez wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes sense when there's audio that Apple hasn't seen before. With Apple Music Sing, it makes more sense to do that processing once in the datacenter.

it makes more sense to do that processing once in the datacenter. Since Apple is all about on-device processing with so many of its features, going back-and-forth to the data center doesn't seem to be its style these days. That's more of a Google thing. And no one can accuse Apple of telling its advertisers that you start your day with Funky Cold Medina.

Android has had on-device captions long before Apple did.

Re: Apple Music Sing

#226

Post by klipt »

incanus77 wrote: post #169
notpushkin wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adjustable vocals: Users now have control over a song’s vocal levels. They can sing with the original artist vocals, take the lead, or mix it up on millions of songs in the Apple Music catalog. I think this only requires pre-making two audio files per track, and simultaneously streaming these. Real-time lyrics, Background vocals and Duet view are all nice features too, but the hardest part processing-wise is analys…

> I think this only requires pre-making two audio files per track, and simultaneously streaming these. That’s the understatement of the century. “this only requires […] simultaneously streaming these”

Don't movies already have stereo sound? Is going from two audio channels to four really that difficult?

Re: Apple Music Sing

#227

Post by flyrain »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #194
misterprime wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The at-home karaoke experience is pretty horrible. Companies put a high price tag on access to limited catalogs with hit and miss quality. Oftentimes, the musical bed is low quality midi music and the lyrics may or may not be timed properly. I'm thrilled to see this announcement and will likely buy my first Apple TV because of it and switch my Pandora subscription to Apple Music.

> The at-home karaoke experience is pretty horrible As long as you have a 0 latency Mic setup then just that and YouTube searching Karaoke versions with AdBlocker works beautifully.

I did that before. Just frustrated by missing Karaoke versions of many songs

Re: Apple Music Sing

#228

Post by dperfect »

notpushkin wrote: post #209
Closi wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [Apple says it is] relying on an on-device machine learning algorithm that processes the music in real-time. The tech builds on Apple’s noise-cancellation expertise and other developments it’s made for FaceTime, the company said. Source: https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/06/apple-music-is-getting-a-n...

I stand corrected as well! Wonder why they take this approach though, as it is clearly over-engineering (if I correctly understand that the goal is just to make vocals volume adjustable).

Maybe it's licensing? I can imagine copyright holders being squeamish about Apple processing, permanently storing, and serving heavily altered versions of their music. The difference is silly and pedantic, but by processing it in real-time during playback, one might argue it's just a filter effect like EQ.

Re: Apple Music Sing

#229

Post by notpushkin »

smoldesu wrote: post #138
notpushkin wrote: post #75

People will definitely rip no-vocal versions out of there (if they are good quality, that is). I see some pretty neat implications: - Young artists can (illegally) use beats by popular producers. Young producers can listen to various tracks and better understand some techniques that were shadowed by vocals before. - More bootleg remixes of popular tracks. Things that weren't possible by just slicing and sampling the…

How does this enable anything that wasn't possible before?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but without a remix pack, how would you take vocals and overlay those on top of a completely rewritten track for example, or bite a particular sample from the track that only plays with vocals on top?

Re: Apple Music Sing

#230

Post by nvrspyx »

notpushkin wrote: post #203
reaperducer wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it makes more sense to do that processing once in the datacenter. Since Apple is all about on-device processing with so many of its features, going back-and-forth to the data center doesn't seem to be its style these days. That's more of a Google thing. And no one can accuse Apple of telling its advertisers that you start your day with Funky Cold Medina.

There's a reason Apple's preferring on-device processing: user privacy. This doesn't make sense for music (stems, lyrics) since it's not listener's data.

> There's a reason Apple's preferring on-device processing: user privacy.

Is that the actual reason though? My personal impression has been that it's a combination of reasons that benefit Apple. The increased user privacy being a nice bonus for users, but not the primary reason:

1. Producing phones powerful enough for on-device ML both justifies the high price point to the general public and is a good marketing point (along with increased user privacy)

2. Avoid backend infrastructure costs. Why spend extra money on servers, maintenance, and compliance when they can just offload the work to the devices themselves since they're capable?

3. Bonus: The unplanned obsolescence for new features like the one announced is also a side effect that benefits Apple.

I do not get the impression that Apple's primary focus is to benefit users and their privacy.

Post reply on HN