179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← back to listing · view thread

From:
antIDisestablishMentarianism
To:
Date:
Mon, 21 Mar 2005 04:37:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject:
Re: [idm] seen this?
Msg-Id:
<20050321123736.94719.qmail@web41205.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To:
<26f8d151829b2e57389a8efc56a6cbb5@slackonomics.com>
Mbox:
idm.0503.gz
This is why I love reading the IDM list --- John/Slackonomics <slack@slackonomics.com> wrote:
quoted 130 lines On Mar 20, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Kurt Bernhard Pruenner> On Mar 20, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Kurt Bernhard Pruenner > wrote: > > > Yeah, I think it's fantastic they're offering this > service. Don't get > me wrong... I don't like vinyl either (the > artwork/liner notes are > awesome on vinyl though). I own a few dozen pieces > on vinyl but the > surest way for an artist to get me not to listen to > something is to > offer it only on vinyl and/or put it out in some > ridiculously hard to > open limited edition box/digipack. If I can't get > to the CD easily, > then I won't bother listening to it. And vinyl is > such a chore to keep > dust-free, keep from skipping, having to flip over > that I generally > don't bother. Lastly, vinyl is utterly impossible > to play in a car/on > the move. > > Before all the vinyl purists attack me, it sounds > fantastic if you have > the proper equipment. But then there's the issue of > degradation. > Every time you play vinyl it worsens the sound > (unless you buy one of > those wonderfully expensive optical vinyl readers). > > I think most vinyl purists would argue that vinyl > (on proper equipment) > is miles better sounding than 192 kpbs mp3s, not to > mention it is > conceivably better sounding than the digital masters > themselves, > provided it were recorded entirely on professional > analog equipment to > begin with. I'm a digital purist in every regard, > but most audiophiles > concede that digital even at the highest resolution > 24-bit, 192khz, > stereo isn't really as good as professional quality > analog. I'm > talking about Studer 2" reel-to-reel, Neve/SSL, etc. > > With all that said, it's a great idea. If the > lossless audio files > were made directly from the digital copies (i.e. > original source AIFF > or WAV files) then it'd be essentially a perfect > bit-for-bit copy of > the original file before the vinyl was pressed (and > certainly much > better than a mp3 copy). > > > Also, I'm encoding everything at 192kbps and I'm > fine with that as long > > as I have backups (i.e. originals); I'll probably > reencode the 320kbps > > files down to 192kbps for my MP3 discman... > > The only problem with going mp3 (or AAC/Ogg) over > FLAC/Shorten/APE/Apple Lossless is that what about > the future? What if > you want to make CD burns of the audio? What if you > want to listen > with high quality Sennheiser (or whatever) > headphones? I don't like > the idea of encoding my 2000+ CD collection in a > lossy format because > of the future. > > What I mean is... if you lock yourself in to a > format like mp3, and > later this new whizbang codec comes out that only > takes up 1 megabyte > for an entire CD and is a perfect lossless copy of > the original CD... > then what will you do? If you go your route you'll > have to "transcode" > from a lossy format to this new format. > > Generally transcoding brings artifacts and other > unwarranted > distortion/loss of audio fidelity. If you chose a > lossless format you > get all the benefits of the original CD recording > (i.e. absolutely no > loss of sound due to compression) with the added > benefit of smaller > size AND the ability to uncompress back to the > original WAV/AIFF source > material in case you want to go to a new codec in > the future. > Obviously the compression ratio isn't as good as > with mp3/aac/ogg, but > it's roughly half the size of the source > AIFF/WAV/CD, which I can live > with. > > Granted you (personally) still have the originals to > extract from in > the future, but it's infinitely easier to extract it > in mass (say, with > a batch process) from the lossless copies than it is > to RE-rip your > entire collection and re-encode. > > All in all, I'm very hesitant to use a lossy codec > like mp3/AAC or Ogg > Vorbis due to all the factors I mentioned. And for > the sake of > uniformity and audio fidelity, I expect that the > music I buy also be > lossless. > > Great idea, but more could be done. But kudos and > props for the > effort. It's not unappreciated. :) > > -- > > Mr. Tangent [the binary police] > www.mrtangent.com > > >
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org