what cheeses me off about all of this is that i was going to put my new ep
on OiNK as 320kbps mp3s and try and see if doing that would mean more
people would link to my shop and purchase the physical item. and then the
whole thing got shut down. fancy that!
On 26/10/2007, David William Newman <dwnewman@clara.co.uk> wrote:
quoted 89 lines Yes but the point is that alot of mp3s are sold at below 320kbps>
> Yes but the point is that alot of mp3s are sold at below 320kbps
>
>
>
> jason parent writes:
>
> >
> >> The claim that mp3 quality sucks is bogus imo.
> >> If the bitrate is at the maximum (320kbps), you won't hear the
> difference
> >> with the original CD.
> >
> > there are a number of factors.
> >
> > listen to "wish you were here" by pink floyd on a 320 kbps mp3 played
> > through a set of tannoys or kefs or other good quality speakers at a
> high
> > volume, coming from a high powered receiver and tell me it sounds the
> same
> > as a cd does, if the cd player has high quality DACs. i picked that
> record
> > because everybody knows what it's SUPPOSED to sound like, and because
> the
> > range is very wide.
> >
> > you'll hear major differences in the low end and in the high end. even
> the
> > mix comes out funny.
> >
> > you could do the experiment with lots of different stuff. i heard a
> major
> > difference in thom yorke's solo album, as well as the latest nine inch
> > nails record [which i was previewing as downloads before i picked them
> up,
> > as i was skeptical about the end quality of both of them]. even the last
> > tool album [which was a weak record] had major reproduction problems on
> > the low end.
> >
> > however, if you're listening to the new spice girls record through a
> pair
> > of tinny headphones coming out of a portable device, i would agree that
> > it's unlikely to make much of a difference, but i personally can't stand
> > to do something like that. the last time i tried to listen to something
> > coming out of the headphone out on my cell phone was a john zorn record,
> > and it sounded so awful i haven't even bothered using the mp3 player in
> it
> > since...
> >
> > meaning the following: casual users will probably migrate to mp3s due to
> > convenience. cds didn't kill records because they were cheaper to make
> or
> > because the sound quality is "technically better" (let's not get into a
> cd
> > vs. record argument because unlike the cd vs. mp3 argument, the cd vs.
> > record argument is purely subjective and depends not on reproductive
> > ability but personal taste), it was because you can skip tracks on a cd
> > and you can't do that on a record. likewise, mp3s will prevail for
> casual
> > users and those who enjoy the convenience.
> >
> > but, serious audio geeks can immediately tell the difference and will
> drop
> > cds in favour of dvds; they didn't drop thousands into their sound
> systems
> > to use compressed files as a sound source.
> >
> > ....meaning that, i guess, cds are pretty much dying. but the future is
> in
> > dvd audio, not mp3s.
> >
> > reminds me of the cassette vs. cd wars in the 80s.
> >
> > j
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>
>
--
∞