jazzbo Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 It IS depressing to be looking forward to MP3s. Blue Note/EMI has been offering some releases on iTunes fro some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold_Z Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 I find it really depressing folks look forward to mp3s. I've wasted thousands. No question it's a degradation in sound quality. I guess people are going for the convenience PLUS many can't tell the difference. It is depressing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:.impossible Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 I don't think that the people that are interested in the musics that you have spent your life documenting are looking forward to mp3s Chuck. The fact of the matter is, downloadable files, whether they be mp3 or something with less loss or even FLAC, are a solution to so many catalogs that will never, ever see another dime of marketing, distribution, love, or effort from anyone. To be honest, I think people are looking forward to having the music readily available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 To be honest, I think people are looking forward to having the music readily available. Agreed. The people that own $10,000 to $20,000 stereo systems are probably not looking forward to them, but that's a pretty minute demographic I imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 While I'm not an audiophile, I can detect good vs. crappy digital sound, and I've heard some recent mp3s that sound surprisingly good. I imagine the technology keeps improving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 While I'm not an audiophile, I can detect good vs. crappy digital sound, and I've heard some recent mp3s that sound surprisingly good. I imagine the technology keeps improving. It definitely has, by leaps and bounds. I use Exact Audio Copy to rip to .wav file and then use Razorlame to convert to .mp3 at the highest possible variable bit rate. I've then A/B compared the compressed and uncompressed files and can rarely hear any difference whether on headphones or through the speakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 You don't have to insist on the 'best possible sound' to be a music lover. I suspect most are happy with 'very good quality sound'. I'm no judge of whether that point has been reached yet; but if not, it soon will be. I don't feel at all depressed by a technology that has the potential to keep a lot more music available indefinitely. I will be depressed if the record companies don't take advantage of that potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 You don't have to insist on the 'best possible sound' to be a music lover. I suspect most are happy with 'very good quality sound'. I'm no judge of whether that point has been reached yet; but if not, it soon will be. I don't feel at all depressed by a technology that has the potential to keep a lot more music available indefinitely. I will be depressed if the record companies don't take advantage of that potential. The point, Bev, is that downloads could be offered in a lossless format like FLAC but MP3s and other compressed formats are what is being offered. The technology is exactly the same - Internet downloads - and its that technology that allows the potential to "keep a lot more music available indefinitely" and with broadband connections, the time to download isn't that much more. I don't think its unreasonable for people to prefer non-lossy formats, but I am afraid the battle over whether MP3s are good or bad was lost a long time ago, so carry on into your Brave New World. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 I've got friends who tell me that slowly but surely the "blogs" are beginning to shift to FLAC files as a point of quality. so perhaps yet again, the underground will force the mainstream to up their ante just to compete? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 I've got friends who tell me that slowly but surely the "blogs" are beginning to shift to FLAC files as a point of quality. so perhaps yet again, the underground will force the mainstream to up their ante just to compete? Quite a few blogs are, but storage space for FLAC files will continue to be an issue. Also, until Apple makes FLAC compatible with iPods, I don't see it taking off in a major consumer fashion. The majority of the general public doesn't care about quality, they want quantity and affordability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 I've got friends who tell me that slowly but surely the "blogs" are beginning to shift to FLAC files as a point of quality. so perhaps yet again, the underground will force the mainstream to up their ante just to compete? Quite a few blogs are, but storage space for FLAC files will continue to be an issue. Also, until Apple makes FLAC compatible with iPods, I don't see it taking off in a major consumer fashion. The majority of the general public doesn't care about quality, they want quantity and affordability. It is easy to convert flac/wav files to mp3 for the ipod. If you don't want better sound, dump the flacs after conversion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 (edited) Illegal downloads in filesharing networks (bittorrent or eMule) are already available in lossless formats (mainly FLAC, Monkey Audio or Wavpak). Just google on album name + download + FLAC and you will find sites which list these releases. These often include complete scans of the complete artwork. The size of these downloads varies between 150 and 400MB for one CD (depending on the duration and the complexity=compressibility of the CD), so this is not really an issue for DSL/cable users. Neither is storage capacity (1000GB hard drives cost less than $100) If amateurs can distribute perfect lossless copies of CDs together with the artwork, it should not be a problem for iTunes & Co to offer the same. Edited January 20, 2009 by Claude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 You forget, though, that the vast majority of the public still doesn't know how to program a VCR, do more than press "play" on a DVD player, or get rid of the black bars on their widescreen TV. If we expect them to choose between mp3 or a FLAC to later convert to mp3, they'll choose mp3 almost every time. What we need are companies to offer us a choice between lossy and lossless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 You mention the "vast minority of the public". They don't buy jazz recordings. My disappointment is the willingness of jazz (or any other minority music) fans to sacrifice quality for quantity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 I've got friends who tell me that slowly but surely the "blogs" are beginning to shift to FLAC files as a point of quality. so perhaps yet again, the underground will force the mainstream to up their ante just to compete? Quite a few blogs are, but storage space for FLAC files will continue to be an issue. Also, until Apple makes FLAC compatible with iPods, I don't see it taking off in a major consumer fashion. The majority of the general public doesn't care about quality, they want quantity and affordability. It is easy to convert flac/wav files to mp3 for the ipod. If you don't want better sound, dump the flacs after conversion. Don't get me wrong...I'm a fan of FLAC files...but I'm also realistic about the music industry caring about offering quality over quantity. The general public isn't screaming for a new file format either, so until something radical happens I don't see the status quo going away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:.impossible Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Most folks would prefer lossless, I'd guess. I'd also guess that they are going to take what they can get. Then again, I'm thinking about the people I know (not on this board), some of them musicians, and they don't know what to do with a FLAC. I mention this because I have ripped a vast majority of my CDs to FLAC (some of them to VBR for A/B comparison) for streaming through a Squeezebox. When explaining the process to people, they stop at FLAC. Too complicated... Lack of knowledge. I think it is a good idea to offer hi-res files and a lower tier for folks who don't care. A decent VBR mp3... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chas Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 My disappointment is the willingness of jazz (or any other minority music) fans to sacrifice quality for quantity. You're right . It's not like jazz fans , a.k.a. men , sacrifice quality for quantity in any other area of life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 If we expect them to choose between mp3 or a FLAC to later convert to mp3, they'll choose mp3 almost every time. What we need are companies to offer us a choice between lossy and lossless. Of course download stores must continue to offer MP3 files, because it's the standard format and most portable players don't play FLAC files. But they could offer FLAC files as well, and post instructions on how to easily convert them to MP3s. Another possibility would be for the PC software that does the synchronisation/transfer with the portable player, to convert the FLAC files to MP3s transferred to the player, while maintaining FLAC files on the PC. There are now more and more stores which offer 320kbit MP3 files, which shows that file size is no longer an issue for them, but at the same time they are stuck with the MP3 format because of compatibility reasons. In my view 320kbit MP3 files don't make sense. Either you accept a small reduction in sound quality for the benefit of a smaller file size - in that case 256kbit is the optimum solution - or you want the best sound, and opt for lossless compression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 The point, Bev, is that downloads could be offered in a lossless format like FLAC but MP3s and other compressed formats are what is being offered. The technology is exactly the same - Internet downloads - and its that technology that allows the potential to "keep a lot more music available indefinitely" and with broadband connections, the time to download isn't that much more. I don't think its unreasonable for people to prefer non-lossy formats... No, that's not unreasonable. I'm all for whatever technology can provide good access to music - if that can be achieved in higher and higher quality sound, so much the better. I run a modest system - CD player, amp, speakers come to around £1000. At that level I get the music in sound that is good enough for my pleasure. I suspect all the extra wonderment I completely miss through the limitations of my set up. But I'm not prepared to go any further - I'd rather listen to more music (which is not, actually, a preference that should be reduced to a simplistic 'quantity over quality' comparison, any more than a preference for paperback books over hardbacks). I totally appreciate the disappointment of those with high end systems who feel that they can hear a difference in quality. I'm just not convinced the market will subsidise them. I suspect...and it is a gut reaction...that even in the areas of non-mass-popular music, most people are after a very good sound, not necessarily the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Skid Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 I mention this because I have ripped a vast majority of my CDs to FLAC (some of them to VBR for A/B comparison) for streaming through a Squeezebox. I'm curious as to what you found in that comparison -- where the FLACs audibly "better"? Now that hard drive space is so relatively cheap, I've been contemplating re-ripping all of my CDs to FLAC. Most of my MP3s are 256k vbr or better, but I still have some that are 192k. As a side note -- this is one of the primary reasons I prefer to have the physical CD whenever possible, as (although it might take a long time) I always have the option to re-encode as technology advances and storage space gets cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 I didn't know that FLAC files could be played directly ... for editing purposes, Goldwave "extracts" a FLAC file, presumably to WAV in order to do any editing, and I don't know of an audio player that automatically plays a FLAC file. One cool thing I noticed recently with NERO is that FLAC files are recognized as sources for audio CD burning. Saves me a step when I get around to burning my backlog of Dime shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 I didn't know that FLAC files could be played directly ... for editing purposes, Goldwave "extracts" a FLAC file, presumably to WAV in order to do any editing, and I don't know of an audio player that automatically plays a FLAC file. One cool thing I noticed recently with NERO is that FLAC files are recognized as sources for audio CD burning. Saves me a step when I get around to burning my backlog of Dime shows. Dan, immediately download this free software: http://www.foobar2000.org/ Best audio player I have ever used! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Bresnahan Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Most of my MP3s are 256k vbr or better, but I still have some that are 192k. VBR is not generally assigned a bit rate but rather a "Quality rating". Sure, if you rip at VBR Q3, the average bit rate might be around 256 kBps (depending on the type of music), but the actual bit rate varies from 1 to >320 depending on the amount of sonic content in each second. If I look in the directory of a music disc that I ripped to mp3 using VBR Q2, each song's average rate goes from 192 to 320. People should not be afraid of downloading mp3s ripped using VBR at Q3, Q2 or Q1 quality levels. They'll sound just like the CD used to create them. There have been a bunch of studies that show that normal humans cannot differentiate between the original CD and the rip as long as you rip above Q3. I never understood why anyone would ever rip using mp3 at a fixed 320 kBps. The resulting file size is so close to FLAC, it makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Bresnahan Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 I didn't know that FLAC files could be played directly ... for editing purposes, Goldwave "extracts" a FLAC file, presumably to WAV in order to do any editing, and I don't know of an audio player that automatically plays a FLAC file. One cool thing I noticed recently with NERO is that FLAC files are recognized as sources for audio CD burning. Saves me a step when I get around to burning my backlog of Dime shows. Dan, immediately download this free software: http://www.foobar2000.org/ Best audio player I have ever used! I prefer VU Player. The conversion tool is nice to have too. Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 I use VBR - V0. They sound great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.