Amazing Realization!!!! ........
- Thread starter solrac
- Start date
edX
mac shaman
dave - it wasn't clear to me so i guessed it might not be to others. better safe than sorry. no harm. just trying to make it clear how we're going to be viewing this subject of sharing copyrighted material - we're just not going to participate in it thru this site.
the name of the band certainly wasn't the offensive part. it was just easiest for me to edit so then nobody would know and be able to comply.
the name of the band certainly wasn't the offensive part. it was just easiest for me to edit so then nobody would know and be able to comply.
sheepguy42
AFOL
I don't know about the rest of you, but I like to eventually get the CDs. I have 5000+ songs on my external HD, and yes, most of them were downloaded. However, that means that most of them are 128 bitrate, or worse. This is a big deal to me: try the song Magic Carpet Ride by Steppenwolf on CD, then 128 bitrate mp3. there IS a difference! Maybe you don't noticeesp. if your speaker are/is not that goodbut I have SoundSticks, so I notice. All mp3's I record are highest quality VBR, ensuring no noticeable (to my ears) difference between mp3 and CD. Also, I listen to a lot of non-mainstream music (Seven Nations, Great Big Sea, Blackthorn, Neil Anderson, Splendourbog, Toy-Box, Aqua, etc...) and the songs I come across tend to be lower quality. So, I either buy the CD, ask for it for Birthday/X-mas, or borrow it from a friend if I can. I like replacing downloaded songs with my own rips, just for the quality.
solrac
Mac Ninja
I'm exactly the opposite! I have a bag of like 100 CDs I want to encode to MP3 so I can throw away or sell all the CDs!!!
The CDs are useless!!!
I've listened to CD vs MP3 at 128 kbps hundreds of times the past couple years on high quality speakers all around, and I could never EVER hear a difference.
The CDs are useless!!!
I've listened to CD vs MP3 at 128 kbps hundreds of times the past couple years on high quality speakers all around, and I could never EVER hear a difference.
It appears that your hearing is damaged, then. The obvious difference is in cymbals, especially crashes and ride. It gets much worse if cymbals have been digitally spread, which requires wide bandwidth noise with 100 percent accurate reproduction of phase.
Depth perception of classical music is completely destroyed, too.
solrac
Mac Ninja
Actually my hearing is fine. It's a psychological impact. I listen to a lot of acoustic / flamenco guitar music which is veryyy easy to screw up in compression. It plays perfect, crystal clear, perfection on my iPod or anyone's PC with good speakers.
The only time I ever heard a difference was because the mp3 was screwed up. Downloading another copy or re-doing it fixed it.
I can hear the difference - I don't like ripping at 128MB. It isn't psychological because I really didn't except to hear any difference because I used to use 56k MP3's through my computer speakers all the time. However as soon as I started playing mp3's through my stereo I kept hearing anomolies. I tried and experiment ripping at 56k, 128k, 192k and 320k and I could not believe the difference. Now I recommend that everyone rip at max quality even if they can't hear the difference because they might if/when they upgrade their stereo equipment.
R.
R.
QuackingPenguin
Banned
I say AGAIN
I have something to add.
If the admins here decide that telling them what they're doing is wrong, and that they want to delete my account and or my posts, just remember, it will only serve to prove my point, and as i said to someone who 'stole' a yahoo account i had: "whoopdy-shit, an online account. like i cant make another one."
toast
Gone !
At 128kbps:
Try encoding any of Brian Eno's ambient albums: you'll hear a 50% bass cut, as well as missing fade-outs in the upper keyboards.
Or just try any Lee Konitz / Keith Jarret / Pat Metheny to hear same thing. If you prefer trying with progressive rock bands: Soft Machine, King Crimson. With techno: Cygnus X, Jeff Mills.
I encode at 160kbps and still have some loss on jazz bass
But of course the CD is not far away
boi
official breaker of macs.
have you actually thought this out, or are you just a blind 'free-speech no matter what' advocate? perhaps you just like stirring, nay, beating the pot. free speech has its limits, and those limits are to protect other laws that are meant to protect the people and companies.
let's say the mods do decide to let everyone say what they want on the messageboards. this is what will happen:
people will request pirated software and music.
people will send it.
more people will come to the boards just to want pirated software and music.
the people who come here for tech help will be drowned out by the pirated software requests/answers.
a new forum will be created for 'pirated software requests'.
adobe or some font company will shut it down.
it starts over again.
you CAN request warez, bud. you can speak your mind, too. there's a time and a place for everything, though. this is a forum for mac enthusiasts, not mac thieves.
pz
[ boi ]
sheepguy42
AFOL
I was using it as an example... I rarely listen to that song, as I mentioned I have over 5000 others on my external HD. In fact, I probably should never have participated in this conversation, seeing as how I dislike much of the music I have (of course I like a lot too) and I only keep songs of the 'rap' (in my mind missing the preceding 'c')variety, along with others I don't like, to be a sort of music source for my friends, and anyone else who wants some music.Originally posted by rinse
ummm... no thanks.
there is no accounting for taste though, i guess.
To continue somewhat on topic, however, people will always want CDs. Maybe a few of you don't, but for the truly 'starving' artists out there who make decent $ off of each CD cause they sell the CDs themselves online, the people who search hard enough for those bands will want an actual CD. This is why I love mp3.com, you search for, say Barenaked Ladies, and you click on the "Similar Artists" link, and you find a band like Splendourbog. they have a few songs (whole songs, mind you) on there, you like some of them, you want more, you buy the CD. Or Seven Nations. they have cruddy mp3s of 3 songs from one album, but the files are good enough for you to decide if you like the music. That's what it comes down to: the bands that need $$ from the CDs get it... the big names that get $$ other ways (tours, advertising deals, etc....) don't take much of a financial hit. The record companies may lose out, but other than themselves, who cares? they aren't needed anymore.
ksv
web developer
Get some really good speakers, and you'll hear the difference
On normal PC speakers or even good headphones, the difference isn't that big, because they aren't able to reproduce very low- or high-frequent sounds correctly anyway.
I used to rip at 192 kbps, and it's acceptable, but I can hear a clear difference from the original. That was one of my reasons to get a 100 GB hard drive
There's no doubt the reasons I pay for shareware and commercial software are rooted in my hypertrophied conscience. But, while I think software developers *should* be compensated for all their time and effort, I think there are several other important points to make about this.
First, the developer probablly really needs to income, and s/he has earned it if a quality product comes to distribution. Second, wasn't the whole premise of shareware to allow one to "try before you buy?" But if one continues to use the product, one tells friends and acquaintences. Sure, some of them get pirated copies, but many, if not most want their own copy *and* the documentation, not to mention the ability to get updates. You get the idea, I'm sure.
A recent, related example is Napster. Did you know that when Napster was at its peak, CD *sales* got to an all time high. Not only that, but once it was shut down, CD sales plummeted 40%!!! What's that tell us???? And just how might this figure into Microsoft's strategy of free software? Does it not significantly increase he installed base and thus MS's overall market position and strength?
For me, the bottom line is that worrying about software piracy is a classic example of being penny wise and pound foolish, as well as very short sighted. Sure, pirated software means the producer makes less on direct sales, at least at first. BUT... in the long run, the ability for people to share software, lets many people try it who otherwise wouldn't or couldn't. Those same people, if impressed with the product/s, will eventually want their own copy... their own manual, access to tech support, notification of updates, etc., etc. And they're going to tell their friends, who tell theirs... and in the long run the software maker will sell more units than they ever could have if people had no way to try the product for free. Obviously, I'm of the mind that the whole piracy debate is a tempest in a teapot.
My question, at this point, is to the software vendors. Do you want to make as much money as quickly as you can, or wouldn't you rather work towards establishing a broad base of good PR and customer support that can sustain your business into the future? DUH!!!
First, the developer probablly really needs to income, and s/he has earned it if a quality product comes to distribution. Second, wasn't the whole premise of shareware to allow one to "try before you buy?" But if one continues to use the product, one tells friends and acquaintences. Sure, some of them get pirated copies, but many, if not most want their own copy *and* the documentation, not to mention the ability to get updates. You get the idea, I'm sure.
A recent, related example is Napster. Did you know that when Napster was at its peak, CD *sales* got to an all time high. Not only that, but once it was shut down, CD sales plummeted 40%!!! What's that tell us???? And just how might this figure into Microsoft's strategy of free software? Does it not significantly increase he installed base and thus MS's overall market position and strength?
For me, the bottom line is that worrying about software piracy is a classic example of being penny wise and pound foolish, as well as very short sighted. Sure, pirated software means the producer makes less on direct sales, at least at first. BUT... in the long run, the ability for people to share software, lets many people try it who otherwise wouldn't or couldn't. Those same people, if impressed with the product/s, will eventually want their own copy... their own manual, access to tech support, notification of updates, etc., etc. And they're going to tell their friends, who tell theirs... and in the long run the software maker will sell more units than they ever could have if people had no way to try the product for free. Obviously, I'm of the mind that the whole piracy debate is a tempest in a teapot.
My question, at this point, is to the software vendors. Do you want to make as much money as quickly as you can, or wouldn't you rather work towards establishing a broad base of good PR and customer support that can sustain your business into the future? DUH!!!