I came across Enya's latest album on Amazon, and I noticed they charge more for it in MP3 format than for the CD: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Sky-Island-Enya/dp/B0168KQSNI/ref=sr_1_1_twi_aud_2 I'm wondering why it would be more expensive in MP3 format, considering there is no physical media to produce and ship. I'd think you might as well buy the CD and make your own MP3s from it. I tend to still prefer buying CDs over MP3 anyway (since MP3 is lossless, and I can rip the CD to MP3 myself).

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: MP3 more expensive than a CD?
By: Nightfox to All on Sat Apr 16 2016 12:53 pm

I came across Enya's latest album on Amazon, and I noticed they charge more for it in MP3 format than for the CD: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Sky-Island-Enya/dp/B0168KQSNI/ref=sr_1_1_twi_aud_ 2 I'm wondering why it would be more expensive in MP3 format, considering there is no physical media to produce and ship. I'd think you might as
well buy the CD and make your own MP3s from it. I tend to still prefer buying CDs over MP3 anyway (since MP3 is lossless, and I can rip the CD to

you should ask them

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: MP3 more expensive than a CD?
By: Nightfox to All on Sat Apr 16 2016 12:53:05

I came across Enya's latest album on Amazon, and I noticed they charge more for it in MP3 format than for the CD: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Sky-Island-Enya/dp/B0168KQSNI/ref=sr_1_1_twi_au d_2 I'm wondering why it would be more expensive in MP3 format, considering there is no physical media to produce and ship. I'd think you might as well buy the CD and make your own MP3s from it. I tend to still prefer buying CDs over MP3 anyway (since MP3 is lossless, and I can rip the CD to MP3 myself).

because it's more popularity , they charge more !

Buy the CD and Convert it MP3 , you Save $

---
þ Synchronet þ SpaceSST BBS Usenet Gateway

Subject: Re: MP3 more expensive than a CD?
@MSGID: <5712B42F.64.dove-ent@freeway.apana.org.au>
@REPLY: <57129821.2661.dove_entertai@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@TZ: 1258

Nightfox wrote to All <=-

I came across Enya's latest album on Amazon, and I noticed they charge more for it in MP3 format than for the CD: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Sky-Island-Enya/dp/B0168KQSNI/ref=sr_1_1_twi_ aud_2
I'm wondering why it would be more expensive in MP3 format, considering

Sounds like charging for convenience. Considering that not only is there no physical media, but you don't need people to pack, label and dispatch them too, it sounds like a rip off (pardon the pun).

there is no physical media to produce and ship. I'd think you might as well buy the CD and make your own MP3s from it. I tend to still prefer buying CDs over MP3 anyway (since MP3 is lossless, and I can rip the CD
to MP3 myself).

I agree, except for one thing. MP3 is _lossy_, not lossless. If it was lossless, there would be no point buying the CD, you'd simply burn your own from the MP3. ;)


... So easy, a child could do it. Child sold separately.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.

I came across Enya's latest album on Amazon, and I noticed they charge more for it in MP3 format than for the CD: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Sky-Island- Enya/dp/B0168KQSNI/ref=sr_1_1_twi_aud_2 I'm wondering why it would be more expensive in MP3 format, considering there is no physical media to produce and ship. I'd think you might as well buy the CD and make your own MP3s from it. I tend to still prefer buying CDs over MP3 anyway (since MP3 is lossless, and I can rip the CD to MP3 myself).

Actually MP3 is Lossy and the CD has full fidelity. MP3 removes sounds from the inaudable sound spectrum.

The Lossless music files are .flac and .aiff and apple has there own too.

Allen

---
þ Synchronet þ SONOS - livewirebbs.ddns.net

Re: MP3 more expensive than a CD?
By: Nightfox to All on Sat Apr 16 2016 12:53 pm

I came across Enya's latest album on Amazon, and I noticed they charge more for it in MP3 format than for the CD:

That is weird, especially since they offer a ripping service on most new CDs. Buy the CD, download MP3s and receive the CD 2 days later with Prime.

Sounds like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

---
þ Synchronet þ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

Re: Re: MP3 more expensive than a CD?
By: Vk3jed to Nightfox on Sun Apr 17 2016 07:44 am

as well buy the CD and make your own MP3s from it. I tend to still prefer buying CDs over MP3 anyway (since MP3 is lossless, and I can
rip the CD to MP3 myself).

I agree, except for one thing. MP3 is _lossy_, not lossless. If it was lossless, there would be no point buying the CD, you'd simply burn your own from the MP3. ;)

they have/had a lossless format of mp3 but i dont think it was widely adopted.

regarding the 2 different prices, it could be that it's just the way it is.
one price didnt get lowered yet. also prices change on amazon all the time.

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: MP3 more expensive than a CD?
By: Allen Prunty to Nightfox on Sun Apr 17 2016 01:05 am

Actually MP3 is Lossy and the CD has full fidelity. MP3 removes sounds
from the inaudable sound spectrum.

The Lossless music files are .flac and .aiff and apple has there own too.

http://www.cnet.com/news/mp3hd-new-lossless-mp3-format-explained/#!

the website hosting it is not serving it anymore but you can get mp3hd toolkit or the original file in many places.

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Mro wrote to Vk3jed <=-

they have/had a lossless format of mp3 but i dont think it was widely adopted.

Never heard of a lossless MP3, though I know of a number of lossless audio formats, of which I seem to encounter FLAC the most often.

regarding the 2 different prices, it could be that it's just the way it is. one price didnt get lowered yet. also prices change on amazon all
the time.

Yeah, who knows? :)


... Don't argue with he who buys ink by the gallon.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.

Mro wrote to Allen Prunty <=-

http://www.cnet.com/news/mp3hd-new-lossless-mp3-format-explained/#!

I hadn't heard of that one before. I normally use FLAC if I want lossless compression (of audio).


... Every action has an equal and opposite government program
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.

Re: Re: MP3 more expensive than a CD?
By: Vk3jed to Nightfox on Sun Apr 17 2016 07:44:00

I'm wondering why it would be more expensive in MP3 format,
considering

Sounds like charging for convenience. Considering that not only is there no physical media, but you don't need people to pack, label and dispatch them too, it sounds like a rip off (pardon the pun).

Charging for convenience seems a little strange in this case.. Downloadable formats are very popular, so I'd think they would benefit from a sort of economy of scale - If many people want music in that format, I'd think it shouldn't have to be that expensive (more so than a physical format). Basically a case of supply and demand.

there is no physical media to produce and ship. I'd think you might
as well buy the CD and make your own MP3s from it. I tend to still
prefer buying CDs over MP3 anyway (since MP3 is lossless, and I can
rip the CD to MP3 myself).

I agree, except for one thing. MP3 is _lossy_, not lossless. If it was lossless, there would be no point buying the CD, you'd simply burn your own from the MP3. ;)

That's exactly what I was saying.. MP3 is lossy and CD is not, so I feel like I might as well buy the CD. I can convert it to MP3 myself if I want.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: MP3 more expensive than a CD?
By: Allen Prunty to Nightfox on Sun Apr 17 2016 01:05:46

Enya/dp/B0168KQSNI/ref=sr_1_1_twi_aud_2 I'm wondering why it would be
more expensive in MP3 format, considering there is no physical media
to produce and ship. I'd think you might as well buy the CD and make
your own MP3s from it. I tend to still prefer buying CDs over MP3
anyway (since MP3 is lossless, and I can rip the CD to MP3 myself).

Actually MP3 is Lossy and the CD has full fidelity. MP3 removes sounds from the inaudable sound spectrum.

The Lossless music files are .flac and .aiff and apple has there own too.

Yes, that's what I was saying, MP3 is lossy and CD is not.. I feel like I might as well buy the CD since it's cheaper, and I can convert it to MP3 myself if I want.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-

Charging for convenience seems a little strange in this case.. Downloadable formats are very popular, so I'd think they would benefit from a sort of economy of scale - If many people want music in that format, I'd think it shouldn't have to be that expensive (more so than
a physical format). Basically a case of supply and demand.

Well, supply is almost infinite. :)

That's exactly what I was saying.. MP3 is lossy and CD is not, so I
feel like I might as well buy the CD. I can convert it to MP3 myself
if I want.

I agree totally, nothing wrong with DIY, if it saves a buck. :)


... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.

I came across Enya's latest album on Amazon, and I noticed
they charge more it in MP3 format than for the CD: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Sky-Island-Enya/dp/B0168KQSNI/ref=
sr_1_1_twi_aud_ I'm wondering why it would be more expensive

Because they wanna stick it Enya? <BG>

Perhaps it's a digital booklet cost ?

-TBird's Radio Network - Great Music, Great Radio! www.tbirdsradio.com

... "Cures For Impotence." -- By Hugh G. Rection.

---
þ Synchronet þ ´ TBIRDS BBS ´ telnet://tbirds.dyndns.org

Re: MP3 more expensive than a CD?
By: Nightfox to All on Sat Apr 16 2016 12:53 pm

I came across Enya's latest album on Amazon, and I noticed they charge more for it in MP3 format than for the CD: http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Sky-Island- Enya/dp/B0168KQSNI/ref=sr_1_1_twi_aud_2 I'm wondering why it would be more expensive in MP3 format, considering there is no physical media to produce and ship. I'd think you might as well buy the CD and make your own MP3s from it. I tend to still prefer buying CDs over MP3 anyway (since MP3 is lossless, and I can rip the CD to MP3 myself).

Probably since the majority of the market has moved to streaming and mp3/etc, they want to recoup some of their losses.

But this is just another example of how consumers are not seeing the value/benefit from the advances in technology.

Knight

---
þ Synchronet þ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Actually MP3 is Lossy and the CD has full fidelity. MP3 removes sounds from the inaudable sound spectrum.

The Lossless music files are .flac and .aiff and apple has there own too.

CDs are lossy too, just less lossy than MP3 tends to be, depending on the encoding... There's also the mixing regarding "loudness wars" and associated distortion involved there.

--
Michael J. Ryan
tracker1(at)gmail.com
+o Roughneck BBS

---
þ Synchronet þ RoughneckBBS - http://www.roughneckbbs.com/

Re: MP3 more expensive than a CD?
By: tracker1 to Allen Prunty on Sun May 08 2016 08:28 pm

Actually MP3 is Lossy and the CD has full fidelity. MP3 removes sounds from the inaudable sound spectrum.

The Lossless music files are .flac and .aiff and apple has there own too.

CDs are lossy too, just less lossy than MP3 tends to be, depending on the encoding... There's also the mixing regarding "loudness wars" and associated distortion involved there.

By the normal definition of "lossy" versus "lossless" audio encoding, the pulse-code-modulation (PCM) used on CD-Audio discs (and .WAV files) is considered "lossless". There is no compression of the data whatsoever (e.g. 60 minutes of silence consumes exactly the same number of bits as 60 minutes of music on a CD-A disc).

FLAC is a compressed lossless format, so 60 minutes of silence produces a much smaller FLAC file than 60 minutes of minutes, but still, it's a lossless compression.

MP3, AAC, and many other formats are "lossy" because they throw away audio data (it gets "lost") in the encoding process. How much of the data is "lost" and how important that data is to the fidelity of the audio depends on the encoding scheme/processor, the target bitrate, etc.

WMA has both lossy and lossless schemes, but both are "compressed".

Dynamic audio compression/limiting is another thing entirely.

digital man

Synchronet/BBS Terminology Definition #41:
XON = Transmit On (ASCII 17, Ctrl-Q)
Norco, CA WX: 57.5øF, 83.0% humidity, 3 mph SE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ telnet://vert.synchro.net

Digital Man wrote to tracker1 <=-

By the normal definition of "lossy" versus "lossless" audio encoding,
the pulse-code-modulation (PCM) used on CD-Audio discs (and .WAV files)
is considered "lossless". There is no compression of the data
whatsoever (e.g. 60 minutes of silence consumes exactly the same number
of bits as 60 minutes of music on a CD-A disc).

FLAC is a compressed lossless format, so 60 minutes of silence produces
a much smaller FLAC file than 60 minutes of minutes, but still, it's a lossless compression.

The test of lossy versus lossless is whether the reconstructed waveform (or in the case of codecs, the sequence of data bits) is identical to what was encoded in the first place. If the result of compression and decompression is the same as the input, then the compression is lossless. If the result is different, the compression is lossy. CDs are pure PCM, just a digital representation of the audio waveform, and by definition lossless (within the sampling bandwidth of 20 kHz).

The trick with lossy compression is (the codec) knowing what to throw away, while leaving the resulting data still useable for its intended purpose. For example, you can generally throw away a lot more to transmit intelligible speech than you can to transmit reasonable sounding music. Some of the extremely high compression "vocoders" used on speech circuits can generate a lot of artifacts (and sound a bit like a robot - try listening to 700 bit/sec Codec2 encoded speech! ;) ), but they still produce reasonable speech quality for communication purposes.

MP3, AAC, and many other formats are "lossy" because they throw away
audio data (it gets "lost") in the encoding process. How much of the
data is "lost" and how important that data is to the fidelity of the
audio depends on the encoding scheme/processor, the target bitrate,

It's a tradeoff between audio quality and data rate. Having a choice of bitrates allows you to find the best balance.


... An Elephant; A Mouse built to government specifications.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.