I had exactly that mentality too, especially back when iTunes was
offering poor 128Kbps quality songs at $1 each. I thought *that* was
robbery. Instead, I only purchased tunes from services that offered
at least 384Kbps.
I wouldn't want to buy music in any lossy compressed format, no matter
what bit rate. I'd rather buy music in a lossless format like FLAC or
on CD.
One place that I favoured was Puretracks.
I wouldn't want to buy music in any lossy compressed format, no
matter what bit rate. I'd rather buy music in a lossless format
like FLAC or on CD.
I didn't "want" to either. :( But for an individual song or two, or for the occassional album, the convenience of getting the tunes right away was rather nice.
One place that I favoured was Puretracks. Others were CD Baby and Magnatune. The two former offered traditional commercial artists, but they closed operations after a few years. Magnatune is nearly 20 yrs strong - and only offers independent artists. Magnatune used to offer per album pricing. They switched to a new unique model.
But today, the prices set for buying an album in FLAC seems to be too high imho. Interestingly, many places that sell FLAC versions are still in business after many years.
I've bought one or two albums in FLAC format. I've seen sites that
sell music in FLAC format, though the selection doesn't seem as
extensive as what's available on CD (which is why I often default to
just buying the CD). In one instance though, the FLAC version of an
album was just $2 more than the MP3 version. It was something like
$12 for MP3s and $14 for FLAC or something.
It almost felt a bit high, but I figured that's about what a new music
CD would cost anyway. And why would I want to buy music in a lossy compressed format? I can convert it to MP3 myself.
One place that I favoured was Puretracks.
I remember Puretracks. I bought a lot of music through them, they
actually had a pretty good selection, there were only a few things
that I wanted that they didn't have.
Was sad to see when I got the email that they were shutting down.
I've bought one or two albums in FLAC format. I've seen sites that
sell music in FLAC format, though the selection doesn't seem as
extensive as what's available on CD (which is why I often default to
just buying the CD). In one instance though, the FLAC version of an
album was just $2 more than the MP3 version. It was something like
$12 for MP3s and $14 for FLAC or something.
WHERE did you find FLAC versions at $14? The few places that I've looked at (in the distant past) have always had prices in the $25+ range.
It almost felt a bit high, but I figured that's about what a new
music CD would cost anyway. And why would I want to buy music in a
lossy compressed format? I can convert it to MP3 myself.
Sometimes, a 384Kbps version is "good enough" for me! LOL
But I totally agree with you. I found it abhorrent that iTunes initially offered only 128Kbps mp3 versions. It only makes sense because their target market were the portable player iPod users. But for me, I preferred to burn to CD so that I could enjoy tunes on a conventional hi- fi system. 128Kbps versions burned to CD sounded like they were being pushed through a saw-tooth filter. The bass was often too boomy.
I was totally jealous of people who boasted acquiring much less lossy ogg vorbis versions of their tunes. But for me, still on dialup at that time, that was a difficult market to participate in.
The backstory how mp3 was first developed and how (and why) it got into the hands of the masses is an interesting story.
People always used to say 128kbit was enough. I've listened to a lot of 128kbit MP3s and they sounded good to me.. The last time I tried a listen, I had a hard time telling the difference between 128kbit and 320kbit. Perhaps if I listened close with headphones, I can tell a difference.
On 08-02-20 14:42, Ogg wrote to All <=-
But I totally agree with you. I found it abhorrent that iTunes
initially offered only 128Kbps mp3 versions. It only makes sense
because their target market were the portable player iPod users. But
for me, I preferred to burn to CD so that I could enjoy tunes on a conventional hi- fi system. 128Kbps versions burned to CD sounded like they were being pushed through a saw-tooth filter. The bass was often
too boomy.
The backstory how mp3 was first developed and how (and why) it got into the hands of the masses is an interesting story.
People always used to say 128kbit was enough. I've listened to a lot of 128kbit MP3s and they sounded good to me.. The last time I tried a listen, had a hard time telling the difference between 128kbit and 320kbit. Perhaps I listened close with headphones, I can tell a difference.
I must be going old because I am less able to tell the difference with
the years. I should get a horse trained to pick the difference as an experiment, though.
Hello Arelor!
** On Monday 03.08.20 - 08:06, arelor wrote to Nightfox:
I must be going old because I am less able to tell the difference with the years. I should get a horse trained to pick the difference as an experiment, though.
Or dogs? I understand you have a few of those available! <G>
I must be going old because I am less able to tell the difference
with the years. I should get a horse trained to pick the difference
as an experiment, though.
Or dogs? I understand you have a few of those available! <G>
Yes. But horses have better hearing.
Today, depending on the recording, I can't tell much diff between 192Kbps and 320Kbps versions when listening to them direct with modest speakers. But there is still a noticeable difference after they have been recorded onto CD.
On 08-03-20 07:06, Arelor wrote to Nightfox <=-
I must be going old because I am less able to tell the difference with
the years. I should get a horse trained to pick the difference as an experiment, though.
Re: Re: lossy or FLAC or CD
By: Ogg to Arelor on Mon Aug 03 2020 10:17 pm
Today, depending on the recording, I can't tell much diff between
192Kbps and 320Kbps versions when listening to them direct with
modest speakers. But there is still a noticeable difference after
they have been recorded onto CD.
I'm not sure how burning them to CD would make a difference in how
they sound. I assume you mean burn them as an audio CD?
Whether you're playing the MP3s or burning them as an audio CD, either
way, the PC would have to decompress the MP3, and either way, I'd
think the data would be the same whether you're playing the MP3
directly or burning its audio to a CD. I'd think the CD should sound
the same as the MP3 (but not any better, naturally).
Yes, for a hifi system, you want PCM or lossless compression like
FLAC. I'm getting more sensitive to compression artifacts as time
goes by too. MP3 sounds "OK", but it's nothing like lossless.
The backstory how mp3 was first developed and how (and why) it got into Og>> the hands of the masses is an interesting story.
Now that I would be interested in! :)
On 08-13-20 01:22, Ogg wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Yes, for a hifi system, you want PCM or lossless compression like
FLAC. I'm getting more sensitive to compression artifacts as time
goes by too. MP3 sounds "OK", but it's nothing like lossless.
That's funny. The sensitivity is supposed to diminish with age. It's
like you're aging in reverse! LOL
The backstory how mp3 was first developed and how (and why) it got into
the hands of the masses is an interesting story.
Now that I would be interested in! :)
You can read a fairly long excerpt (Introduction and Chapter 1) here.
https://www.edelweiss.plus/?sku=0143109340&g=4400
On 08-13-20 20:14, Vk3jed wrote to Ogg <=-
Haha, when one has a brain that accumulates data in a statistical way
and refines the stats continuously, strange things happen, especially
when it's been running for over 62 years! :D
Haha, when one has a brain that accumulates data in a statistical way
and refines the stats continuously, strange things happen, especially
when it's been running for over 62 years! :D
Arrrgh typos - 52, not 62. :D
On 08-14-20 00:25, Ogg wrote to All <=-
Arrrgh typos - 52, not 62. :D
Ya.. I wondered about that. Or.. you decided to age 10 years in a few weeks. LOL
On 08-14-20 00:25, Ogg wrote to All <=-
Arrrgh typos - 52, not 62. :D
Ya.. I wondered about that. Or.. you decided to age 10 years in a few Og>> weeks. LOL
It seems only my fingers have middle age spread. :D
And are you replying via NNTP? I noticed your replay was address to "All". :)
The backstory how mp3 was first developed and how (and why) it got into Og>>> the hands of the masses is an interesting story.
Now that I would be interested in! :)
You can read a fairly long excerpt (Introduction and Chapter 1) here.
https://www.edelweiss.plus/?sku=0143109340&g=4400
I'll check it out. :)
And are you replying via NNTP? I noticed your replay was address
to "All". :)
I am accessing dovenet via nntp, yes.
I am not sure what triggered the "to All". Usually, that only happens when I create a brand new message. Does this one appear normal?
Hello Vk3jed!
** On Friday 14.08.20 - 04:59, vk3jed wrote to Ogg:
On 08-14-20 00:25, Ogg wrote to All <=-
I am not sure what triggered the "to All". Usually, that only
happens when I create a brand new message. Does this one appear
normal?
| Sysop: | MCMLXXIX |
|---|---|
| Location: | Prospect, CT |
| Users: | 333 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 16:12:25 |
| Calls: | 574 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Messages: | 235853 |