[Eug-lug] AmazonMp3 store

[Jason LaPier]

I understand your point about _paying_ for music and actually getting
something compressed. However, since these places are selling mp3s that
the average consumer is going to put on their hard drive and/or portable
audio player, the amount of space they take up makes a difference.
That's probably more important to 99.9% of consumers than the bragging
rights you get with a higher bitrate.

You going to the meeting tonight? Someone make him take the Pepsi
challenge. :) I contend that anyone who can tell the difference between
256k and 320k mp3s is got to be one in a million. Not that I'm saying
that it's not possible; but it's gotta be rarer than "perfect pitch". 

- Jason L.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: euglug-bounces at euglug.org 
> [mailto:euglug-bounces at euglug.org] On Behalf Of silver
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:49 PM
> To: Eugene Unix and Gnu/Linux User Group
> Subject: Re: [Eug-lug] AmazonMp3 store
> 
> Agreed. I was comparing higher grade lossless formats.
> 
> Yes the law of diminishing returns applies generally to 
> everything. However I have found 320k MP3 provides a more 
> appropriate reproduction of the dynamic range (peaks and 
> valleys) across the frequency range and better definition in 
> the low and high ranges, better than 256k and enough for me 
> and others to readily notice across multiple devices 
> (portable, consumer, audiophile, pro gear). Not a hardware or 
> firmware issue.
> 
> And then, of course, the lossless encode/decode formats 
> provide even higher quality vs 320k MP3. If you can't hear 
> the differences that's ok.
> 
> Different strokes for different folks. It appears the market 
> has concluded most folks are willing to put up with the lower 
> quality audio or just don't know the diff.
> 
> Myself I rather hear something closer to what the artist, 
> producer and engineer wanted me to hear, and not the "choice" 
> the distributors format (compressed stream) forces on me.
> 
> If I have the PCM in hand (e.g. CD) I can manage convert to 
> whichever format I desire.
> 
> hydrogenaudio.org is a good resource
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Hudson" <rob at cogit8.org>
> 
> 
>   On 3/12/08, silver <silverlining2007 at gmail.com> wrote:
>   >  At any rate isn't 256k MP3 going backwards?
> 
> Compared to iTunes' 128k AAC, I'd think that's going forwards.
> 
> For a song that I happened to want one day and was willing to spend 89
> cents on, a 256k mp3 is fine for me.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EUGLUG mailing list
> euglug at euglug.org
> http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
>