Yeah, although the quality is an issue for me, the main objection is the downfall of physical media as an art, and the growing influence of a single monopolizing distributor with questionable business practices.
Fair enough. Why I use eMusic.
Yeah, although the quality is an issue for me, the main objection is the downfall of physical media as an art, and the growing influence of a single monopolizing distributor with questionable business practices.
And yeah, bands don't actually make the majority of their money from the albums. They make much much more from touring and merch. It's the record companies that make the big bucks off the albums.
the main objection is the downfall of physical media as an art
most of you anti-MP3 motherfuckers can't even tell the difference between a 192bit rip and CD quality... Sorry.
That's true.Well, really music has been a physical medium for a very short amount of time in relative terms. In a way it's going back to what it has always been. Some people might have argued against the commodification of music through turning it into a physical product.
That's true.
But the subtle difference is, originally it was transient, performance based. Then it became a physical item. And now, it is becoming mere information, the physical case discarded, yet still not spontaneous and performance based.
Lately I've been buying only vinyl. CDs, though potentially higher fidelity and dynamic capacity, are never used to their full potential as a result of the loudness war. So I find that for most albums, vinyl actually sounds better. Often it can be cheaper.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all iTunes purchased songs in 128kbps by default? Seriously, my penis has more dynamic range.....
Of course most pop music is so overcompressed it doesn't matter but for something like a Mahler symphony, forget it. Plus, doesn't that result in like a 16k cutoff?
I don't want to start another format war on this thread; I'm just curious.
Opeth and a bunch of other bands/labels are now in 256 kbps 44khz sample rate. That puts the cutoff at 22k, above the range of hearing, and the SAME as a CD, which is AIFF at 1440 kbps (I think) and a 44khz sample rate (the same frequency range). However, the massive pile of data in a CD is often "filler space", as converting the files into an actual lossless format-- just big enough to hold ALL the data that's there but not huge as it doesn't need "placeholder space"-- you'll see that many songs are closer to 1000 kbps.Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all iTunes purchased songs in 128kbps by default? Seriously, my penis has more dynamic range.....
Of course most pop music is so overcompressed it doesn't matter but for something like a Mahler symphony, forget it. Plus, doesn't that result in like a 16k cutoff?
I don't want to start another format war on this thread; I'm just curious.
That's true.
But the subtle difference is, originally it was transient, performance based. Then it became a physical item. And now, it is becoming mere information, the physical case discarded, yet still not spontaneous and performance based.
Lately I've been buying only vinyl. CDs, though potentially higher fidelity and dynamic capacity, are never used to their full potential as a result of the loudness war. So I find that for most albums, vinyl actually sounds better. Often it can be cheaper.
Is there really any difference dynamics-wise between the CP or LP version of an album? Surely they're the same master of the album?
There's also a lot of different approaches to the two kinds of compression.