MP3s vs cd quality/flac

harmonium.ro wrote: Good MP3 (maximum variable bitrate) is excellent for me. Less than that, problems appear.

This...

The Truth wrote: It's all the same to me, music is music.  MP3's are like CD's evil twin.  They look and sound alike but one tries to kill the other (as in mp3s are destroying the music industry)

care to elaborate? I'd really like to discuss this point.

That is very much true, as the rise in digital media's usage has definitely caused stress for the music industry. But i also feel that the music industry's inability to take advantage of the digital format has caused them unneeded stress too, as we still do not have a dedicated online music hub. although, I believe recently one of the major record labels did report a profitable quarter from just online sales. Or something like that i haven't followed the issue for a long time. Oh I think i remember, its been predicted that within two or three years online profits will exceed physical. i'm not sure in what context though.

Henry Plainview wrote: mono wrote: ^Simply put, mp3: main format of music that can be stored on a computer = downloadable/uploadable.... whereas CDs are "painful" to burn... So mp3 can be spread extremely quickly (illegal ones I mean), whereas illegal CDs are much less accessible, beacuse the CD is a physical support... ==> mp3s (and all digital "non physical" formats) plays a great part in the recent fall or the music industry and the CD. And yet, digital piracy is not significantly harming a single artist I care about. I think piracy is wrong, but to blame it solely for the collapse of the bloated major labels is ridiculous. The members of Metallica still don't have to ever work again, despite all their complaining.

I agree with every word that Henry just said.

I don't illegally download anything.  I've bought everything I have.  I buy hard copies.  I only download legitimate freebies.  If the music industry is suffering I really don't care.  Also, I've bought more than quite a few titles from the musician's web site.  

Couple things.

1. I was never easy to make it as a musical artist. In the past you had to be incredibly popular and marketable. Now you have to be incredibly popular and marketable, or have sufficient fanbase to go on artistic excursions.

2. Bitrates lower than 192kbps are tolerable on mp3 players with mediocre earbuds, which is how most people listen to music. Once you get used to hearing music in 256, 320 kbps, .wav, and FLAC on decent headphones, you can actually discern recording techniques, the atmosphere of the studio, surround sound, and all that. Music actually takes on life.

3. I think I can tell the difference between 256 kbps and FLAC/.wav, but I haven't tried one song on one format vs. the other.

Slartibartfast wrote: I don't illegally download anything.  I've bought everything I have.  I buy hard copies.  I only download legitimate freebies.  If the music industry is suffering I really don't care.  Also, I've bought more than quite a few titles from the musician's web site.

Henry Plainview wrote: Catcher10 wrote: For two people that's a minimum of $250 for a 2 hour concert......The same Rush 2 hour concert back in the early 80's was a $15-$25 ticket and $15 for a concert tee-shirt. (sorry this got off topic....my bad) There are still famous people only charging $20 per ticket, they're just not prima donna rock stars.

Catcher10 wrote: could have paid $25 for lawn seating...but I wanted seats closer up.

I think the last pay for lawn seating show I went to was Yes on the Union tour.  Why should I pay good money to sit on the damn ground?  And I don't want to have to stand unless I want to either, dammit.
Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with the topic.

Most of the Mp3 compressors I've used have no discernible artifacts at 128kbps, on my system. I use mp3 to distribute my own music over the Net, just for time and space saving reasons. 60min CD = 600Mb. 60 min Mp3 @128kbps = 60Mb. Mp3 discards frequencies from the sound which are usually illegible in frequency to  human hearing, but there is a downside.  eg: You can't hear a 6Hz bass signal in isolation....it's beyond the scope of human ears......but a 6Hz bass signal could cause a 600Hz  signal to resonate in a way that would be noticable if you removed the 6Hz signal. It's the same with the top-end, too. Thats what makes compression artifacts......its not that a frequency is damaged....it's just behaving differently because the frequency that causes it to resonate has been removed.