^^^^
It that ain't the truth.

But it depends on how you and what you use to encode it and the source of the rip. Also, a higher bitrate doesn't always equal better quality.

All of my MP3s come from my CDs. I use 128 because it is near CD-Quality and saves hard drive space. I don't notice a difference between my MP3 files and my CDs. It saves me the trouble of flipping through my CD wallets and popping open the CD drive to change albums while I am on the computer.

128 sucks? Hmm, have you actually listened to the difference on the original CD and the ripped 128 version? I notice the same blips(clicks) on both versions. Of course, I sometimes clean them up with a declicking program myself. Still, if the imperfections exist on the original CD, one can't possibly improve it by recording at a higher bit rate.

I think the only way to improve it is to get a super high quality original CD. Unfortunately, the normal commercial CD's just aren't super high quality.

About "half the people will get them from Kazaa".

Some songs just aren't available on commerical CD's anymore. I have found it necessary to clean up vinyl records because of this problem. Some CD's that I wanted to buy aren't even available anymore. Mainly because they were made on old Vinyls or tapes and weren't redistributed on the generally higher quality CD's. Therefore the only way to get some of these songs were by downloading them from some fan of an artist. Or, if you are lucky, maybe the album wasn't that old for an older CD version, and some fan ripped it and shared it.

Have I listened to and heard the differences? Yes and on a very nice setup.

With 128, you can have more of a compressed sound and can really suffer highs. Like I said, it really depends on the quality of the encoding software. The differences on a pair of pc speakers might not be all that noticeable, but on a quality setup and with a god ear it wil be there.

If only planning to listen to it on your pc, 128 is fine. But in your car or home theater/system, 192 or above to me will suffice.

About your second part: I meant is somebody wants or hears about an album, instead of listening to a few songs and then buying the cd like you have stated, half if not the majority will just get the album from Kazaa and not buy it.

Some songs just aren't available on commerical CD's anymore. I have found it necessary to clean up vinyl records because of this problem. Some CD's that I wanted to buy aren't even available anymore. Mainly because they were made on old Vinyls or tapes and weren't redistributed on the generally higher quality CD's. Therefore the only way to get some of these songs were by downloading them from some fan of an artist. Or, if you are lucky, maybe the album wasn't that old for an older CD version, and some fan ripped it and shared it.

you can order any cd ever made at your local cd shop like sam goody... i always have.

Some independent labels have set up a interesting strategy. First of all they offer far more quality music (not all of them of course) and second they do interesting packs like metal cases or special small plastic bags or give away some goodies like postcards or stickers to name a few. In that way it is far more special to own the original cd than to have a bunch of files on the harddrive.

The world is adjusting to the new markets offered by the internet, making the changes required in marketing to capitalize on the potential and only realizing success if they are creative and forward thinking. The music industry relies on legislators to support an organized-crime type dominion and repression of new marketing ideas, new and beneficial technologies and the evolution of distribution. They have no vision or creativity, they want to resist change to the point of making you a criminal for doing something that is perfectly legal.

It's gone too far when privacy gets thrown out in favor of a few corporation's misstated losses. Record sales where at an all time high when Napster was flourishing. The RIAA's efforts to shut down Napster resulted in a dramatic decrease in sales and a lot of animosity towards the record labels. Their current dilema is probably more a result of their own actions than any other cause. Certainly not because kazaa kids are not rushing out to buy the latest souless plastic crap on the hit parade.

The fact remains the RIAA isn't on this gestapo-esc mission for the indy labels or any "little guy" for that matter. They're run by the heads of the major labels and names so they can push another dollar into their own pocket.

They refuse to post record sales pre-napster then post-napster in fear of people figuring out their game is all corporate and not to "help" their 101 Backstreet Boys and Britany Spears copies they pump out and shove in your face every year.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any value in supporting artists who neither write their own music nor actually play a live set. (Which most of the *bigger* names don't do either.) And I certainly don't see a point in supporting another record industry's exec's golf trip.

Some independent labels have set up a interesting strategy. First of all they offer far more quality music (not all of them of course) and second they do interesting packs like metal cases or special small plastic bags or give away some goodies like postcards or stickers to name a few. In that way it is far more special to own the original cd than to have a bunch of files on the harddrive.

for instance, both my new cds, metallica st anger and staind 14 shades of grey both came with DVDs with videos on em...

The fact remains the RIAA isn't on this gestapo-esc mission for the indy labels or any "little guy" for that matter. They're run by the heads of the major labels and names so they can push another dollar into their own pocket.They refuse to post record sales pre-napster then post-napster in fear of people figuring out their game is all corporate and not to "help" their 101 Backstreet Boys and Britany Spears copies they pump out and shove in your face every year.I'm sorry, but I don't see any value in supporting artists who neither write their own music nor actually play a live set. (Which most of the *bigger* names don't do either.) And I certainly don't see a point in supporting another record industry's exec's golf trip.

I agree! Let's support the artists and not buy their albums! That'll certainly show the RIAA and the artists will receive like 100% of the profit rather than only 1%.

and it keeps going and going...

Clearly the indrustry can revamp there sales format and sell more records. As with most businesses, they do not want to change from a known money maker to an unknown money making format even though studies show it will work. As much money the RIAA has they can be ealiely pushed to the brink if they lose any more in sales.


Same case with the auto indrustry on 1970 - 80

As for the downloaders, once again, no matter how it is explained, most do not buy any of the singles or the album they download... and boast about it.

I do feel the music indrustry should allow free music downloads of new artists and indi-label in some way rely on free distubution.

A classic example of how to revamp the indrustry is DJ's, pushing the word out on the street, and clubs... mostly what Hip Hop Indrustry does. Sales were strong way into the Napster craze.

There are allot of factors that into into the loss of sales. It is not mostly downloads, but it has potetial to be.

and it keeps going and going...

Clearly the indrustry can revamp there sales format and sell more records. As with most businesses, they do not want to change from a known money maker to an unknown money making format even though studies show it will work. As much money the RIAA has they can be ealiely pushed to the brink if they lose any more in sales.


Same case with the auto indrustry on 1970 - 80

As for the downloaders, once again, no matter how it is explained, most do not buy any of the singles or the album they download... and boast about it.

I do feel the music indrustry should allow free music downloads of new artists and indi-label in some way rely on free distubution.

A classic example of how to revamp the indrustry is DJ's, pushing the word out on the street, and clubs... mostly what Hip Hop Indrustry does. Sales were strong way into the Napster craze.

There are allot of factors that into into the loss of sales. It is not mostly downloads, but it has potetial to be.

In response to Kona0197 "you can order any CD ever made from your local record store". This just isn't true. Many CD's are off the market and many old vinyl records were never made into the CD format. One such example is Rod Stewarts "Foolish Behavior" album. I couldn't get that one and I had to polish my vinyl album. The same was true for a couple of Pat Travers old albums. Try getting an old Temptations album that was only available on vinyl in the CD format. If you are lucky you might find a few of the popular songs on a compliation CD.

In response to #61, that is a ridiculous statement. It is not logical. If the artists only get one percent, how much difference is it going to make to them? It is mainly going to hurt the record industries if people stop going to the record stores. Most informed people know that the major revenue for the artist comes from their tours. Therefore, one can still support the artist by going to their live concerts. And, one can boycott the RIAA by not buying CD's in the record stores.

Most informed people know that the major revenue for the artist comes from their tours.

Unfortunately, it's only true for the big names. The ones that charge 200$+ for their concert tickets. The smaller bands that can't hope to charge more than 30$ or 50$ at the most, actually operate at loss during their tours. For them, the tour serves to promote the album, in hopes that the recors sales are going to pay for the tour losses.

There are a lot of fallacies here about speakers, MP3 technology and 128 bitrates.

About the 128 bitrate theory. Again, it doesn't matter what bitrate you record at if your original CD has sound errors in it. It mainly depends on the quality on ones soundcard, and not the software.

About the speaker quality theory. I use a 5.1 high quality cambridge speaker system and a soundblaster live 5.1 Platinum card. I have listened to the same songs on a pair of Yamaha speakers as well as my studio speaker monitors and car stereo speakers. I find that my quality is most accurate on my average Yahama speakers than my great sounding 5.1 speakers when I play a CD that I made on my computer in my car or my pocket CD player. If I'm listening, I prefer my 5.1 system, but if I'm recording, I prefer my mediocre Yahama speakers.

MP3 is a standard compression technology. It basically doesn't matter whether you use Musicmatch or Windows media player to compress a song. Now, if you want to compress with a different technology, like WMA, then there may be differences. But, most people prefer MP3 because it basically sounds the better than WMA.

Speaker quality does not change what is recorded. This quality(recorded quality) is better determined by the quality of ones soundcard. Better speakers only add better frequency separation in comparison to cheap speakers. If one gets a decent set of speakers, say $30 US, and a good soundcard(soundblaster), this is the best way. If one gets a $500.00 set of computer speakers and try to get the same quality from a car stereo, likely they will be disappointed. Unless, their car stereo has the same frequency range and as good frequency separation. Most car speaker boxes contain one speaker. This doesn't provide the same separation as a separate, mid, high and bass speaker like in home stereos or great computer speaker set ups with a bass box and tweeters. But, if you have average computer speakers, the sound can only get better provided you used a good soundcard. Remember, the recorded quality is not defined by the speakers. This is why most studios prefer real life sounding studio monitors over the ultra expensive ones. Because, most people have real life(average) stereo systems and the quality is preferred to match them.

PAxx, this isn't true. Artists get 30% of the revenue for a concert. And anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000+ seats in a arena. At $30-$50 dollars a seat, this is a good profit. Then, if you multiply this by 60-120+ yearly engagements, one has a good profit. I would love to put 3,000 US in my pocket for one night. It is true that I have seen $1-3 million dollar checks for record sales to an artist, but that is excessive and rare. I feel the same about multi-million dollar sport contracts while other people are starving. Therefore, I believe that people like Madonna and Metallica are as greedy as the record industry. But, then you have artists who are starving while their music is still being sold and royalties are still being made by selling rights to record their songs to other artists. Little Richard is an example. Elvis made millions on his songs and Little Richard got nothing. And while dead, Elvis is still making money on Little Richards songs and Little Richard gets nothing. Prince and Metallica were smarter in their contracts. But, this problem took awhile for the artist to figure out. I therefore have little respect for the greedy RIAA. At least the artist should have the rights to their songs. And, they do not.

In response to Kona0197 "you can order any CD ever made from your local record store". This just isn't true. Many CD's are off the market and many old vinyl records were never made into the CD format. One such example is Rod Stewarts "Foolish Behavior" album. I couldn't get that one and I had to polish my vinyl album. The same was true for a couple of Pat Travers old albums. Try getting an old Temptations album that was only available on vinyl in the CD format. If you are lucky you might find a few of the popular songs on a compliation CD.

I DO NOT know if it is against copyright but you can hookup your phono to your PC and rip a CD with your burner ....

Unfortunately, it's only true for the big names. The ones that charge 200$+ for their concert tickets. The smaller bands that can't hope to charge more than 30$ or 50$ at the most, actually operate at loss during their tours. For them, the tour serves to promote the album, in hopes that the recors sales are going to pay for the tour losses.

Anyone seen how much it costs for a LOW end ticket for a rolling stones concert?

CognitoToo, how much do you think studio monitors go for? Not cheap. Still, about under/amost a grand a piece which isn't that expensive when takin high end, but expensive for the average person.

You are again mentioning errors. I never said anything about errors.

The fact is, listen to something @ 128 bitrate on any average system and then on a high/higher end system. And again, depending on the quality of the encoding software, the 128 bit track will fall short in any case.

Remember, the recorded quality is not defined by the speakers.

True, but you said it yourself: shitty speakers will produce shitty sound. Let's not forget about the quality of your amp/receiver, cables, speaker cable and whatnot. You're only as good as your weakest link.


I have a sound system improver in which the music reproduced is reproduced the way it was MEANT to be heard. Music from whatever source can sound muddy by proper order being lost with say higher frequencies being delayed and the sound being reproduced differs significantly from the sound produced from the original source. Envelope distortion. A sound system improver works to correct this while providing cleaner, more intelligent and detailed highs with deeper and fuller bass while proving a fuller, more natural and all around better sound.

The slightest difference becomes very apparent.
Having a good ear also helps .

how much do you think studio monitors go for? Not cheap. Still, about under/amost a grand a piece which isn't that expensive when takin high end, but expensive for the average person.

my Events cost me around $500 and those are considered "pro audio"


You'd be pretty hard pressed unless you're being ripped off to find a set of studio monitors that are over $1000 retail.

The fact still remains.
The RIAA sucks.

The RIAA sucks.

I think that is sokmething we all agree on...

I mean if I can pick up 50 CDr's for 10 bucks why does a frickin CD cost 20? >

sokmething

something... (jafo icon here)

Doomgaze, you get what you paid for, unless of course it's Bose. You wouldn't use these studio monitors for average use either.
[Message Edited]

Cognito, I watched a show on TV about local Canadian artists (not the rare ones who make it big in the USA like Celine Dion, but the other ones), who still have to give what the fans expect (laser and all the special effects), but who will never sell enough tickets to pay for it. For them, a concert is lost money.

the dj: of course unless its Bose, and if they actually did make studio monitors (2 of the biggest sellers are JBL and Event... both pumping out sub $1000 sets) but there is better than Bose for home entertainment, and I digress....

I mean if I can pick up 50 CDr's for 10 bucks why does a frickin CD cost 20?

a few hours + file sharing softare x 50 blank cds = happy people