»

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Alkaline

I guess it depends on a number of variables as well as processing speed/power, error correction and all manner of things like memory architecture, DACs and ADCs. In which case the better the machine you have the truer the representation of the initial article. Is that better?

Better, but I still don't think you're right. The power of even the most basic £400 laptop tehse days is more than enough to encode an MP3 without straining the system resources. I don't think any system from the last few years would complete the operation with enough differences in the result to actually be heard by anyone.

The biggest contributing factors are going to be the codec itself and the program that uses it, not the computer running the conversion.

[Lucky Rathen]

This thread is on the verge of being moved to the Gaming and Technology forum.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Lucky Rathen

This thread is on the verge of being moved to the Gaming and Technology forum.

Agreed and I'm to blame as much as anyone else. Let's try and get this back on topic please everyone. The ins and outs of MP3 encoding would be best covered in a new thread in the Gaming and Technology forum.

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by Chris

The biggest contributing factors are going to be the codec itself and the program that uses it, not the computer running the conversion.

True, the codec itself and the conversion program are the biggest factors but if there is a weaker element in the chain, i.e a poor quality CD deck (which lets face it the ones used in computers aren't actually very good) with lots of read errors then you aren't going to get a very well encoded or "true" finished product.

I can tell the difference between a good and bad CD deck and a good and bad Audio DAC on an amp (when using a transport deck) and an internal CD borne DAC using different set-ups and if i can then i'm sure a computer will be even better.

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by Neil

Agreed and I'm to blame as much as anyone else. Let's try and get this back on topic please everyone. The ins and outs of MP3 encoding would be best covered in a new thread in the Gaming and Technology forum.

Awww don't be such a killjoy i'm enjoying talking about this especially with Stripey and Chris

It's all relative as to my basis on not buying downloaded media and why i believe that CD is still a more than valid media so it's not too far off topic and it's been maintained at a fairly respectable manner.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Alkaline

Awww don't be such a killjoy i'm enjoying talking about this especially with Stripey and Chris

I only got involved because I thought the remark about processor speed was inaccurate or at least over-stated. I think we've pretty much reached agreement on that now and I don't really have a conflicting opinion on CD drives and the optics within (I'll bow to your superior knowledge to me on that one) so I'm about done with this topic now.

[Jeanette]

Yes, but I'm sure for many of us we have no idea what you're speaking about! I'm first in that queue and it's not making the thread as enjoyable to read anymore...

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by JeanieStar

Yes, but I'm sure for many of us we have no idea what you're speaking about! I'm first in that queue and it's not making the thread as enjoyable to read anymore...

Well i'm not going to stop talking about something just because you don't understand it. Sorry.

[Original Spies]

Originally Posted by Stripey

Utterly misinformed rubbish. 320kbps MP3 properly encoded will be indistinguishable to anyones ears from a 16bit 44khz CD. Anyway, if you really worry about it, lossless encoding like FLAC or even straight up WAV downloads are becoming increasingly common.



Again, this is just complete nonsense. Digital distribution is a huge step forward, it's also a huge democratising force in that anyone now can cut out the entire chain of middle-men in the tradional cd/vinyl based industry paradigm and sell direct to their customers.




Yep, times sure change don't they.

When I buy music, I don't want to pay for gimmicky "value adding" packaging, or fill my house up with bits of perishable, evironmentally questionable plastic, letalone pay a premium for a product where the price reflects a chain of money grubbing middle men rather than its actual value.

The browsing randomly and buying things on a whim experience is even richer when you buy music online, given that you can easily listen to the stuff beforehand, find out anything you want about the band/artists and so on with absolute ease.

I think the great thing about all this is that it's eating away at the false perception of the worth of music that the record industry over the last 40 years or so has deliberately fostered. The new paradigm that is emerging is good for the consumer, good for the artists, and good for music itself.

Yes, my opinions on the matter are complete "nonsense" because you don't agree with them. That's some fine debating right there. We might as well just have rolled up our sleeves and started punching each other if we were to keep it at this level of integrity.

You describe music as a physical posession 'perishable' in an argument in favor of the MP3?! Baffling. A stereo holding a CD in it's tray is much more secure than a computer where a small virus can corrupt the file, or even accidental deletion can rid of it forever. An iPod is about as reliable as a chocolate fireguard. I've had two mp3 players crash and die without recovery, losing hundreds of music files. I've never had a stereo chew up my CD or just refuse to give it back. Arguing that MP3's are less volatile than music as a physical possession is just so wrong it even hurts a little.

Besides, where's the collector aspect of it? Imagine if they decided to make all books and comics digital only? It would be chaos. The whole experience of buying and trading music, lending music to your friends goes out the window, and it just becomes so disposable. With the ease of downloading ANYTHING comes fickle listeners. I pay alot more attention to music I've paid for, because I've gone to the effort of getting it, and I know alot of people are the same. Downloads are so easily obtainable that no one really lets records grown on them anymore (I'm guilty of this myself), and music fads are coming and going faster than ever.

Also, Hearing a band online first is completely different to buying on a whim without hearing them, and comparing the two makes no sense whatsoever. I am definitely not motivated to pay for files I may not like. At least with a record or CD, I'm likely to pay more attention to it, and if I really don't like it, I can sell it on or most likely trade it with someone for something else.

As for quality, I have a fair share of stuff on my MP3 player ripped at 320kbps, and when listening through GOOD headphones at high volumes, I can tell the difference. You can not argue that it isn't a step backwards as far as audio technology is concerned, and I shouldn't have to listen to it at a low volume just to be able to hear it without having it fizz and crackle.

[Jeanette]

Originally Posted by Alkaline

Well i'm not going to stop talking about something just because you don't understand it. Sorry.

I'm not asking you to. But the whole point of this was to discuss why people thought independent music shops etc were on the general go slow with sales.

Not the ins and outs of the difference between mp3s and cds and whatever other technological nonsense you've been speaking about.

Hence the suggestion further up that it be moved. The whole point of the thread has been lost slightly with the constant handbags over who knows what about whatever it is you're speaking about.