»

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by Lucky Rathen

I've got just the thing!

Haha, better but not cheaper.

[Stripey]

Originally Posted by Alkaline

Apologies, as i said it was 1am and i actually meant encoded. Obviously the difference in programs you use and how quick your computer is affect the overall outcome of your encode.

Speed of the computer has nothing to do with the quality of the encoded output.

I can tell the difference between a 192kbps and 256kbps (or lower) compressed audio track and a CD. 320kbps would depend on each individual basis. It's a tone thing for me. You can't tell me what my ears can and can't hear no matter how much you'd like to.

Of course you can tell the difference between a low bitrate mp3 and a CD, but we're talking about 320kbps here, and you will not be able to tell the difference, it's not a matter of subjectivity it's a matter of scientific/mathematic reality and the proven tolerances of human hearing.

Actually any mp3 or lossy codec is a digitally clipped signal so you're wrong, digital clipping is something that is very important in digital sampling. I'm surprised you don't understand that...

No it isn't, you're completely wrong. Clipping occurs when the signal exceeds the headroom of the equipment/format being used, i.e when the meter "goes into the red", it has nothing to do with lossy encoding and nothing to do with this conversation.

If you want a clue go and read about the nyquist theory, dithering and aliasing in digital sampling before you start spouting such nonsense.

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by Stripey

Speed of the computer has nothing to do with the quality of the encoded output.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by Stripey

Of course you can tell the difference between a low bitrate mp3 and a CD, but we're talking about 320kbps here, and you will not be able to tell the difference, it's not a matter of subjectivity it's a matter of scientific/mathematic reality and the proven tolerances of human hearing.

So was i if you read my statement properly. Are you ignoring the bodies perception of non-audible sounds then entirely?

Originally Posted by Stripey

No it isn't, you're completely wrong. Clipping occurs when the signal exceeds the headroom of the equipment/format being used, i.e when the meter "goes into the red", it has nothing to do with lossy encoding and nothing to do with this conversation.

If you want a clue go and read about the nyquist theory, dithering and aliasing in digital sampling before you start spouting such nonsense.

You're right and wrong. I have read all about Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorum, and clipping occurs more regularly on poorly encoded and lower bitrate media than it does on higher bitrate media like CD, for example.

[Stichman]

I think I'll prefer CDs for the forseeable future because...

- I like to listen to music in the car, which has a CD player. I've got one of those wee gadgets that links your ipod to a radio frequency, but the sound quality is minging compared to a good ol' CD. This is especially noticeable when playing the Best of Paul Simon.

- I like shopping for CDs; it gets me out the house, is a great way of wasting excess time and if it's a decent record store then you can talk to the staff - something which has led to me to all sorts of new bands and genres that I probably wouldn't have 'discovered' otherwise

- I like real life. I like things. I like people and interacting with them. I don't like spending hours in my sweaty, cesspit of a bedroom peering at a flickering computer screen.

- I'm a technological retard. I don't know even know what a bitrate is, and I don't think I should have to know the intricacies of technological jargon to enjoy my music to a decent level. With a CD, you just hump it into the player. Easy money.

Downloads are good in that the distribution of music from unsigned bands is limitless, making it possible to release your pishy tunes to a huuuuge audience. Also, I like how you can - at the touch of a button - source rare releases from your most favourite of bands. BUT, CDs are most definetely the medium for me.

[Lucky Rathen]

Originally Posted by Stichman

- I like to listen to music in the car, which has a CD player. I've got one of those wee gadgets that links your ipod to a radio frequency, but the sound quality is minging compared to a good ol' CD. This is especially noticeable when playing the Best of Paul Simon.

You know, it may not be the iPod that's making that sound shit.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Alkaline

Wrong.

Fancy explaining then?

Originally Posted by Panda Strong

Mono got over that factor by deciding to not stock crap music. Works for them!
.

If only I'd had that luxury.... (I didn't order the stock, sadly)


But you actually have a point here. I think the way ahead for music stores is intelligent merchandising. If you have a shop, and you're very canny about who is buying music, you can - theoretically - tailor your stock to your market. This means that if you have a population that is into stuff like Spoon, Broken Social Scene, etc, then only stock that stuff, keep it low key, and cultivate a relationship with your customers so that they can trust you. If you budget accordingly, then you can survive...in principle.

My model of thinking for this is music promotion. Generally, a canny promoter can budget in such a way that then can work out how many poeple will come to a gig, how much they can afford to spend when booking, how much promotion to do and how t come away with a profit. Obviously, it's not an exact science, but I always admired the way the Interesting Music guys were able to book 'niche' acts, and bring them to a receptive aucience, and cultivate that relationship to a point where you come to trust the judgement of the promoter, and will probably go to a show promoted by those guys.

To bring it back to my analogy, if you like a particular band, and you know my shop stocks this kind of stuff, and is knowledgeable and excited about it to be trusted, then you will buy stuff on my reccomendation, cos you now that I like the same stuff as you, and know what you like...

...which is kind of what a lot of on-line retailers do, I guess. Ho hum.

It's all a pipe-dream, I suppose, but I do think that by specialising, record stores have a future.

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by Chris

Fancy explaining then?

You're only at the mercy of the equipment you use in any circumstances.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Alkaline

You're only at the mercy of the equipment you use in any circumstances.

That's not an explanation, it's just a vague non-technical statement.

The speed of your computer may affect how long the encode takes, but you're still just applying a codec. The operation itself should work the same on a slow computer as it does on a fast one and end users would see no difference in the results.

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by Chris

That's not an explanation, it's just a vague non-technical statement.

The speed of your computer may affect how long the encode takes, but you're still just applying a codec. The operation itself should work the same on a slow computer as it does on a fast one and end users would see no difference in the results.

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?