The opportunity ( model ) for business to pay for a format that does not sound good
vs The opportunity (model ) for everyone to pay nothing for a format that sounds much better.
The Consice Oxford dictionary provides in this context: model as "give shape to argument"
More translation needed ?
Cheers / Chris
...but placing it in the same category as the use of OGG is quite invalid.
Back to Ogg,
See: Xiph.org: About Please read it all.
A small quote
"From one side, we see groups (Fraunhofer, IBM, Thomson, Progressive Networks, Microsoft et al.) trying to control music technological infrastructure (MPEG, TwinVQ, etc) to be used as weaponry against their competitors. On the other front, we have the music industry trying to squeeze all the cash they can out of the content to maintain their enormous, recently obsolete bulk. In case they don't succeed in eliminating electronic music formats, they too are making a major bid to control the infrastructure.
There are multi-trillion dollar interests represented in the above clash. Businesses that only have a few million dollars are entirely outclassed."
Cheers / Chris
One of my most memorably enjoyable musical experiences was Little Richard on a Dansette in a forest. Conversely, "River Deep, Mountain High" was a flop because it was beyond the resolution of US car radios.
Music develops and projects itself on whatever kit it finds available, and panders to audiences in proportion to how much they contribute to its evolution.
My view FWIW is that authenticity is the main function of high fidelity. If you want to know what music is really up to, you have to go native.
Take the daft but beguiling "I'll be your mirror" (or most of the other songs on Velvet Underground's Banana album). Music deliberately set about demonstrating the difference between art and craft, and between progressive social movement and pathetically estranged audiophilia. Snooty "high end" machinery has absolutely nothing to offer.
Load your player up with some kicking MP3s, put your hoody on over your funky designer headset, and go for a strut downtown on a Saturday afternoon. Somehow, your deliciously engineered full-range recording of Music for Clever People just couldn't cut the mustard.
Music is the sound of civilisation, and reflects it's dead ends and triumphs and everything in between. It's a social thing, and it's surely meaningless to reject any part of it on grounds of merit. It is how it is.
Everyone should sing in public regularly. Maybe we'd all remember what music is for.
Ian
Music develops and projects itself on whatever kit it finds available, and panders to audiences in proportion to how much they contribute to its evolution.
My view FWIW is that authenticity is the main function of high fidelity. If you want to know what music is really up to, you have to go native.
Take the daft but beguiling "I'll be your mirror" (or most of the other songs on Velvet Underground's Banana album). Music deliberately set about demonstrating the difference between art and craft, and between progressive social movement and pathetically estranged audiophilia. Snooty "high end" machinery has absolutely nothing to offer.
Load your player up with some kicking MP3s, put your hoody on over your funky designer headset, and go for a strut downtown on a Saturday afternoon. Somehow, your deliciously engineered full-range recording of Music for Clever People just couldn't cut the mustard.
Music is the sound of civilisation, and reflects it's dead ends and triumphs and everything in between. It's a social thing, and it's surely meaningless to reject any part of it on grounds of merit. It is how it is.
Everyone should sing in public regularly. Maybe we'd all remember what music is for.
Ian
@Chris: So you think that without the mp3 royalities, music should be FREE?
That's the communism thinking that I saw.
On-topic: I don't give a penny on any lossy compressed format, I use FLAC for my needs. I NEED to hear all the details in a song, like sipping a good wine.
Gulping down a warm beer doesn't cut it, even if can make you as intoxicated in the end.
That's the communism thinking that I saw.
On-topic: I don't give a penny on any lossy compressed format, I use FLAC for my needs. I NEED to hear all the details in a song, like sipping a good wine.
Gulping down a warm beer doesn't cut it, even if can make you as intoxicated in the end.
Last edited:
See your point: The musicians should be rewarded admirably, sadly that is not the case.
compression formats have become the focus of business, somewhat forgetting the musician, and forgetting that people MIGHT want to enjoy the quality of what they listen to.
I am picturing Hendrix upstairs at the Fillmore East talking to Mike Jeffrey as example of very talented musician talking to a businessman. From the book Shapiro, Harry, and Caesar Glebbeek, Jimi Hendrix: Electric Gypsy, St. Martin's, 1991.)
And I agree lossless formats ( as best as we can get ) including live music are the only way to go. If I have to use compression formats for portability reasons the only one I use is OGG. If on the other hand file size and near lossless performance is required then FLAC or WAV ( despite its proprietary basis ) is excellent.
I also use DBX Type 1
Cheers / Chris
So who gave Whitney the coke?
That was unnecessarily mean, I know. I just want to make the point. I'm continually made aware of musicians earning a very good living. Not that there are no rip-off stories past and present, but IMO you're making a rule from the exception.
Does karaoke ring a bell?
It's Japanese for "tone deaf."
Haha, if this doesn't start a flaming war I don't know what will.
Don't get me wrong, I generally advocate lossless and/or analog music recordings. But here is something I have been pondering.
I have a song on CD and 256kps AAC. It's called "Cut" by the band "Plumb". It's a simple song with simple vocals and piano. Not too taxing on the equipment.
Guess what? I prefer the compressed version. Not because it sounds compressed, but because it is so quiet. To pull out a term, it sounds "black". There is absolutely no noise. It just has this amazing silence in the background that is breathtaking. I did the best A/B test I could do with two friends and we picked up on it most of the time.
So here's a theory. Given that audio compression usually removes the frequencies we are supposedly unable to hear, is it possible that as a neat side effect they also remove HF noise which either sounds bad, or has negative effects on the amplifier's operation?
Let the flames begin.
P.S. Why does Pink Floyd's "Welcome to the machine" always make my dog go crazy?
"Can compressed music be better"
I don't think so but I can can understand what Greg is saying.
I have a lot of files as WMA 64Kb (yes 64Kb) that I use in the car on a USB stick. There absolutely fine for that.
My Marantz Pearl Lite SACD has a front USB port so it's interesting to try these files compared to the original CD's. And do you know what, they sound pretty decent. However I genuinely believe that a lot of that is down to the amp used too. And your all fed up of me telling you what that is
The compressed files do lack a bit of air and space compared with the original and the image is less wide too but as a musical experience it's good and you can just start listening to the music and forget the media.
So Greg... if you are using the Fetzilla or similar then yes I can believe the compressed files sound good. If you use a something like a conventional blameless topology amp then they probably sound not so good (hard/gritty/hfdistortion). I find the same argument with the UK's DAB radio service. It's ended up a low bitrate system due to too many channels. The best we have is Radio 3 classical at 192kbs with other nationals at 128kbs and some as low as 48kbs. Listened to through the "you know what" most sound OK.
Enjoy...
Apple have created very restrictive file types, principally to enforce copyright, ensuring the end user inability to distribute. But who is restricting who, remembering Apple the proprietary firm with " i " this and that are not a record label themselves. Maybe they do own labels but it is not obvious.
A big bordering on massive blunder was Decca not signing the Beatles
The Beatles' Decca audition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My advice if creating a music collection is to try and avoid any step that reduces fidelity. If portable is your thing then certainly use a format like Ogg where you are not restricted by the file itself. And take a look at creative commons music: Creative Commons Music Wiki
Cheers / Chris
Last edited:
Chaps, can we keep to the topic please.
Maybe I should divulge that I've never directly paid for downloaded music. But I've downloaded quite a bit. Nowhere near what I've paid for as hard copy. Nowhere near. So I'm not ashamed to confess that some is legitimate, some not so. I have plugged the Live Music Archive on this very forum.
But now...
I see no reason why diy audio has to mean world-class high fidelity. None.
Personally, when I really want easy portability, I'm more than willing to give up some fidelity. With what is termed "transportability" the technology makes high-fidelity within fairly easy reach.
From a practical viewpoint (and get back in good mod graces), if the system gets you close enough to "realistic" everything else is icing. pinkmouse makes a good point; eventually any storage and playback issues will be like, uh, vacuum tubes. Just kidding!
There isn't any conflict here as far as I'm concerned, but that quote is IMO part of the "old way" of thinking about music distribution. In the future I see "record label" more as "publicity agent," eg, they'll only be good for getting you that Super Bowl halftime gig.
But now...
More like totally 100% top to bottom. (I recall their reasoning was "rock n roll is a passing fad."
Well, if I find that Robert Johnson 78 for $5 I'm grabbing it up quick like.
I see no reason why diy audio has to mean world-class high fidelity. None. Personally, when I really want easy portability, I'm more than willing to give up some fidelity. With what is termed "transportability" the technology makes high-fidelity within fairly easy reach.
From a practical viewpoint (and get back in good mod graces), if the system gets you close enough to "realistic" everything else is icing. pinkmouse makes a good point; eventually any storage and playback issues will be like, uh, vacuum tubes. Just kidding!
Last edited:
Thanks all for your replies, though most have gone off on a tangent and not considered the technical aspect to my question - noise removal.
Firstly, let me say I generally listen to lossless music and/or CDs, and would never recommend that someone's source be compressed music. I do believe that compressed music sounds worse, on the whole. There's just a few songs where I have marvelled at the background silence of the compressed version.
What I was asking is whether compression, in the process of removing ultrasonic frequencies, could also be removing noise which detracts from the uncompressed version? I think it could be, and I think for some songs this noise removal might more than offset the loss of resolution created by the compression (as far as listening pleasure goes).
Someone asked if I had made the compressed version myself and I must admit that I didn't. It was downloaded from iTunes. I then bought the same album on CD because I liked the song so much I wanted an uncompressed version! It is very possible that the rip was modified, though I would like to hope not! In any case I will try ripping it myself to check.
Someone else asked about my DAC. I have a Benchmark DAC1.
Firstly, let me say I generally listen to lossless music and/or CDs, and would never recommend that someone's source be compressed music. I do believe that compressed music sounds worse, on the whole. There's just a few songs where I have marvelled at the background silence of the compressed version.
What I was asking is whether compression, in the process of removing ultrasonic frequencies, could also be removing noise which detracts from the uncompressed version? I think it could be, and I think for some songs this noise removal might more than offset the loss of resolution created by the compression (as far as listening pleasure goes).
Someone asked if I had made the compressed version myself and I must admit that I didn't. It was downloaded from iTunes. I then bought the same album on CD because I liked the song so much I wanted an uncompressed version! It is very possible that the rip was modified, though I would like to hope not! In any case I will try ripping it myself to check.
Someone else asked about my DAC. I have a Benchmark DAC1.
Apologies for the tangent. The noise issue you describe isn't something I've experienced, but it's an interesting question. Have you looked at the two files in an audio editor? Maybe it could provide some visual proof of what you are hearing?
edit: Actually, I guess it is 3 files - the original compressed, the homemade compressed, and the uncompressed.
edit: Actually, I guess it is 3 files - the original compressed, the homemade compressed, and the uncompressed.
Last edited:
Haha, if this doesn't start a flaming war I don't know what will.
Don't get me wrong, I generally advocate lossless and/or analog music recordings. But here is something I have been pondering.
I have a song on CD and 256kps AAC. It's called "Cut" by the band "Plumb". It's a simple song with simple vocals and piano. Not too taxing on the equipment.
Guess what? I prefer the compressed version. Not because it sounds compressed, but because it is so quiet. To pull out a term, it sounds "black". There is absolutely no noise. It just has this amazing silence in the background that is breathtaking. I did the best A/B test I could do with two friends and we picked up on it most of the time.
So here's a theory. Given that audio compression usually removes the frequencies we are supposedly unable to hear, is it possible that as a neat side effect they also remove HF noise which either sounds bad, or has negative effects on the amplifier's operation?
Let the flames begin.
P.S. Why does Pink Floyd's "Welcome to the machine" always make my dog go crazy?
In general, perceptive codecs are designed to have the least amount of audible degradation as possible. Of cause if you lower the bitrate enough artifacts become audible. Also when the mastering engineer does not understand how perceptual coding works, Iaw provide a digitally clipped master to the codec, artefacts will be audible.
So a mp3 or aac file will sound the same or worse as the master provided to the codec.
If this is not the case, different masters are used for the CD and AAC.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.