Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Downloadable mp3's for sale at ReR(?)

Expand Messages
  • avant_guardist
    That sound quality is affected in the mp3 format, even those with high bitrates, is indisputable, yet most of the time however, these qualities are quite
    Message 1 of 14 , May 1, 2006
      That sound quality is affected in the mp3 format, even those with
      high bitrates, is indisputable, yet most of the time however, these
      qualities are quite acceptable. These things are something which are
      constantly being worked on to improve.

      There are also other formats like have been said, i.e. .waw or .ogg
      or others that may be a step ahead in sound quality, but may have
      other weaknesses such as file size etc. To download ISO files of
      albums may be another solution. But we should not be surprised if
      there soon is some kind of breakthrough in this field of digital
      sound reproduction, I would guess it is just a matter of time.

      However, as for now, the fast availability and the instant transfer
      to your hard drive, ipod, mp3 player etc directly from the web means
      a lot for many a listener. For us "afar off" from the western
      consumers paradise it is many times to be preferred.

      As for the conceptual idea of albums, I mainly agree with Bob's
      input. But I believe there are exceptions to that rule, and I would
      see no reason to hinder indiviudal tracks being offered as well as
      whole albums. It is a case to case thing of course, but at the same
      time I think it is important to keep an overall standard and system
      as how to offer music.

      But the loss of artwork and notes on the recordings are other
      matters that are less easy to solve. Even the best .jpeg
      pics feels empty outside of the screen.


      Greets,


      Jim.
    • Claas Kazzer
      The point about artwork and physical CD objects notwithstanding (which I fully agree with), again, I d suggest considering FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec). It
      Message 2 of 14 , May 1, 2006
        The point about artwork and physical CD objects notwithstanding (which I
        fully agree with), again, I'd suggest considering FLAC (Free Lossless
        Audio Codec). It could provide at least a good interim solution. File
        sizes are about halved as compared to wave-files. Conversion into full
        CDs is quite simple, once you've got the hang of it, and people keep
        developing new FLAC-devices and software that make using it easy. As
        mentioned before, DGM, who are a small company, use it chiefly for live
        recordings right now and it appears to work fine (www.dgmlive.com).

        Best wishes!






        avant_guardist wrote:
        > That sound quality is affected in the mp3 format, even those with
        > high bitrates, is indisputable, yet most of the time however, these
        > qualities are quite acceptable. These things are something which are
        > constantly being worked on to improve.
        >
        > There are also other formats like have been said, i.e. .waw or .ogg
        > or others that may be a step ahead in sound quality, but may have
        > other weaknesses such as file size etc. To download ISO files of
        > albums may be another solution. But we should not be surprised if
        > there soon is some kind of breakthrough in this field of digital
        > sound reproduction, I would guess it is just a matter of time.
        >
        > However, as for now, the fast availability and the instant transfer
        > to your hard drive, ipod, mp3 player etc directly from the web means
        > a lot for many a listener. For us "afar off" from the western
        > consumers paradise it is many times to be preferred.
        >
        > As for the conceptual idea of albums, I mainly agree with Bob's
        > input. But I believe there are exceptions to that rule, and I would
        > see no reason to hinder indiviudal tracks being offered as well as
        > whole albums. It is a case to case thing of course, but at the same
        > time I think it is important to keep an overall standard and system
        > as how to offer music.
        >
        > But the loss of artwork and notes on the recordings are other
        > matters that are less easy to solve. Even the best .jpeg
        > pics feels empty outside of the screen.
        >
        >
        > Greets,
        >
        >
        > Jim.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >

        --

        Claas Kazzer
        Thierbacher Str. 8
        04277 Leipzig
        Germany

        Tel. +49 (0)341 9904924
        Mobil +49 (0)177 6513215
        E-mail claas.kazzer@...
        Web http://www.claas-kazzer.de/
        http://www.earth-moon.org/
      • Brandon S.
        I m in absolute agreement with everything that Bob says in his post. The best solution I could consider for ReR would be like this: For each album sold
        Message 3 of 14 , May 1, 2006
          I'm in absolute agreement with everything that Bob says in his post.
          The best solution I could consider for ReR would be like this:

          For each album sold digitally, one would pay $9.99 (US currency) for a
          download at the quality of perhaps 192 kbps (maybe VBR or variable
          kbps?). For those of us who are more quality minded, there would be a
          FLAC or maybe APE lossless downloaded for slightly more...maybe 12-13
          dollars? Also, maybe the higher quality downloads would come with
          high-quality album art, tray, insert and etc. That way, you would have
          the best possible quality (once you decompress the lossless files and
          burn them to disc).

          This would require more work on behalf of the site owners and
          operators, but it would do well to satisfy the needs/desires of the
          consumer.

          Brandon Stanley





          --- In ReRmegacorp@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Drake" <polarbears@...> wrote:
          >
          > Speaking as a person who makes and records music:
          >
          > I'll be interested in the downloadable possibilities when there is a
          > practical format at LEAST as good as PCM 16 bit/44.1kHz which we have
          > now on CDs. Until then I feel it's a pity to sell the work in an
          > inferior (mp3) format.
          >
          > Besides the great loss of sound quality, one also have to wonder about
          > the work one put into the cover and booklet; the artwork which has
          > been a part of albums forever. Expect people to download and print it,
          > or just forget about album art? That also seems a bit of a pity,
          > though the idea bothers me a lot less than does the great reduction in
          > audio quality.
          >
          > I also like making "an album", a collection of songs with an overall
          > feel and sound and atmosphere, put in a deliberate order to make an
          > exciting or at least interesting listening experience. Not a bunch of
          > individual songs meant to be "sold seperately".
          >
          > I know there are listeners out there who still think the way I do, who
          > appreciate the best sound quality, and enjoy the overall shape and
          > pacing of an album put together by the artist.
          >
          > Obviously there are lots of listeners who aren't bothered by the loss
          > of sound quality, don't care, or simply can't tell the difference,
          > etc. That's alright, but I won't get on that bandwagon.
          >
          > Interested to hear more opinions from listeners as well as
          > musicians/engineers!
          >
          > BD
          > www.bdrak.com
          >
        • Mike Borella
          ... Count me fiercely in the download camp. I ve A-B ed MP3s and CDs and can t hear the difference. Either my audio equipment is bad (possible but not
          Message 4 of 14 , May 2, 2006
            Bob Drake wrote:
            > Speaking as a person who makes and records music:
            >
            > I'll be interested in the downloadable possibilities when there is a
            > practical format at LEAST as good as PCM 16 bit/44.1kHz which we have
            > now on CDs. Until then I feel it's a pity to sell the work in an
            > inferior (mp3) format.
            >
            > Besides the great loss of sound quality, one also have to wonder about
            > the work one put into the cover and booklet; the artwork which has
            > been a part of albums forever. Expect people to download and print it,
            > or just forget about album art? That also seems a bit of a pity,
            > though the idea bothers me a lot less than does the great reduction in
            > audio quality.
            >
            > I also like making "an album", a collection of songs with an overall
            > feel and sound and atmosphere, put in a deliberate order to make an
            > exciting or at least interesting listening experience. Not a bunch of
            > individual songs meant to be "sold seperately".
            >
            > I know there are listeners out there who still think the way I do, who
            > appreciate the best sound quality, and enjoy the overall shape and
            > pacing of an album put together by the artist.
            >
            > Obviously there are lots of listeners who aren't bothered by the loss
            > of sound quality, don't care, or simply can't tell the difference,
            > etc. That's alright, but I won't get on that bandwagon.
            >
            > Interested to hear more opinions from listeners as well as
            > musicians/engineers!

            Count me fiercely in the download camp.

            I've A-B'ed MP3s and CDs and can't hear the difference. Either my audio
            equipment is bad (possible but not probable) or my hearing is bad
            (likely). But nonetheless, I've never heard the supposed lack of quality
            between MP3's and CDs.

            Additionally, the download-only market suits certain lifestyles.

            If you have a laptop with you everywhere you go.

            If you use an MP3 player at work, the gym or on the bus / train.

            If you don't or don't want to reserve a good chunk of your dwelling to
            storing hundreds or thousands of CDs.

            If you don't care about album artwork. There are plenty of crappy
            albums with beautiful art and vice versa. You can't listen to the cover
            - it is the music that counts.

            If you're not into unnecessarily delayed gratification.

            I haven't bought a CD in over a year. All my listening is from
            downloads, focusing on eMusic, Leo, and various other sources. There is
            a lot of free material out there as well, some of it is quite good.

            I came to the conclusion that I could get by without CDs when I realized
            that after buying a CD my first action was always to rip it to MP3 so I
            could listen to it anywhere I want without lugging the actual CD around.

            Another side-benefit is that MP3s are generally cheaper than CDs and
            this lends to more experimentation. With CDs heading up to the $15-20
            range again, I'm much more likely to take a chance on an unknown artist
            or recording if I can get it for $5-7.

            How do you go all-MP3? Buy a nice PC ($500 or less) and two 200 GB or
            larger drives ($400 max). Put all of your MP3 files on one drive and
            make a nightly mirror to the other. If you're really paranoid about
            loss of your collection through theft or fire, buy a third drive and
            leave it at a friend's house. Or just periodically copy your collection
            to a stack of DVDs. I have room for about 3000 full length albums
            sitting on my desk in the form factor of a medium sized book.

            It comes down to lifestyle. If I were single, no kids, with a decent
            sized house and a 9-5 job not requiring travel, yeah, CDs might still
            work for me. But none of the above holds, except for the house, but as
            anyone with kids can tell you, space is always at a premium.

            And the kicker....the price of residential broadband is dropping while
            speeds are dramatically increasing. Additionally, storage space keeps
            growing and getting cheaper. This means that full quality encodings of
            CDs will soon be able to be downloaded quickly and stored cheaply and
            the audiophiles among us will need to find something else to gripe about. :)

            Mike
          • David Fenech
            hello to me the most interesting thing with mp3 is the ability to give exclusive unreleased songs (concerts, alternate mix ,etc). and also having it available
            Message 5 of 14 , May 3, 2006
              hello

              to me the most interesting thing with mp3
              is the ability to give exclusive unreleased
              songs (concerts, alternate mix ,etc).

              and also having it available for pre-listening
              from anywhere around the world ... bob ostertag
              recently put all of his albums online, and his text
              is very interesting regarding his decision. i'll continue
              to buy his records anyway... but this was the
              opportunity for me to listen to some of his records
              i've missed. look here for the text he wrote
              http://bobostertag.com/

              david

              --
              WEB   : http://demosaurus.free.fr
              BLOG : http://david-f.livejournal.com
              SPCE : http://myspace.com/davidfenech
              On 5/3/06, Mike Borella <mike@... > wrote:
              Bob Drake wrote:
              > Speaking as a person who makes and records music:
              >
              > I'll be interested in the downloadable possibilities when there is a
              > practical format at LEAST as good as PCM 16 bit/44.1kHz which we have
              > now on CDs. Until then I feel it's a pity to sell the work in an
              > inferior (mp3) format.
              >
              > Besides the great loss of sound quality, one also have to wonder about
              > the work one put into the cover and booklet; the artwork which has
              > been a part of albums forever. Expect people to download and print it,
              > or just forget about album art? That also seems a bit of a pity,
              > though the idea bothers me a lot less than does the great reduction in
              > audio quality.
              >
              > I also like making "an album", a collection of songs with an overall
              > feel and sound and atmosphere, put in a deliberate order to make an
              > exciting or at least interesting listening experience. Not a bunch of
              > individual songs meant to be "sold seperately".
              >
              > I know there are listeners out there who still think the way I do, who
              > appreciate the best sound quality, and enjoy the overall shape and
              > pacing of an album put together by the artist.
              >
              > Obviously there are lots of listeners who aren't bothered by the loss
              > of sound quality, don't care, or simply can't tell the difference,
              > etc. That's alright, but I won't get on that bandwagon.
              >
              > Interested to hear more opinions from listeners as well as
              > musicians/engineers!

              Count me fiercely in the download camp.

              I've A-B'ed MP3s and CDs and can't hear the difference.  Either my audio
              equipment is bad (possible but not probable) or my hearing is bad
              (likely). But nonetheless, I've never heard the supposed lack of quality
              between MP3's and CDs.

              Additionally, the download-only market suits certain lifestyles.

              If you have a laptop with you everywhere you go.

              If you use an MP3 player at work, the gym or on the bus / train.

              If you don't or don't want to reserve a good chunk of your dwelling to
              storing hundreds or thousands of CDs.

              If you don't care about album artwork.  There are plenty of crappy
              albums with beautiful art and vice versa.  You can't listen to the cover
                - it is the music that counts.

              If you're not into unnecessarily delayed gratification.

              I haven't bought a CD in over a year.  All my listening is from
              downloads, focusing on eMusic, Leo, and various other sources.  There is
              a lot of free material out there as well, some of it is quite good.

              I came to the conclusion that I could get by without CDs when I realized
              that after buying a CD my first action was always to rip it to MP3 so I
              could listen to it anywhere I want without lugging the actual CD around.

              Another side-benefit is that MP3s are generally cheaper than CDs and
              this lends to more experimentation.  With CDs heading up to the $15-20
              range again, I'm much more likely to take a chance on an unknown artist
              or recording if I can get it for $5-7.

              How do you go all-MP3? Buy a nice PC ($500 or less) and two 200 GB or
              larger drives ($400 max).  Put all of your MP3 files on one drive and
              make a nightly mirror to the other.  If you're really paranoid about
              loss of your collection through theft or fire, buy a third drive and
              leave it at a friend's house. Or just periodically copy your collection
              to a stack of DVDs.  I have room for about 3000 full length albums
              sitting on my desk in the form factor of a medium sized book.

              It comes down to lifestyle.  If I were single, no kids, with a decent
              sized house and a 9-5 job not requiring travel, yeah, CDs might still
              work for me. But none of the above holds, except for the house, but as
              anyone with kids can tell you, space is always at a premium.

              And the kicker....the price of residential broadband is dropping while
              speeds are dramatically increasing.  Additionally, storage space keeps
              growing and getting cheaper.  This means that full quality encodings of
              CDs will soon be able to be downloaded quickly and stored cheaply and
              the audiophiles among us will need to find something else to gripe about. :)

              Mike






              SPONSORED LINKS
              Morton feldman Pere ubu Harry partch


              YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






            • darrenwlsy
              ... Could I just say, how much I enjoy the world of Thinking Plague ... an amazing band and group of musicians... ... I ve had experience in the trading
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 2, 2006
                --- "Bob Drake" <polarbears@...> wrote:
                >
                > Speaking as a person who makes and records music:

                Could I just say, how much I enjoy the world of "Thinking Plague"...
                an amazing band and group of musicians...

                > I'll be interested in the downloadable possibilities when there
                > is a practical format at LEAST as good as PCM 16 bit/44.1kHz
                > which we have now on CDs. Until then I feel it's a pity to sell
                > the work in an inferior (mp3) format.
                >
                > Besides the great loss of sound quality, one also have to wonder
                > about the work one put into the cover and booklet; the artwork
                > which has been a part of albums forever. Expect people to download
                > and print it, or just forget about album art? That also seems a
                > bit of a pity, though the idea bothers me a lot less than does
                > the great reduction in audio quality.

                I've had experience in the trading world, with people trading CD-r's
                of their favourite music... by-and-large many simply cannot be
                bothered with the extra effort of creating album cover artwork to go
                with what they've downloaded/copied... which is a shame.

                > I also like making "an album", a collection of songs with an
                > overall feel and sound and atmosphere, put in a deliberate order
                > to make an exciting or at least interesting listening experience.
                > Not a bunch of individual songs meant to be "sold seperately".
                >
                > I know there are listeners out there who still think the way I
                > do, who appreciate the best sound quality, and enjoy the overall
                > shape and pacing of an album put together by the artist.
                >
                > Obviously there are lots of listeners who aren't bothered by the
                > loss of sound quality, don't care, or simply can't tell the
                > difference, etc. That's alright, but I won't get on that bandwagon.

                I spent years collecting bootlegs (audio tapes, vinyl and CD's), and
                the range in quality was very noticeable... I think the advent of
                mini-disk and DAT recorders for the home consumer opened up a wide
                field of possibilities as well as created a greater demand for
                better quality material.

                [Snip]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.