Does anyone subscribe to music download sites?

[DaytonBuck]

ITunes is the WOAT

 

[WyoBuck]

Who buys music?

You all know you can borrow CDs from the Columbus Public Library, right?

I still "Pirate the shit out of" Cd's, downloads, torrents, whatever. I know its not equitable for the performers, but I dont think Madonna has trouble putting food in her kids' mouths.

 

[Dryden]

I still "Pirate the shit out of" Cd's, downloads, torrents, whatever. I know its not equitable for the performers, but I dont think Madonna has trouble putting food in her kids' mouths.

Right ... that's what I'm saying. The stuff you find online is often shit sound quality because people rip at a flat 192 or something along those lines.

Much better to go to the public library, check out 20 CDs, rip them all with LAME at 320, then return them and check out another 20.

 

[Taosman]

There is a move on first to eliminate all DRM. That is a great start.
Now, there is actually a move by various parties to increase the sound quality, a very, very good thing! Even if you don't have expensive stereo at home your iThingy is capable of very good sound!
Of course you need better headphones than those that come with it. But, still for a minor investment you can have great sound.

And who knows, maybe hearing how good music can be you may decide to invest in a fine home stereo. I have been a stereo guy for a long time. It adds much enjoyment to my life. It spurred me to buy a guitar of my own.

 

[Dryden]

Now, there is actually a move by various parties to increase the sound quality, a very, very good thing!

MP3 file format sound quality is already fine, even with it being a "lossy" compression format. The actual problem lies in the implementation of the mass market suite packages like MusicMatch, iTunes, etc ... Every single one of those produces output that sounds like shit on high end headphones or quality stereos. Another issue is morons that rip at fast-rate 128 with some PoS shareware WHILE prEQ'ing the CD source and screwing with the line levels before going to MP3, or even worse re-encoding an MP3 to another bitrate MP3.

It can sound great if you do it right. The software already exists, and it's free and open source.

It has been demonstrated in multiple double-blind laboratory tests and in magazines (and was later detailed on the now defunct r3mix site) that Variable Bit Rate files encoded with LAME can be indiscernible from their CD source.

LAME MP3 Encoder

The key is to go high quality VBR, as higher bitrate CBR's may cause a production of high-pitched ringing tones that do not exist in the source in the end file. Many people cannot/do not hear these ringing tones under any conditions -- I almost always do even with crappy headphones or $10 desktop computer speakers. I can spot an MP3 in just a few notes, and even I am amazed at what LAME can do.

I encoded my entire CD collection to MP3 format back in 2000 using the LAME encoder; over 400 CDs. Every single file sounds pure around my home, and through my iPod which has powered several different car/home stereos.

If my LAME encoded files sound fine on my buddies' Bowers & Wilkins 685/6 home theater, I think that's "good enough" for archival quality.

 

[jlb1705]

MP3 file format sound quality is already fine, even with it being a "lossy" compression format. The actual problem lies in the implementation of the mass market suite packages like MusicMatch, iTunes, etc ... Every single one of those produces output that sounds like shit on high end headphones or quality stereos. Another issue is morons that rip at fast-rate 128 with some PoS shareware WHILE prEQ'ing the CD source and screwing with the line levels before going to MP3, or even worse re-encoding an MP3 to another bitrate MP3.

It can sound great if you do it right. The software already exists, and it's free and open source.

It has been proven in multiple double-blind laboratory tests and in magazines (and was later detailed on the now defunct r3mix site) that Variable Bit Rate files encoded with LAME are indiscernible from their CD source.

LAME MP3 Encoder

The key is to go high quality VBR, as higher bitrate CBR's may cause a production of high-pitched ringing tones that do not exist in the source in the end file. Many people cannot/do not hear these ringing tones under any conditions -- I almost always do even with crappy headphones or $10 desktop computer speakers. I can spot an MP3 in just a few notes, and even I am amazed at what LAME can do.

I encoded my entire CD collection to MP3 format back in 2000 using the LAME encoder; over 400 CDs. Every single file sounds pure around my home, and through my iPod which has powered several different car/home stereos.

If my LAME encoded files sound fine on my buddies' Bowers & Wilkens home theater, I think that's "good enough" for archival quality.

I guess I'm one of the assholes who keeps "low quality" files. Hell, when I rip, I usually rip at 160kbps CBR. I just can't hear the difference if I go up any higher, and therefore don't see the need to waste HDD space on higher quality files.

I totally understand what you mean about people who convert and EQ the hell out of some of these files though. I've heard some really bad mp3s in my day, and have never understood how people listen to them.

 

[Dryden]

I guess I'm one of the assholes who keeps "low quality" files.

Hey, I didn't call you an asshole.

I called you a moron. :p

I know what you mean. I have a number of friends that are fine with CBR in the 160/192 range, and some music at 192 can be very close to source. But where they hear the song, I only hear the imperfections, the ringing, and the high frequency distortion, especially with cymbals/percussion and female vocalists. Its like fingers on a blackboard to me. Any pair of quality headphones, even through a cheap mass market receiver, I think will change a persons perception of MP3 clarity in a heartbeat. Once you hear all the 'noise' in an MP3, it becomes impossible to tune it out.

A lot of that can also depend on the genre of music, though.

 

[rocketman]

A lot of that can also depend on the genre of music, though.

Bingo - I rip my jazz collection in lossless formats. My hip-hop I could care less what it's in as long as it's higher than 128.

IMO, bitrate and adherence to strict sound quality is 100% defined by the music you listen to.

 

[matz2]

320kbps is a bit overkill IMO. When you have a music collection as large as mine (probably closing in on 4-5k cds), it takes up too much storage to rip everything in flac or 320. I've found 192-256kbps to be ideal for me. The sound is pretty damn good, not perfect, but good enough for me. I can tell a big difference in 128kbps versus 192kbps by the way. 192-256kbps versus 320kbps isn't that great of a difference IMO. By minimizing the file size without sacrificing too much of the audio, it allows me to store most of my music on my 160GB iPod.

 

[jlb1705]

Hey, I didn't call you an asshole.

I called you a moron. :p

I know what you mean. I have a number of friends that are fine with CBR in the 160/192 range, and some music at 192 can be very close to source. But where they hear the song, I only hear the imperfections, the ringing, and the high frequency distortion, especially with cymbals/percussion and female vocalists. Its like fingers on a blackboard to me. Any pair of quality headphones, even through a cheap mass market receiver, I think will change a persons perception of MP3 clarity in a heartbeat. Once you hear all the 'noise' in an MP3, it becomes impossible to tune it out.

A lot of that can also depend on the genre of music, though.

I listen through a pretty decent set of sound isolating earbuds, and all other things being equal, am fine with anything about 160kbps. I know exactly what you mean when you say you hear the imperfections in the percussion - I hear it too on bad mp3s. I know exactly what drums and cymbals are supposed to sound like because I used to play. I've had my share of high bitrate mp3s though where that stuff sounded like crap anyway - because of what you already described about files being manipulated 10-20 times removed from their source recordings. If it's close to source, I don't think lower bitrates (for my ear) are that big a deal.

Additionally, I may be more inclined toward lo-fi music (like Guided By Voices) than most mp3 users. It doesn't matter what bitrate you listen to Bee Thousand or Alien Lanes at, or what equipment you listen to it on - it's gonna sound like crap. :)

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

When you have a music collection as large as mine (probably closing in on 4-5k cds)...

I just have to ask...what the fuck do you do with 4,000+ CDs? Seriously. I would bet that most radio stations don't have near that amount. My math says you could listen to 11 CDs a day, every day, for a year before repeating any CD.

 

[matz2]

I just have to ask...what the fuck do you do with 4,000+ CDs? Seriously. I would bet that most radio stations don't have near that amount. My math says you could listen to 11 CDs a day, every day, for a year before repeating any CD.

LOL - so true! I used to work at a music store, so I took full advantage of my discount...

I have a lot of cds that I bought for only one song (i.e. shitty cds). I also have alot of live shows downloaded onto cd. I haven't converted my entire collection to mp3, but all of the stuff that I still consider "good" has been ripped. I will admit that I have a lot of music that I still haven't gotten around to listen to.

Edit: I just did a rough count and the 4-5k was a little high. It is more like 3k.

 

[jlb1705]

After giving it a great deal of thought, I am re-doing my entire digital music collection. This includes re-ripping all of my CDs to FLAC and downloading FLAC copies of music I had already downloaded in lossy formats, archiving those and converting to VBR mp3s using those FLAC files as the source.

All the while, I'm replacing all of my current backups, re-doing my file and folder structure, and trying to do this in a way that allows me to not screw up my smart playlists and play counts in iTunes, which makes this a real pain in the ass.

I sounds like it has been worth it so far though. I didn't think I'd notice too much of a difference, but I'm noticing a "fuller" (for lack of a better description) sound than I had noticed before.

 

[matz2]

After giving it a great deal of thought, I am re-doing my entire digital music collection. This includes re-ripping all of my CDs to FLAC and downloading FLAC copies of music I had already downloaded in lossy formats, archiving those and converting to VBR mp3s using those FLAC files as the source.

All the while, I'm replacing all of my current backups, re-doing my file and folder structure, and trying to do this in a way that allows me to not screw up my smart playlists and play counts in iTunes, which makes this a real pain in the ass.
I sounds like it has been worth it so far though. I didn't think I'd notice too much of a difference, but I'm noticing a "fuller" (for lack of a better description) sound than I had noticed before.

I did this awhile ago too. Took forever to complete, but it was worth the effort. When I bought my new PC, I transferred my iPod music folder and for some reason it dumped all my music in random miscellaneous folders. I had to sort through the mess. I have my music organized by artist, then by album FWIW.

 

[Mac]

I did this awhile ago too. Took forever to complete, but it was worth the effort. When I bought my new PC, I transferred my iPod music folder and for some reason it dumped all my music in random miscellaneous folders. I had to sort through the mess. I have my music organized by artist, then by album FWIW.

I've got about 1/2 of my library sorted this way, I just have to finish going through them and putting adding the songs to the albums which will take a while.