The best way, simple, makes sense

erik · Post by **erik** » 11 May 2003 6:19 am

Ken Lang · Post by **Ken Lang** » 11 May 2003 8:13 pm

A buck a song. 12 songs-$12 dollars. Almost like buying a CD, except you only get what you want and none of the fill tunes.

Sounds like a possible solution to a big time problem.

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 11 May 2003 9:17 pm

I've been following this and it occurred to me that if this becomes successful, it might eliminate a lot of the filler that gets recorded. On the other hand, if something is a big seller, there's going to be a lot of copy cat recordings of the same and perhaps less possibility of new and innovative music. Of course it's all sounding derivitive anyway.

Dave Boothroyd · Post by **Dave Boothroyd** » 11 May 2003 11:31 pm

But they are still only compressed MP3s. Even if you burn them to CD as WAV/CDB files they have still been subjected to a coding and data compression process that conceals parts of the music- the part that it thinks you won't hear. They call it "perceptual coding".
In a community of tone junkies like this Forum, you should be kicking out at the restrictions of the full CD 44.1kHz/16 bit standard. Nearly all pro studios work at 96kHz/24 bit these days and have to cut masters down to go on CD. If you have ever heard the two versions back to back you would weep at the loss of quality. compared with that an MP3 sounds like playing music over a long distance phone call.
Cheers
Dave[This message was edited by Dave Boothroyd on 12 May 2003 at 12:31 AM.][This message was edited by Dave Boothroyd on 12 May 2003 at 12:32 AM.]

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 12 May 2003 12:38 am

Where does it say they are mp3s?

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 12 May 2003 10:15 am

It's not MP3 it's AAC, advanced audio coding, which is another compression format. Compression meaning some of the information on each "word" is left out in the coding, and presumably restored later in the process of listening. Here's a negative review:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/909907.asp?0cv=CB20&cp1=1

One of the arguments that I've heard is that the majority of listeners to contemporary pop music don't require a higher quality sound. This could lead to a discussion of psycho-acoustics. For instance, listening to the radio in the car, which can be enjoyable. We tend to automatically compensate for the extraneous noise and poor acoustics in the cars interior and "psychologically enhance" what we are hearing to be what we want to hear. If you've ever heard a recording of the sound of the radio in the interior of a car or truck that's moving along in traffic, it's a wonder that we can distinguish what we are hearing at all.

So the argument goes, if they've never heard it any better, they aren't going to miss it. Or if higher quality isn't an issue, why make it one. I have a friend who is/was a producer for the model shots for Star Trek and Deep Space 9 and he was complaining to the "suits" at Paramount that he needed a larger budget to keep the quality of the effects up. He was shown a study that Paramount conducted where the audience didn't really care about having higher quality looking shots and that ended that discussion....

erik · Post by **erik** » 12 May 2003 6:04 pm

the audience didn't really care about having higher quality looking shots and that ended that discussion....

My favorite sci-fi still remains Lost In Space.

I don't think they are eliminating CDs. Aren't they just talking about downloads? Isn't that what all those portable mp3 players are about.

Dave Boothroyd · Post by **Dave Boothroyd** » 12 May 2003 10:35 pm

Whatever the coding, it's deliberately poorer quality than CD - and CD is not good enough. Only up to 20 kHz, only 90dB dynamic range, and only two channels.
SGF people are not average pop listeners, so my point stands.
Cheers
Dave