Next on the soapbox....#82.....#82, your up next.
#82 here. My soapbox topic for today is all the people who don't know the difference between your and you're (and sometimes yore I suppose.)
Rant over. #83, you're up.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Pepsi to Team Up with Amazon for Superbowl MP3 Giveaway?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
#82 here. My soapbox topic for today is all the people who don't know the difference between your and you're (and sometimes yore I suppose.)
Rant over. #83, you're up.
This may be true for those who have destroyed their hearing, but not for people with normal or superior hearing.
I'm talking about people who go to clubs blasting music around 130 decibels. Or people who sit next to you on the bus or train with earbuds on, music blasting into their brains so loud that the entire bus can hear their lousy music.
Yes to these people AAC is just like MP3!
Their DRM protected files are at 128KB (too low a rate in my opinion); the iTunes Plus (DRM-free) files are at 256KB.
Eddie O
You may be sick of it, but it is true. A well produced CD (or even better, DVD-Audio or SACD) is about equal to good vinyl (go ahead, flame me). My point is that with physical media slowly disappearing, low quality (about cassette tape or FM radio fidelity) may be the only way to get some music. Anyone with ears and a decent pair of speakes or good headphones can easily hear the difference between 128KB mp3 / mp4 audio and CD: listen for the phasing on cymbal rings, stereo bass, that annoying "lisp" on human voices, especially female, and width and depth of the stereo image. It has to do with frequency response and accurate phase of audio wave forms. MP3 and low bit rates in general squash those things.
Music producers, even of negligible music, use very high quality systems to record and master: things like 192kHz 24 bit sampling ProTools HD systems. Some of us have actual high fidelity systems (Denon CD player, Meridian 861 preamp, Brian Elliot custom transducer systems), and these high end system dramatically expose flaws in the recording, media, and playback chain.
So if companies want to distribute MP3's, at least make them high bit rate copies, as Apple dies with iTunes Plus.
Eddie O
Rant over. #83, you're up.
#83, American Football.
Rugby for men in tght trousers and padding, where they throw the rugby ball the wrong way and are stood stationary for far too long.
Oh and they ruined the pitch at Wembley, too.
Roll on up, #84!
Sorry, but with what passes for "songs" these days, they'd have to pay me to download their drivel. Free just doesn't get it.
Hopefully they do the 7-Eleven cups as well, like the iTunes promotions did. The 20-oz bottles of Pepsi are a ripoff as it is, and especially not worth buying extra for a chance at a few "free" songs. The fountain drinks are much more reasonably priced, and you get more choice. Might actually be a good deal for anyone who regularly drinks <insert soda sold at the 7-Eleven fountain>.
I've been there, done that. I spend my money on music not audio systems and when I play my 128 kbps mp3 or CD through my speakers or headphones, or car speakers, they all sound the same so I don't hear what you're talking about.
But maybe I've destroyed my hearing which would just be another reason I don't care. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but audiophiles just rub me the completely wrong way. It's always the words audiophiles always use
I've got news for you. I'm anyone and I can't easily hear the difference. And I'm not the only one. Or maybe I am. Either way it's not going to keep me from enjoying my music. I've done blind hearing tests on myself encoded from 96 to 320 kbps mp3 / aac and flac, speakers and headphones, classical, jazz and metal, all dropped one genre at a time into a playlist, hit the shuffle button and then play because maybe I wanted to see for myself. The only one I could tell the difference between is the 96 and 112 kbps. Above that its all the same.
Anyway I'll take #84. Let #85 have at it.
Viva Apple
Anything which helps Apple maintain it's business model is good for me as it means more money in the R&D pot, which means = cool Macs, iPhones, iPods = a happy me.
To be honest I'm not too fussed about the practicalities if it's US only!
Anything which helps Apple maintain it's business model is good for me as it means more money in the R&D pot, which means = cool Macs, iPhones, iPods = a happy me.
To be honest I'm not too fussed about the practicalities if it's US only!
This may be true for those who have destroyed their hearing, but not for people with normal or superior hearing.
I'm talking about people who go to clubs blasting music around 130 decibels. Or people who sit next to you on the bus or train with earbuds on, music blasting into their brains so loud that the entire bus can hear their lousy music.
Yes to these people AAC is just like MP3!
OK, so you made a blind test with MP3 vs. AAC at > 200 kpbs and were able to tell them apart? Not? Thought so. "I have AACs and MP3s and I think AACs sound better" doesn't work.
And contrary to what you think, people with damaged hearing are in general *more* likely to notice compression artifacts, because the compression is optimized for people with perfectly normal hearing. At > 200 kbps though it won't matter.
What about WMA and "Plays for sure"?
With non-DRMed MP3 and AAC files taking off, where does WMA and "Plays for sure" stand? I assume Zune will always play WMA, but are "Plays for sure" stores and devices still around?
With non-DRMed MP3 and AAC files taking off, where does WMA and "Plays for sure" stand? I assume Zune will always play WMA, but are "Plays for sure" stores and devices still around?
its almost as if apple attempted to strong arm an entire industry into using their product exclusively.
what did they expect?
what did they expect?
If Apple licensed Fairplay, we would not have much if any songs without encryption. Right now, music industry is desperate to create viable competitors to iTunes, as nobody wants to be stuck with one distributor. As iPod marketshare is really big, they have to sell songs in an iPod compatible format, so they are forced to give up encryption.
As a person with 6,000 dollars of audio equipment sitting around in my house because lesser things don't sound "good enough," I feel pretty well qualified to say that I can hear a difference between various things.
That said, I can't tell a difference between the 256 mp3s offered on Amazon and my CDs of the same albums. I could always tell at 128 kbps, whether it was an mp3 or an AAC file didn't matter. At 128 you can tell. Maybe the AAC was slightly less raspy and distorted on the high end. But AAC does funny things to the mid-range when you compress down to 128.
I've seen blind A/B testing between CD and 256 MP3 and FLAC, and some pretty "snotty" audiophile types have shown that despite their personal beliefs to the contrary, you can't tell a difference.
A 128kbps mp3, though, can sound terrible. A 128kbps AAC file can sound what I would call "mediocre."
I only buy lossless audio files (except for the above mentioned Amazon experiment) as a personal preference, but it isn't because I can honestly say that I can hear a difference. It's because I'm a purist and it irks me to buy something that's less than a CD, even if the differences are only academic.
Now SACD and DVD-Audio, those I can get behind. CDs are like a good Xerox copy of an oil painting compared to a really great DSD SACD surround transfer mastered straight from multi. That is bliss.
You all might be surprised to know that Apple was offered first dibs on this promo. Their conditions were too limiting.
monopolies are bad. even when you like the monopoly.
That said, I can't tell a difference between the 256 mp3s offered on Amazon and my CDs of the same albums. I could always tell at 128 kbps, whether it was an mp3 or an AAC file didn't matter. At 128 you can tell. Maybe the AAC was slightly less raspy and distorted on the high end. But AAC does funny things to the mid-range when you compress down to 128.
I've seen blind A/B testing between CD and 256 MP3 and FLAC, and some pretty "snotty" audiophile types have shown that despite their personal beliefs to the contrary, you can't tell a difference.
A 128kbps mp3, though, can sound terrible. A 128kbps AAC file can sound what I would call "mediocre."
I only buy lossless audio files (except for the above mentioned Amazon experiment) as a personal preference, but it isn't because I can honestly say that I can hear a difference. It's because I'm a purist and it irks me to buy something that's less than a CD, even if the differences are only academic.
Now SACD and DVD-Audio, those I can get behind. CDs are like a good Xerox copy of an oil painting compared to a really great DSD SACD surround transfer mastered straight from multi. That is bliss.
You all might be surprised to know that Apple was offered first dibs on this promo. Their conditions were too limiting.
monopolies are bad. even when you like the monopoly.
Funk #85: I guess those were "deaf" tests...Yes, I am an audiophile, but not (I hope) a winky one. I don't use subjective words and am a believer in blind testing and measurements. There are clear measurement differences among the various compression methods; some would be clearly audible to those with "normal" hearing when auditioned via full range speaker systems with adequate power reserves (doubling the power only give a 3dB rise in output!).
All that said, if YOU can't hear the difference between 128KB MP3 and AIFF, then be my guest and buy stuff in that format. Or maybe, get thee to a GOOD audio emporium (Best Buy and the Good Guys do NOT sell any audiophile equipment last time I looked; for mass market stores, see Magnolia Hi Fi) and listen to what's possible, maybe Levinson or Krell preamp/amplificaition through Wilson speakers (Grand Slams would be revealing), or a full on all digital Meridian system: 800 CD player, 861 preamp, and 8000 series speakers. Yeah, that stuff costs more than a couple of cars, but it does show what is possible to achieve. You don't need to go "all the way" to obtain audibly different results than you likely have with your current headphones and speakers.
And if you can't hear the difference between the various format with those systems, then, well, I guess for you, there is not difference and you should get whatever is less expensive. That is not a perforative statement.
If you spend you time listening to Green Day or some such (and I like that stuff, too), truly high end systems probably don't matter much; if you listen to a large variety of music: rock, metal, classical, jazz, opera, etc., then some of those imperceptible difference become glaringly obvious.
Eddie O
um
How bout this **** pepsi & amazon an just get free music from Acquisition.
yet pepsi is a bad product same with any other soda products, high sugar an causes cancer. I don't know why they haven't changed their ingredients its killing us slowly but incogned-o
govt has to do with population control. Same with fast food. They all need to change their ingredients. process meat also. US gone to SH*T!
How bout this **** pepsi & amazon an just get free music from Acquisition.
yet pepsi is a bad product same with any other soda products, high sugar an causes cancer. I don't know why they haven't changed their ingredients its killing us slowly but incogned-o
govt has to do with population control. Same with fast food. They all need to change their ingredients. process meat also. US gone to SH*T!
re: What does Universal's CEO think?
You really don't have to wonder.... Just check out the interview with him Wired Magazine just published. (You can find it on www.wired.com.)
It's pretty obvious the guy has no real "long term vision" for much of anything the company does. He's much more of the mindset that they need to react swiftly and defensively to anything that comes along, attacking their traditional business model. Right now, he views iTunes as the enemy that needs to be destroyed - simply because back when they first partnered with Universal, they became a "gatekeeper", collecting a lot of revenue off of all of Universal's material. (In his view, ANY revenue made off Universal's artists that doesn't go back into Universal's pockets is a problem they need to fix as quickly as possible - because it means they're being "cheated out of some money".)
He's willing to take whatever losses are necessary to force iTunes out of the game. It's a cost of "war", as far as he's concerned.
Of course, this is a ridiculously poor long-term business strategy - and I think most of us can see that a mile away. But the music industry is run by people who simply don't "do technology". All of this stuff intimidates them, really. They see the whole digital music revolution as a "bad thing", because it forces them to learn new things and takes away from what they feel is the "core" of their business; listening to new artists and picking out talent people will be willing to pay money to listen to.
You really don't have to wonder.... Just check out the interview with him Wired Magazine just published. (You can find it on www.wired.com.)
It's pretty obvious the guy has no real "long term vision" for much of anything the company does. He's much more of the mindset that they need to react swiftly and defensively to anything that comes along, attacking their traditional business model. Right now, he views iTunes as the enemy that needs to be destroyed - simply because back when they first partnered with Universal, they became a "gatekeeper", collecting a lot of revenue off of all of Universal's material. (In his view, ANY revenue made off Universal's artists that doesn't go back into Universal's pockets is a problem they need to fix as quickly as possible - because it means they're being "cheated out of some money".)
He's willing to take whatever losses are necessary to force iTunes out of the game. It's a cost of "war", as far as he's concerned.
Of course, this is a ridiculously poor long-term business strategy - and I think most of us can see that a mile away. But the music industry is run by people who simply don't "do technology". All of this stuff intimidates them, really. They see the whole digital music revolution as a "bad thing", because it forces them to learn new things and takes away from what they feel is the "core" of their business; listening to new artists and picking out talent people will be willing to pay money to listen to.
That's hilarious. The Media Industry strong-arms their artists and consumer options.
Apple has forced them to try other bait n' switches.
Eventually, when Artists can decide who to distribute their songs through it will then be up to the Artist to manage their choices and accept whether or not they make it big or bust because they couldn't manage their options.
Consumers win on choice, not quality.
Piss poor music no matter who distributes and controls it is what has killed the Music Industry and drove away leagues of talented artists who never compromised on their style.
Most musicians realize they aren't going to live a life of luxury.
Music is a background to sell bling bling, sex and more bling bling.
The music still thrives in the underground scene where various genres were never "pop" music.
Those artists never expected to be rich. Traveling the globe, partying and having groupies were pretty much the spoils of the trade.
The former great musicians who are growing long in years either do a variety show in Vegas or try for that one final "Reunion Tour."
It's life. You accept the machine and it's many consumptions or you don't get in the game.
How bout this **** pepsi & amazon an just get free music from Acquisition.
yet pepsi is a bad product same with any other soda products, high sugar an causes cancer. I don't know why they haven't changed their ingredients its killing us slowly but incogned-o
govt has to do with population control. Same with fast food. They all need to change their ingredients. process meat also. US gone to SH*T!
Wow. You're kookier than the audiophile guy. I didn't understand a lot of what he was saying but I'd prefer that to craziness coming out of your mouth.
Isn't Acquisition shareware? How much sense does that make? Let me pay them so I can illegally download other people's intellectual property when there are any number of other methods to do it legally or for free.