I understand your point about _paying_ for music and actually getting something compressed. However, since these places are selling mp3s that the average consumer is going to put on their hard drive and/or portable audio player, the amount of space they take up makes a difference. That's probably more important to 99.9% of consumers than the bragging rights you get with a higher bitrate.
You going to the meeting tonight? Someone make him take the Pepsi challenge. :) I contend that anyone who can tell the difference between 256k and 320k mp3s is got to be one in a million. Not that I'm saying that it's not possible; but it's gotta be rarer than "perfect pitch". - Jason L. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of silver > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:49 PM > To: Eugene Unix and Gnu/Linux User Group > Subject: Re: [Eug-lug] AmazonMp3 store > > Agreed. I was comparing higher grade lossless formats. > > Yes the law of diminishing returns applies generally to > everything. However I have found 320k MP3 provides a more > appropriate reproduction of the dynamic range (peaks and > valleys) across the frequency range and better definition in > the low and high ranges, better than 256k and enough for me > and others to readily notice across multiple devices > (portable, consumer, audiophile, pro gear). Not a hardware or > firmware issue. > > And then, of course, the lossless encode/decode formats > provide even higher quality vs 320k MP3. If you can't hear > the differences that's ok. > > Different strokes for different folks. It appears the market > has concluded most folks are willing to put up with the lower > quality audio or just don't know the diff. > > Myself I rather hear something closer to what the artist, > producer and engineer wanted me to hear, and not the "choice" > the distributors format (compressed stream) forces on me. > > If I have the PCM in hand (e.g. CD) I can manage convert to > whichever format I desire. > > hydrogenaudio.org is a good resource > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rob Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On 3/12/08, silver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At any rate isn't 256k MP3 going backwards? > > Compared to iTunes' 128k AAC, I'd think that's going forwards. > > For a song that I happened to want one day and was willing to spend 89 > cents on, a 256k mp3 is fine for me. > > > _______________________________________________ > EUGLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug > _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
