Miscellaneous > Applications

MS in legal online music battle

(1/3) > >>

KernelPanic:

quote:Microsoft launches iTunes rival

Microsoft has launched a music-downloading service in the US to rival Apple's iTunes and other providers.

The software giant has released a preview version of its new MSN Music service, which allows users to legally download songs for 99 cents (55p) each.

Whole albums will also be available for $9.99, Microsoft said. About 500,000 songs will be initially available, with more added on a weekly basis.

It is not yet known when the service will be available outside the US
--- End quote ---


...

Orethrius:
The difference here is night and day.  Unless I'm mistaken, the comparison here is between 160kbps MP3 and 128kbps Apple Lossless.  I'm sorry, that's NOT better, the MP3 codec itself causes unacceptable data loss (at least for any real audiophile).  What I'd pay MONEY to use is a service that transfers legitimate Oggs.  Has anybody actually considered this front, or does the recording industry still think that "quality is only for those conscious of it"?  If so, they need a brain transplant, CDs wouldn't have made it if people had held to that kind of thinking - we'd still be on 8-tracks.

[ September 02, 2004: Message edited by: Midnight Candidate/BOB ]

mobrien_12:
Midnight Candidate:  check out Magnatune

Or first look at the Magnatune threadfrom forum.microsuck.com.

Xeen:

quote:Originally posted by Midnight Candidate/BOB:
The difference here is night and day.  Unless I'm mistaken, the comparison here is between 160kbps MP3 and 128kbps Apple Lossless.  I'm sorry, that's NOT better, the MP3 codec itself causes unacceptable data loss (at least for any real audiophile).  What I'd pay MONEY to use is a service that transfers legitimate Oggs.  Has anybody actually considered this front, or does the recording industry still think that "quality is only for those conscious of it"?  If so, they need a brain transplant, CDs wouldn't have made it if people had held to that kind of thinking - we'd still be on 8-tracks.
--- End quote ---


Do you honestly hear a significant difference in lossy compressed mp3s that are done with good settings and compressors?? Unless you've got superman ears...I dont think it matters. I get all my stuff from p2p in at least 192 kbps mp3 format, and then I edit and RECOMPRESS the file, and it still sounds great.

[ September 06, 2004: Message edited by: xeen ]

Orethrius:

--- Quote from: xeen ---Do you honestly hear a significant difference in lossy compressed mp3s that are done with good settings and compressors?? Unless you've got superman ears...I dont think it matters. I get all my stuff from p2p in at least 192 kbps mp3 format, and then I edit and RECOMPRESS the file, and it still sounds great.
--- End quote ---

Okay, two points.

(1) Yes, I can hear the difference, that and a dog whistle at ten miles. Acute hearing is more commonplace than you might think.

(2) When I rate playback in terms of end result, I'm not talking about playing it back through the low-powered PC speakers linked into the sound card - I'm talking about synching it through a mixer, and on into club-quality speakers. Anything less than 320kbps MP3 is noticeably less-than-clear in that transfer, but somehow Ogg q9 manages to make it through just fine - and takes up about half the space. Although I agree, for DAILY usage, 192kbps LAME MP3 or better is perfectly acceptable.

I don't have a huge problem with MP3s being used by your typical end user, but it pisses me off when people say they're acceptable for any kind of club or home theater playback wherein cable transfers are utilised because - quite frankly - they're not.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page