MS in legal online music battle

[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

...

[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.

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]

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.

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.

[bedouin]

The quest for the ultimate recording method is an absolute waste of time.  Why?  Because there is no such thing as accurate reproduction, and 'accuracy' when dealing with something such as sound is an incredibly subjective measurement.

There is no one 'sound' just as there is no one 'red' or 'blue.'  It's all a matter of interpretation, and its affected by so many uncontrollable attributes before it even reaches tape; before it even reaches the mixer; before it even enters the microphone.

Who's definition of 'good sound' do we accept?  The engineer's?  The producer's?  A person sitting in the studio?  The drummer who thought he sounded one way, only to find his sound compressed and EQed in the final product?  Before the product even gets to be mastered it has gone through a series of unnatural modifications.

This is a huge audiophile game; it's a huge game for anyone who's looking for pedantic fun.  Some things cannot be put into an orderly, measurable, qualitative package.  Thank God.  Imagine if Mozart's crowd spent half of their analysis critiquing the acoustics of the auditorium; imagine if the audience of Woodstock complained in vague terms that the sound wasn't "crisp" or "life like."

As someone who used to be a huge proponent of analog I can safely say that no digital format sounds quite right to me, and I can even throw out claims such as "vinyl is more warm," or "at a party, analog brings more energy into the music."  It's nice for me to believe, but really -- 90% of the people don't care.  Or who knows, I could be suffering from a placebo effect.

And using a club soundsystem to judge sound quality is well -- strange.  If anything (at least going by traditional audiophile standards), a club is going to be the worst place to judge sound.  Not to mention DJ equipment is generally designed for function, durability, and sheer power -- not perfect harmonics.  A true audiophile would probably turn his nose up at a beloved Technics 1200 and insist his $10,000 digital turntable is superior.  And he might be right.  But who cares?  He's overly anal with too much time and money on his hands.

[Orethrius]

Haha, bedouin, you're taking my post entirely too seriously.     I mean, that's just how *I* see things in my little corner of the world, not how you see it (obviously), but it's really pointless for either of us to try to persuade the other to believe anything different.  That being said, there's a palpable difference between "live" and "recorded" but I'll let that one slide.  

[mobrien_12]

I can hear the difference between MP3 and Ogg-Vorbis  sound qualities.

[WMD]

I'm currently listening to a streaming 'Net radio station broadcasting at 22kHz/56Kbps MP3.  It sounds like CDs to me.  

My hearing must be really bad.  

[mobrien_12]

MP3's sound pretty good to me too, but I can tell the difference between them and CD's.  Next time you rip a track from one of your favorite CD's, put both the wav file and the ogg or mp3 in winamp/xmms/etc.  If you have good computer speakers, you will be able to tell the difference.

For fun, try the Vorbis Dare to Compare! webpage.  You can listen to the same sample of music in Ogg-Vorbis, MP3, and WAV.  The Vorbis encoded tune has a richer sound with more bandwidth and about the same size file.  
It's not enormous, but it is there.  

This was the page that really convinced me to start using ogg-vorbis instead of mp3.

[ September 07, 2004: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]

[pandronic]

128kbps mp3s, 320kbps mp3s, wavs or oggs - they all sound pretty much the same (and I have pretty good speakers). It's quite strange to be disturbed by the difference in quality. It's either that or I'm half deaf.