"Paul Morgan" wrote in message
...
iddqdATworldonline.DenmarK wrote:

Now I'm all for the artists getting a bigger share of the money but I
fear sound quality will get lost in the process of the music
distribution going on-line. My prediction is that getting uncompressed
music will be just as hard as it is to find vinyl theese days!

Agree entirely.... I hate record companies for the fat profits they take
out
of CD sales and pass on a pittance to the artist, along with them churning
out drab pop-crap. So anything online music can contibute towards the
death
of a few record companies is a good thing IMO.

But on the other hand there's no way I'd pay for lossy compressed music. I
don't mind downloading the odd MP3 to listen to new stuff, I can live with
the drop in SQ when it's free. But when shelling out over £10 for an album
I
want the proper uncompressed audio - hence the attraction of audio CD (and
not bloody corrupt copy-protected ones at that!). I'd be quite prepared to
wait the few hours it takes to download an uncompressed audio CD image on
broadband though.

--
Paul Morgan
Replace nospam with paul_morga to reply via e-mail


128kbps can sound very good if encoded properly with decent software etc
'Lame' or 'Blade',
160kbps is supposed to be cassette quality, 192kbps CD etc.

and I never personaly have come across OGG but its supposed to be better
than MP1 layer 3......