Copy protected CD's not the worst threat to sound quality!
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...

If you really must have 1:1 audio, there's always the lossless codecs -
FLAC, BONC etc. Although audiophiles seem to be unnecessarily wary of data
compression - AFIK SACD/DVD-A formats don't even employ lossless data
compression.


Actually both SACD and DVD-A do employ losses compression, DST for SACD and
MLP for DVD-A.

Copy protected CD's not the worst threat to sound quality!
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...

If you really must have 1:1 audio, there's always the lossless codecs -
FLAC, BONC etc. Although audiophiles seem to be unnecessarily wary of data
compression - AFIK SACD/DVD-A formats don't even employ lossless data
compression.


Actually both SACD and DVD-A do employ lossless compression, DST for SACD
and
MLP for DVD-A.

Copy protected CD's not the worst threat to sound quality!
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...

If you really must have 1:1 audio, there's always the lossless codecs -
FLAC, BONC etc. Although audiophiles seem to be unnecessarily wary of data
compression - AFIK SACD/DVD-A formats don't even employ lossless data
compression.


Actually both SACD and DVD-A do employ lossless compression, DST for SACD
and
MLP for DVD-A.

Copy protected CD's not the worst threat to sound quality!
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...

I guess if you want to share, you have to go with the masses ;-) For
better or worse, MP3 has a *huge* amount of momentum - look at the
comparative volume of MP3's vs. Ogg on Kazaa

But who uses kazaa anymore?

Mwa ha ha ha!! 4,250,000 people are logged onto Kazaa as I type this!

There was an amusing article in one of the hi-fi comics last month
about how to 'get into' ripping CDs - they were suggesting that
anything lossy at all was a no-no and one should only ever rip at
'full size' (1411 kbps). I've done a few back to back 1411 vs. 320
kbps tests and, to be honest, struggle to find *too much* difference.
I think ripping at 320 is about the point where the old diminishing
returns thing kicks in.

With mp3, maybe, but mp3 is getting on 13 years old now, and at 320k it's
really outside the original design. You can't keep throwing high, out of
spec bitrate at an old format it and expect the quality to scale nicely. I
do not believe there to be audiable difference between an r3mix lame rip
(vbr,~180) and a 320 cbr one.

So, in reality, you don't download a lot - i.a. more than 4 or 5 complete
CDs each day, then?

Copy protected CD's not the worst threat to sound quality!
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...

I guess if you want to share, you have to go with the masses ;-) For
better or worse, MP3 has a *huge* amount of momentum - look at the
comparative volume of MP3's vs. Ogg on Kazaa

But who uses kazaa anymore?

Mwa ha ha ha!! 4,250,000 people are logged onto Kazaa as I type this!

There was an amusing article in one of the hi-fi comics last month
about how to 'get into' ripping CDs - they were suggesting that
anything lossy at all was a no-no and one should only ever rip at
'full size' (1411 kbps). I've done a few back to back 1411 vs. 320
kbps tests and, to be honest, struggle to find *too much* difference.
I think ripping at 320 is about the point where the old diminishing
returns thing kicks in.

With mp3, maybe, but mp3 is getting on 13 years old now, and at 320k it's
really outside the original design. You can't keep throwing high, out of
spec bitrate at an old format it and expect the quality to scale nicely. I
do not believe there to be audiable difference between an r3mix lame rip
(vbr,~180) and a 320 cbr one.

So, in reality, you don't download a lot - i.a. more than 4 or 5 complete
CDs each day, then?

Copy protected CD's not the worst threat to sound quality!
 

more from the 'Stimpy school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:


"Jim H" wrote in message
...

I guess if you want to share, you have to go with the masses ;-)
For better or worse, MP3 has a *huge* amount of momentum - look at
the comparative volume of MP3's vs. Ogg on Kazaa

But who uses kazaa anymore?

Mwa ha ha ha!! 4,250,000 people are logged onto Kazaa as I type this!

I'd take those figures with a *big* pinch of salt. How can a supernode know
the total users on a decentralised network? In kazaa people who logged off
some time ago tend to remain counted and those with flaky 'free'
connections + dynamic IP can be counted several times.

Besides, how many people use a network isn't important to file avaliablity
if search facilities do not scale sufficiently to allow them to be reached.
How many of the 4million computers do you think your search queries?
Possibly less than a smaller, but better organised p2p network.

I really wouldn't recomend kazaa. The files are often fake or corrupt, with
no serious attempt at maintaining file integrety, there is nothing to guard
your privicy, there is no real hashing, it has disproportionaly many 56k
users and so is generally slow, the search facilities are inappropiate for
a network of it's size and it's users tend to be technically naieve.

With mp3, maybe, but mp3 is getting on 13 years old now, and at 320k
it's really outside the original design. You can't keep throwing
high, out of spec bitrate at an old format it and expect the quality
to scale nicely. I do not believe there to be audiable difference
between an r3mix lame rip (vbr,~180) and a 320 cbr one.

So, in reality, you don't download a lot - i.a. more than 4 or 5
complete CDs each day, then?

I don't understand the question. Are you acusing me of piracy, or of not
pirating enough? I'll prob download 0.01 full music albums per day, but use
BitTorrent as an ftp replacement. I'd say at least a gig a week, often
maxing out a 2meg line.

What does that have to do with mp3 bitrates? I have many ogg/mp3 files from
my own cds.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

Copy protected CD's not the worst threat to sound quality!
 

more from the 'Stimpy school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:


"Jim H" wrote in message
...

I guess if you want to share, you have to go with the masses ;-)
For better or worse, MP3 has a *huge* amount of momentum - look at
the comparative volume of MP3's vs. Ogg on Kazaa

But who uses kazaa anymore?

Mwa ha ha ha!! 4,250,000 people are logged onto Kazaa as I type this!

I'd take those figures with a *big* pinch of salt. How can a supernode know
the total users on a decentralised network? In kazaa people who logged off
some time ago tend to remain counted and those with flaky 'free'
connections + dynamic IP can be counted several times.

Besides, how many people use a network isn't important to file avaliablity
if search facilities do not scale sufficiently to allow them to be reached.
How many of the 4million computers do you think your search queries?
Possibly less than a smaller, but better organised p2p network.

I really wouldn't recomend kazaa. The files are often fake or corrupt, with
no serious attempt at maintaining file integrety, there is nothing to guard
your privicy, there is no real hashing, it has disproportionaly many 56k
users and so is generally slow, the search facilities are inappropiate for
a network of it's size and it's users tend to be technically naieve.

With mp3, maybe, but mp3 is getting on 13 years old now, and at 320k
it's really outside the original design. You can't keep throwing
high, out of spec bitrate at an old format it and expect the quality
to scale nicely. I do not believe there to be audiable difference
between an r3mix lame rip (vbr,~180) and a 320 cbr one.

So, in reality, you don't download a lot - i.a. more than 4 or 5
complete CDs each day, then?

I don't understand the question. Are you acusing me of piracy, or of not
pirating enough? I'll prob download 0.01 full music albums per day, but use
BitTorrent as an ftp replacement. I'd say at least a gig a week, often
maxing out a 2meg line.

What does that have to do with mp3 bitrates? I have many ogg/mp3 files from
my own cds.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

Copy protected CD's not the worst threat to sound quality!
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...
more from the 'Stimpy school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:

"Jim H" wrote in message
...

Yes, Im a die-hard linux user ;-)

A die-hard linux user not using ogg as their main format?

I guess if you want to share, you have to go with the masses ;-) For
better or worse, MP3 has a *huge* amount of momentum - look at the
comparative volume of MP3's vs. Ogg on Kazaa

But who uses kazaa anymore?

Maybe 5.1 audio will help ogg take off, dvda/sacd ripping would certainly
help ease people away from old stereo formats like mp3. There are also
some
cheap ogg decoding chips for portable players around now. Thanks to the
dodgy buisness practices wma has a large share of audio on personal
computers, but is less often shared than mp3.

If you really must have 1:1 audio, there's always the lossless codecs
- FLAC, BONC etc. Although audiophiles seem to be unnecessarily wary
of data compression - AFIK SACD/DVD-A formats don't even employ
lossless data compression.

There was an amusing article in one of the hi-fi comics last month
about how to 'get into' ripping CDs - they were suggesting that
anything lossy at all was a no-no and one should only ever rip at
'full size' (1411 kbps). I've done a few back to back 1411 vs. 320
kbps tests and, to be honest, struggle to find *too much* difference.
I think ripping at 320 is about the point where the old diminishing
returns thing kicks in.

With mp3, maybe, but mp3 is getting on 13 years old now, and at 320k it's
really outside the original design. You can't keep throwing high, out of
spec bitrate at an old format it and expect the quality to scale nicely. I
do not believe there to be audiable difference between an r3mix lame rip
(vbr,~180) and a 320 cbr one.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

WMA which is suppose to be twice!!! as effiecent as MP3. I havent heard a
good WMA yet.

Copy protected CD's not the worst threat to sound quality!
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...
more from the 'Stimpy school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:

"Jim H" wrote in message
...

Yes, Im a die-hard linux user ;-)

A die-hard linux user not using ogg as their main format?

I guess if you want to share, you have to go with the masses ;-) For
better or worse, MP3 has a *huge* amount of momentum - look at the
comparative volume of MP3's vs. Ogg on Kazaa

But who uses kazaa anymore?

Maybe 5.1 audio will help ogg take off, dvda/sacd ripping would certainly
help ease people away from old stereo formats like mp3. There are also
some
cheap ogg decoding chips for portable players around now. Thanks to the
dodgy buisness practices wma has a large share of audio on personal
computers, but is less often shared than mp3.

If you really must have 1:1 audio, there's always the lossless codecs
- FLAC, BONC etc. Although audiophiles seem to be unnecessarily wary
of data compression - AFIK SACD/DVD-A formats don't even employ
lossless data compression.

There was an amusing article in one of the hi-fi comics last month
about how to 'get into' ripping CDs - they were suggesting that
anything lossy at all was a no-no and one should only ever rip at
'full size' (1411 kbps). I've done a few back to back 1411 vs. 320
kbps tests and, to be honest, struggle to find *too much* difference.
I think ripping at 320 is about the point where the old diminishing
returns thing kicks in.

With mp3, maybe, but mp3 is getting on 13 years old now, and at 320k it's
really outside the original design. You can't keep throwing high, out of
spec bitrate at an old format it and expect the quality to scale nicely. I
do not believe there to be audiable difference between an r3mix lame rip
(vbr,~180) and a 320 cbr one.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

WMA which is suppose to be twice!!! as effiecent as MP3. I havent heard a
good WMA yet.

Copy protected CD's not the worst threat to sound quality!
 

"Jim H" wrote in message
...
more from the 'Stimpy school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:


"Jim H" wrote in message
...

I guess if you want to share, you have to go with the masses ;-)
For better or worse, MP3 has a *huge* amount of momentum - look at
the comparative volume of MP3's vs. Ogg on Kazaa

But who uses kazaa anymore?

Mwa ha ha ha!! 4,250,000 people are logged onto Kazaa as I type this!

I'd take those figures with a *big* pinch of salt. How can a supernode
know
the total users on a decentralised network? In kazaa people who logged off
some time ago tend to remain counted and those with flaky 'free'
connections + dynamic IP can be counted several times.

Besides, how many people use a network isn't important to file avaliablity
if search facilities do not scale sufficiently to allow them to be
reached.
How many of the 4million computers do you think your search queries?
Possibly less than a smaller, but better organised p2p network.

I really wouldn't recomend kazaa. The files are often fake or corrupt,
with
no serious attempt at maintaining file integrety, there is nothing to
guard
your privicy, there is no real hashing, it has disproportionaly many 56k
users and so is generally slow, the search facilities are inappropiate for
a network of it's size and it's users tend to be technically naieve.

With mp3, maybe, but mp3 is getting on 13 years old now, and at 320k
it's really outside the original design. You can't keep throwing
high, out of spec bitrate at an old format it and expect the quality
to scale nicely. I do not believe there to be audiable difference
between an r3mix lame rip (vbr,~180) and a 320 cbr one.

So, in reality, you don't download a lot - i.a. more than 4 or 5
complete CDs each day, then?

I don't understand the question. Are you acusing me of piracy, or of not
pirating enough? I'll prob download 0.01 full music albums per day, but
use
BitTorrent as an ftp replacement. I'd say at least a gig a week, often
maxing out a 2meg line.

What does that have to do with mp3 bitrates? I have many ogg/mp3 files
from
my own cds.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

lucky you are in the UK not the RIAA owned USA.