DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads

Forums > Music

A Poll About MP3s

Veracohr	Date: September 25, 2003 @ 11:51 PM This is aimed more at users than artists, though anyone can answer it. I'm curious about the average consumer's opinion on music file-compression technologies. Which is why this is aimed at users, because musicians are not average consumers when it comes to buying music. Please answer the following questions: Do you consider MP3s, or a similar technology, to be viable competition for the CD as a permanent music-owning method? And would you, if you could (maybe you have already! ), replace your CD collection with these technologies (regardless of price or lack thereof)?
Etheracide	Date: September 26, 2003 @ 12:00 AM It seems to me that with an atleast halfway decent ripper/ecoder, you can make an almost exact match with an album version. I have a pretty well-trained ear and I just don't notice the differences that other people hear. It could be due to difference in systems on which they are being played or maybe they are playing poorly burned CD's made from MP3 files. But I will always listen to a playlist of MP3s on my harddrive just as quickly as I'd pop in a CD." id="63000">I purchase more music than most people that I know so I feel "justified" in offering my opinion. With most MP3's that I have on my system, I notice very little difference between the 'electronic' (compressed) versions and the ones on the actual CD's. It seems to me that with an atleast halfway decent ripper/ecoder, you can make an almost exact match with an album version. I have a pretty well-trained ear and I just don't notice the differences that other people hear. It could be due to difference in systems on which they are being played or maybe they are playing poorly burned CD's made from MP3 files. But I will always listen to a playlist of MP3s on my harddrive just as quickly as I'd pop in a CD.
ashleighj	Date: September 26, 2003 @ 11:49 AM i have all of my cd's encoded to mp3's and burned to cd-r.. it's really convinent when i'm at the computer, and it's nice to be less worried about my cd's getting scratched up at work. easy to make a copy, and the quality difference doesn't matter when replacing a cd i've already bought costs $18 otherwise." id="63019">the sheer convinence of having so much music, in any order you want, in so little space.. the ease with which you can make a backup.. it's certainly viabale. however, that doesn't mean cd's are going to fall of the face of the earth. there are a lot of people who won't be interested in buying and learning to use a cd burner just so they can have music in their car. the vast majority of people won't want to bother with the cutting edge when what they have works just fine. some also enjoy the packaging and collectability of the cd's. and in any case, i don't think the concept of "albums" will die out anytime soon, even if cd's _did_ fall off the earth. i've found some songs to be much more powerful and moving when listened to in the context of an album rather than just as singles. not to say singles will become unpopular, just that albums won't vanish, regardless of format. i have all of my cd's encoded to mp3's and burned to cd-r.. it's really convinent when i'm at the computer, and it's nice to be less worried about my cd's getting scratched up at work. easy to make a copy, and the quality difference doesn't matter when replacing a cd i've already bought costs $18 otherwise.
Veracohr	Date: September 26, 2003 @ 6:03 PM I think CDs are going to fall off the face of the earth. But the question is what are they going to be replaced with, which is why I asked the questions (that probably won't get much response). Currently there's two main roads ahead for the future of music formats, which one will we go down? On one hand is MP3-like file compression technologies, whether lossy or not, and on the other hand is DVD-A and SACD. But is the average consumer going to care about DVD-A and SACD? Are mp3s becoming so ubiquitous that DVD-A and SACD (or some future high-definition audio format) will be relegated to niche roles? Or will one of them replace CDs as the standard format as CDs replaced vinyl? Because MP3s are a definite step DOWN in quality from CDs. If people think of them as a perfectly good music format, what hope does higher quality technology have?
ashleighj	Date: September 26, 2003 @ 6:21 PM the general public will care about replacing their CD's with another physical media (such as DVD-A) when they invent one that doesn't get ruined by scratches. don't you agree?
invocati	Date: September 26, 2003 @ 6:55 PM Mp3's are close to c.d. quality if you use the right mp3 recorder such as music matchbox.. In fact music matchbox claims that recording at 128kps is c.d. quality and thats what music matchbox records at (128kps). And whatever happened to D.A.T. which is supposed to be better quality than any C.D. format
Expose	Date: September 26, 2003 @ 7:54 PM 128k = CD quality is more of a lie than "Macs; so easy, you don't even need a manual." musicmatch jukebox is anything but one of the best encoders. 128k and below, it's ok, but above, LAME undoubtedly owns it. :nod: :D For those of you absolutely convinced MP3 can be perfect CD quality at 320k, even though it takes stuff out permanently, convert this to a 128k MP3 and a 320k MP3, and listen to the original and the MP3 in headphones, I think you'll be quite surprised. ;) http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/436622~eba1b4e5a1066f409217882bd0e 26f8e/c44.zip" id="63067">Heh. Hell no. They can't replace buying the CD. The quality sucks. Well, not at first listen, but listening for two days of MP3s than the original does indeed show the flaws of lossy audio compression. ... Which is why I download lossless copies. Taking the "screw the RIAA" concept to the next level. 128k = CD quality is more of a lie than "Macs; so easy, you don't even need a manual." musicmatch jukebox is anything but one of the best encoders. 128k and below, it's ok, but above, LAME undoubtedly owns it. For those of you absolutely convinced MP3 can be perfect CD quality at 320k, even though it takes stuff out permanently, convert this to a 128k MP3 and a 320k MP3, and listen to the original and the MP3 in headphones, I think you'll be quite surprised. http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/436622~eba1b4e5a1066f409217882bd0e 26f8e/c44.zip
Veracohr	Date: September 26, 2003 @ 8:12 PM Heh, I knew what Expose's reply would be! I'm not entirely sure, but it might be that when the claim is made that mp3s are "CD quality", they are referring to the fact that mp3s are 16-bit, 44.1kHz audio, which is what CDs are. That way they can tell the truth, but are still misleading people into thinking there's no difference (there's a differnece of 1283k for a 128k mp3).
Apertome	Date: September 27, 2003 @ 2:41 AM I, too, am an artist, but I also buy a lot of music. In fact, I buy a lot of music on vinyl (yes, it sounds better!), so take this with a grain of salt. I would guess that something like DVD-A will take over CDs, once the price is right. Not necessarily because of consumer demand, though. I believe the RIAA will push for a technology like DVD-A because it supports encryption, and ripping a DVD-A (once you break the encryption) results in a whole lot more data, making it less convenient to do so. Of course, you can always convert to 16-bit/44.1KHz, perhaps on the fly, so that point is minimal. DVD-As also offer other features that are attractive: higher quality, more surround capabilities, etc. Personally, I can't stand lossy compression. But this doesn't seem to be true of the masses. As more services that allow you to purchase music online in lossy formats become available, we'll find out. I think that the ~$1 per track prices we're hearing about now are too high. If the price were to drop, those companies would have more success.
CrAzYj	Date: October 7, 2003 @ 12:03 PM I think mp3s are great for what they were intended. A way to sample new music to determine if you would like to buy the cd. Also, the quality on your computer when listening to an mp3 is as good or better than listening on FM radio. No worse than a cassette recording of a cd either. mp3 format made the whole option of sharing your music online possible. CD's aren't going away in any hurry, too many people have money invested in CD players now. I'm sure the industry will have the next new thing for people to blow money on soon enough, but I like the CD format now that I know how to use it. Watch the XM radio format. That's what I'd like to have. Subscription radio with no commercials. Great concept, but so was cable TV. That was supposed to be commercial free as well, and look at it.
chriskmusic	Date: October 9, 2003 @ 2:40 PM When you stop to consider that the average joe six pack or jane wine cooler is driving a car with a standard oem stereo, I don't think they care one way or another about mp3 vs. other high definition audio technologies. A great many people I know have discs burnt from mp3s they downloaded from Napster, KaZaa, etc ... and they just don't seem to mind the difference ... neither do I ... I run my computer thru a separate eq patch into my home stereo and re-eq to as closely make up the lost highs as it able without overly distorting the signal ... seems to work fine ... and I listen to about four hours a day in mp3s from various omds online.
mracky	Date: October 11, 2003 @ 2:06 PM uh-hmm. mp3 was an accidental success. the Motion Picture Expert Group (MPEG) originally targetted video compression as its main goal. its associated audio was level 3 of the mpeg-1 protocol. I think a demand for quality from audiophiles (sitting in their listening room and not driving a car) will eventually dictate an upwardly compatible protocol -- something that acts like mpeg-4 structured audio (MIDI like) with its sampler quality.
Jesuszilla	Date: October 11, 2003 @ 2:12 PM Ook ook ook oooh ahh ahh, Jesuszilla like .OGG!
Veracohr	Date: October 11, 2003 @ 6:46 PM mracky--what do you mean by mpeg-4 being "MIDI like"?
mracky	Date: October 11, 2003 @ 7:09 PM To my understanding the difference is this: Instead of taking the actual sounds from the AIFF and compressing those waves (into an MP3 file), it takes samples of the sounds and then sends instructions for how to manipulate those samples. The samples are sent as part of the mpeg4 file along with instructions how to manipulate these sounds over time. this, to me, is like a MIDI file -- where instructions manipulate patches. er, clear as mud?
Veracohr	Date: October 11, 2003 @ 7:55 PM I haven't heard anything about mpeg-4. Strange.
Svensta	Date: October 12, 2003 @ 1:07 AM as an end-user and boycotter they MORE than fulfill my needs for listening. As a purist and collector they do not, but to hear new music and sample new things, they are unparalleled in today's society (those laughable listening stations one of the only other options)
Thaspian	Date: October 12, 2003 @ 2:30 PM AAC's cousin MPC does a way better job. They are both based on MPEG2 layer one. MP3 is MPEG1 layer 3. MPEG2 layer one, is, MP2, which is quite better than MP3. AAC is a nice low bitrate solution, and MPC a high bitrate solution, for the future. To clear things up .
mracky	Date: October 12, 2003 @ 3:59 PM http://web.media.mit.edu/~eds/mpeg4/ " id="65029">Veracohr Info on mpeg4 can be found http://web.media.mit.edu/~eds/mpeg4/
Thaspian	Date: October 12, 2003 @ 5:08 PM MP4 = AAC
RasMasta	Date: October 12, 2003 @ 6:17 PM You need CD Quality in the first place to create MP3's worth listening to.
winterchylde	Date: October 13, 2003 @ 12:00 AM An MP3 compression is little competition for an original lossless recording. I always prefer to buy the CD album. MP3's are only competition on P2P networks. It's hard to compete with 0 cost & low download time for somewhat minimal loss in quality. I'm a musician.
Thaspian	Date: October 13, 2003 @ 1:26 AM http://flac.sourceforge.net http://www.monkeysaudio.com ...Quite popular on some P2P networks. ;)" id="65087">http://flac.sourceforge.net http://www.monkeysaudio.com ...Quite popular on some P2P networks.

Post A Reply
From:	guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: