End p2p music sharing?

I agree, Ogg > MP3, though MP3 is pretty decent when you go above 224kbps, I don't understand why people have said that shared files are poor quality... I er, know a friend's aunt's, cousin's friend who happens to have a fair amount of very good quality Ogg format music
 
vonhelmet said:
I very much doubt that the masses would suddenly stop pirating and start buying CDs if they all cost £10 instead of £15. Besides, most CDs can be had for that much if you shop around.
Click to expand...

You only have to go to any car boot to see the THOUSANDS of bootleg cd's and DVD's going for a fiver a pop.
If they will pay a fiver for a terrible bootleg, they will pay a fiver for the real thing.
 
Personally I believe if all cd's (audio, DVD, games etc) were sold at £4.99 the suppliers wouldn't be able to keep up with demand and the companies would reap the rewards.
I'm waiting for somebody like Robbie (or his company) to be the first to take this step and see how many 1000% more albums they can sell.
 
dmpoole said:
Personally I believe if all cd's (audio, DVD, games etc) were sold at £4.99 the suppliers wouldn't be able to keep up with demand and the companies would reap the rewards.
I'm waiting for somebody like Robbie (or his company) to be the first to take this step and see how many 1000% more albums they can sell.
Click to expand...
But it isn't about how many albums they can sell. It's about how much profit they make from doing it. And selling more albums doesn't necessarily mean greater profit if you have to cut prices to do it. Selling more albums could well mean reduced profits, or even making a loss. It all depends on the cost structure.
 
Look, we all know you can buy a legit album from the likes of I-tunes for around 10-15 euros. There are cheaper online distributers in places like russia, but I don't even need to go into that to make my point.

15 euros is a lot less than the 20-25 (or more in some cases) euros you pay for a CD. The high street retailers are every bit as guilty as the pirate downloader of blatant thievery. Its the artist and consumers that are losing out. The record companys and retailers are cleaning up.

I've worked in a major CD retailer. I know for a fact they make a mint. All the while they treat their staff and customers like absolute filth. The memory of working there is not very pleasant.
 
bfar said:
Look, we all know you can buy a legit album from the likes of I-tunes for around 10-15 euros.
Click to expand...

Which would require me to touch Apple software.

= No.

The pure fact I can use Apples software on a pc is because jobs could see much more earning poetential by expanding it onto windows based OS's. He did not do it for everyones benefit.

Either way, for the topic. Whats forcing me (or anyone else for that matter) to use this new mp3 format again?

Ripper X - Hai guys lets ripz up da mp3z and put dem on da intarweb
Ripper Y - Yeah!!!1 I got this mp3 format which watermarks the file
Ripper X - Yeahh... nooooooooooooo

:o
 
james.miller said:
like that has ****** all bearing on anything at all. Just becuase i have an mp3 player, doesnt mean i use anything less than 160-192k lame encodes. honestly who listens to 64k files?
Click to expand...

It was you who made the sweeping statement that mp3 was better than ogg, even at 160-192 ogg is better so it doesnt make a difference anyway. As a matter of fact I listen to 64k files with ogg there isnt a difference betweeen that and 128kbps mp3 so I use the one that takes up less space, why use a codec that takes up more space when you can use ogg after all?
 
Did i?
james.miller said:
mp3 > ogg. very nearly almost as good with high compression and 100x more compatible. But let's not argue over that:p
Click to expand...

is 'very nearly almost as good with high compression' a sweeping statement? now before you say anything, let me tell you i didnt mean high compression, i ment high bitrate.
As a matter of fact I listen to 64k files with ogg there isnt a difference betweeen that and 128kbps mp3 so I use the one that takes up less space, why use a codec that takes up more space when you can use ogg after all?
Click to expand...
...because 90% of my collection is >192k parhaps. Because its more compatible than ogg (i have an mp3 player remember)? because in the the age of 250gb per harddrive and above, size is really irrelivant these days? i dunno you tell me.
even at 160-192 ogg is better so it doesnt make a difference anyway.
Click to expand...
Only very, VERY slightly. Somebody had that argument with me before (Fred_or_dead - permabanned for some reason) and posted test results to back himself up:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t36465.html

Only the summery didnt back him up at all:
Now, we could compare the evolution during one year (between MP3, MPC and Vorbis only).

• Musepack Audio: From an evolution standpoint, MPC is the clear looser: it lost the quality crown, stolen by Vorbis. Last year MPC ends the test by getting an uncontestable first place; now the format is tied with Vorbis (which is better on average) and LAME (worse on average). On 18 samples MPC was ranked first 15 times in 2004; now it’s four times only! Musepack has also lost the efficiency trophy: with classical at least the bitrate is now superior to LAME and Vorbis. I remind that last year, MPC ends at first place with 10 kbps less than MEGAMIX and even 20 kbps less than LAME 3.97 alpha 3.
As a consequence of increased bitrate and stagnant quality, I would say that MPC is loosing its former attractiveness (for classical music). It’s not really surprising considering the low evolution of the format in a world of constant progress. Other format have simply catch up their lost time.

........

• LAME 3.97: LAME vitality defies the common sense. The format is supposed to have reached maturity for years and therefore to stagnate. The tested preset is not only better but is also faster (thanks to –vbr-new) and more efficient (-11 kbps!). The progresses are important. To precisely check them I reencoded all reference files with alpha 3 –V2 and compared them to alpha 11 –V2 –vbr-new. Indeed obvious problems are solved: the audible ringing in orchestra (sample_18) has totally disappeard, the weird distortion on organ (sample_05) is truly lowered… 2005 seems to be an exceptional vintage for LAME, comparable I would say to the release of LAME 3.90 in December 2001.
Click to expand...

make your own conclusions:) Now before anybody else wants to attack me for sweeping statements i never made, id suggest you dont bother and keep it OT. thank you:)
 
Last edited:
Andelusion said:
I'm a musician and compose my own stuff so can appreciate the price of CDs (well, by certain artists who actually go through sweat and blood to write their material).

I wouldn't complain if CDs were made cheaper, but I certainly don't think they're overpriced.

I've used P2P in the past to get the odd track from an arist if i've heard about them and fancy getting into them, I nearly always go out and buy something by them if I like the artist.
Click to expand...

I think that pretty much sums up the pop industry which is where most record companies are feeling the hit. "(well, by certain artists who actually go through sweat and blood to write their material)". Its all bloody manufactured and its all crap every boyband/girlband/artist in the charts is rubbish and i bet hardly any of them go thru blood and sweat to write their own stuff. They do as they are told and are an image that will be around for a lil while. If anything people downloading stuff may help stop with all the **** i hear in the charts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom