Associate
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 1,853
- Location
- Tonbridge, Kent
For a long time now I have wondered why music companies battling piracy didn't use their trump card - Sound quality. The film industry talks picture/sound quality over downloaded stuff all the time, although Divx quality is acceptable as far as I’m concerned when it comes to films which don't need a big screen and speakers to be enjoyed i.e. comedies, romances etc.
I hear a lot of people say 'I can't tell the difference between a 96kbps encoded mp3 and a 192kbps one.' Well maybe they can't but i can, especially when you turn up the volume.
Music companies have the original sound recordings in all their glory, whereas most pirates only have CD quality rip's (at best). For people who spend a lot of money on Hi-Fi's, headphones etc (i.e. Home Cinema & Hi-Fi forum people) they want the highest quality sound and therefore along with me probably wouldn't mind paying a little extra for lossless digital music.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060622-7114.html
I hear a lot of people say 'I can't tell the difference between a 96kbps encoded mp3 and a 192kbps one.' Well maybe they can't but i can, especially when you turn up the volume.
Music companies have the original sound recordings in all their glory, whereas most pirates only have CD quality rip's (at best). For people who spend a lot of money on Hi-Fi's, headphones etc (i.e. Home Cinema & Hi-Fi forum people) they want the highest quality sound and therefore along with me probably wouldn't mind paying a little extra for lossless digital music.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060622-7114.html