Digitalys Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 *edit* Sorry, I deleted this. Actually I don't want to start this discussion, has been done too many times. Mod, you can close this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digitalys Posted June 1, 2009 Author Share Posted June 1, 2009 Wow, I think I just typed the longest sentence ever at the end sorry, I got dragged away again: I don't want to accuse anyone. Copying and sharing isn't the answer too. I just feel that so much music is going lost in time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhale Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 So what is the point of this thread... you're crying because you can't buy CDs you want for less than 50-200EUR, which you claim is unfair and unjustified, and you want people to give you free copy of the music instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digitalys Posted June 1, 2009 Author Share Posted June 1, 2009 So what is the point of this thread... you're crying because you can't buy CDs you want for less than 50-200EUR, which you claim is unfair and unjustified, and you want people to give you free copy of the music instead? Read my post please? That's totally not my point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oopie Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 deleted as the topic starter wished so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murphythecat Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ake Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 i guess at least 99% of all tracks can be found on many public places around the internet as MP3s. and i don't have a problem with people sharing MP3s even of rare releases since MP3s are not the same quality as an original CD. this is what many people including the music industry don't understand or even don't know in some cases. personally i only use MP3s for pre-listening. If i really like a release and want to have it, i try to buy it if possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murphythecat Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 i guess at least 99% of all tracks can be found on many public places around the internet as MP3s. and i don't have a problem with people sharing MP3s even of rare releases since MP3s are not the same quality as an original CD. this is what many people including the music industry don't understand or even don't know in some cases. personally i only use MP3s for pre-listening. If i really like a release and want to have it, i try to buy it if possible. yeah, but almost everything i got is mp3, and the quality is perfect, but its ture that old stuff is not top nutch quality, but isnt because even if you would own the original copy, it would sound pretty old, since it is old? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oopie Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ake Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 yeah, but almost everything i got is mp3, and the quality is perfect, but its ture that old stuff is not top nutch quality, but isnt because even if you would own the original copy, it would sound pretty old, since it is old? That's possible, but it doesn't sound old because it's old, it sounds bad because it's badly mastered. And this happens even today on new productions. About your "perfect" MP3s, it may sound good or even very good on your speakers/headphones. MP3s can have a high sound quality, depends on the encoder presets that were used to encode them. But it's still MP3, it's a lossy format. Therefore it cannot be of the same quality as an original CD. When ripping a CD to MP3, there's always data lost, that's why it's called a lossy format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murphythecat Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 That's possible, but it doesn't sound old because it's old, it sounds bad because it's badly mastered. And this happens even today on new productions. About your "perfect" MP3s, it may sound good or even very good on your speakers/headphones. MP3s can have a high sound quality, depends on the encoder presets that were used to encode them. But it's still MP3, it's a lossy format. Therefore it cannot be of the same quality as an original CD. When ripping a CD to MP3, there's always data lost, that's why it's called a lossy format. but can you really see the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ake Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 of course you can see the difference. here you have a spectral view of an MP3 V2 which is the standard encoder preset in the psytrance scene: and here you have a spectral view of a lossless file of the same track: ...and when using a good sound system/speakers/headphones, you can also hear the difference for sure. Btw, i own this Vaishiyas CD, so no stupid comments please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qa2pir Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 i guess at least 99% of all tracks can be found on many public places around the internet as MP3s. and i don't have a problem with people sharing MP3s even of rare releases since MP3s are not the same quality as an original CD. this is what many people including the music industry don't understand or even don't know in some cases. personally i only use MP3s for pre-listening. If i really like a release and want to have it, i try to buy it if possible. So, everything which does not have the same quality as CD is ok to share? What about one with 99.999999% of the quality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murphythecat Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 is it what YOU think? or is it like a fact, that mp3 are less good then cd, i mean a good mp3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ake Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 is it what YOU think? or is it like a fact, that mp3 are less good then cd, i mean a good mp3 It's a fact. So, everything which does not have the same quality as CD is ok to share? What about one with 99.999999% of the quality? Like what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murphythecat Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 well i never realized it, and im pretty attentive to what im listening, so i dont know if you really see difference between a record and a good quality mp3 and i have yorkville ysmp1, so i shall see the difference right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time_Trap Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 It's a fact. Like what? There's FLAC which is Lossless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ake Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 There's FLAC which is Lossless. Yes, it is. And it's 100% CD quality, at least when you ripped the CD with good apps/settings. I don't think it's good to share FLACs on public places where thousands of people download your rips. But sharing among small circles of trusted people is ok imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen dream Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 is it what YOU think? or is it like a fact, that mp3 are less good then cd, i mean a good mp3where the fuck did u get lobotomized or were you raised by wolves? http://www.psp-designs.net/Extra/mp3/mp3wav.htm lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhale Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Yes, it is. And it's 100% CD quality, at least when you ripped the CD with good apps/settings. I don't think it's good to share FLACs on public places where thousands of people download your rips. But sharing among small circles of trusted people is ok imo.I guess it's nearly impossible to do other than via 1-1 trades with someone. PM me if you want something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sideffect... Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 come on, for those who have been on the internet for a couple of years, lot's of test have been done, and the difference between a wav & 320 mp3 can be seen, but the human ear cannot tell the difference, don't forget because it says 320 mp3 that it is not always 320 mp3, lot's of people rip copied cd's or downloaded releases @ 192 and ripp them on 320kps, what is still 192kps, it's a bit strange imo, they tested it, I did also a test on this forum , 2 years ago, everything below 192 people noticed, but some did not even notice the difference between .flac & 192mp3 what is a huge difference, considering this discussion... mastering has thousand times more influence... some albums were good mastered, others were not & the influence of bitrate (considering > 192mp3 to .flac) is a variable not that high... no criticism, I understand the need to discuss and some releases will never be re-released and you can't find them on the internet anymore... well that's it, then it's impossible to get that album sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.