Hi everyone!
I'd like some opinions on this matter:
Would you agree that music in MP3 format is a perfect substitute for music on original CDs?
And what about CD-Rs vs original CDs?
Why/Why not?
Arildho
Printable View
Hi everyone!
I'd like some opinions on this matter:
Would you agree that music in MP3 format is a perfect substitute for music on original CDs?
And what about CD-Rs vs original CDs?
Why/Why not?
Arildho
Of course it is becaseu we don't have to pay f30 bucks for a album and 10 bucks for a single :lol:
:) The quality is less on CDR...but saving 30 bucks is well worth the decline in quality
actully just on the quality thign I can honestly say I can here no difference between a wav or mp3 even though the quality is surpose to decrease
Personally, I feel nothing beats the sound of official cd's and vinyls. However, if you are listening from your pc or a standard "all-in-one" hi-fi, there shouldn't be a noticeable difference and the wires from pc-to system will probably be the standard leads, so then mp3s are the best substitute in that case. However, have a really good system then I say stick with cd's for your faveourite artists and the rest keep on mp3.
I can tell...well on my stereo i can tell...but on my puter speakers i couldn't tell much diff between 128 and 192 :(Quote:
Originally posted by Hogster@21 August 2003 - 00:16
actully just on the quality thign I can honestly say I can here no difference between a wav or mp3 even though the quality is surpose to decrease
actully I ment wav to 192
and yes shit computer speakers like mine makes crap mp3s soudn better I know Put them I a good stero and yes you can hear that dreadful hummmmm
It's not so much the hummm as it is clarity. The difference on good speakers between 128 and 192 is massive, you can hear the notes so much clearer, you can hear more voices at once and the channels are seperated better so stereo imaging is preformed at a higher standard and far away instruments individually make up the song instead of being grouped together and sounding muddy.
yes thats a nice way to put It I know what you mean I just didn't know how to quite word itQuote:
It's not so much the hummm as it is clarity. The difference on good speakers between 128 and 192 is massive, you can hear the notes so much clearer, you can hear more voices at once and the channels are seperated better so stereo imaging is preformed at a higher standard and far away instruments individually make up the song instead of being grouped together and sounding muddy.
;) Yeah.....but when you Pay for a CD or lets say a few CDs you want to keep them Scratch free and without no fingerprints getting on them.So Ripping them to MP3 and Storing the Original is what alot of People do.
That's the first thing that I do when I buy a new CD. If you breathe to hard on a CD it will scratch its just about as bad as vinyl is.Quote:
Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@20 August 2003 - 15:36
;) Yeah.....but when you Pay for a CD or lets say a few CDs you want to keep them Scratch free and without no fingerprints getting on them.So Ripping them to MP3 and Storing the Original is what alot of People do.
You have all been mislead on this subject.
The answer is quite simple: Original CD - No question about it.
I happen to know that when you convert an MP3 to the standard music format on CDR, there are hidden subconscious messages added throughout each track which will rot your brain when you listen to them.
I strongly urge you to stop your illegal practices of pirating music, and go out to your local music store and buy your music on Original CDs from this point forward.
There is a newer technology, which will do much more than rot your brain, which is due to be released early next week. I cannot say anything more than that, other than to warn you not to put yourselves into the unfortunate situation of being on the hearing end of a CDR which has been converted from the MP3 format after this new technology has been released. You will be VERY sorry, I assure you.
Again, I strongly urge you to stop your illegal practices, move away from the darkness and come back toward the light.
Sincerely,
Mr. Sherman
Another RIAA attempt to scare us :PQuote:
Originally posted by Mr. Sherman@20 August 2003 - 15:52
You have all been mislead on this subject.
The answer is quite simple: Original CD - No question about it.
I happen to know that when you convert an MP3 to the standard music format on CDR, there are hidden subconscious messages added throughout each track which will rot your brain when you listen to them.
I strongly urge you to stop your illegal practices of pirating music, and go out to your local music store and buy your music on Original CDs from this point forward.
There is a newer technology, which will do much more than rot your brain, which is due to be released early next week. I cannot say anything more than that, other than to warn you not to put yourselves into the unfortunate situation of being on the hearing end of a CDR which has been converted from the MP3 format after this new technology has been released. You will be VERY sorry, I assure you.
Again, I strongly urge you to stop your illegal practices, move away from the darkness and come back toward the light.
Sincerely,
Mr. Sherman
Ironically, if we did infact stop sharing music due to the pressure put on by RIAA, then surely RIAA members would loose thier job? All this because RIAA are fighting to give artists such as Britney Spears (millionair) a few extra dollars in her already full wallet. These are the artists who are so rich, that a few months of intrest from thier bank account could (if all went downhill) support a fairly healthy life-style. Then for those who lost thier jobs from the RIAA after this "victory", when getting employed a lot of businesses would read the C.V and think "oh dear, do we employ this person then?".
Regardless, I own countless CD's, and per-chance if I were to partake in such a quintessential ritual to the growth of artists - downloading thier mp3s - I would still buy thier CD from my local music store. The majority of us - although can afford cd's - we can't afford to buy a cd which we find we hate, then either give it to someone or sell it to a second-hand music store at half the price. So in that prespective, would testing a song or two from an artist's latest album be a crime? I think not. Perhaps the artists should put a few of thier songs - as some do - on their webpage for download, to see if we wish to buy the cd.
Let's face it, if it were not for the p2p revolution, then there would never have been such a large internet community to talk to one-another where people share music they create and names of bands they like. The p2p revolution itself I believe has sparked a new-wave of musicians because they have more to inspire them than the bland music from the charts, so perhaps in a decade we will have a mass of extremely tallented musicians who will change the way we view music and start a new fantastic genre, it may happen which largly would be down to p2p. I mean basically, what young musician can afford lessons, instrument strings and cd's to inspire them? I don't think many on pocket money or a small job could.
Anyway, i do agree however, cd's are better to listen to as its all about high-fidelity, to get such you need the original mastered cd.
Make me. :PQuote:
Originally posted by Mr. Sherman@20 August 2003 - 11:52
Again, I strongly urge you to stop your illegal practices, move away from the darkness and come back toward the light.
[sarcasm]Yeah, all it took was a good stern talking to in order to get me to quit. I've learned my lesson.[/sarcasm]
Seriously though, that's really lame.
But back on topic now, I honestly can't tell the difference between a 56k mono mp3 and an original CD, but supposedly an mp3 encoded with lame alt preset standard or greater is indisinguishable from the original. Whether the original sounds the same as an mp3 depends on how it was encoded, I guess. And I don't see how there could be any noticable difference between a burnt CD and an original, unless it was burnt from low quality mp3's. If it was burnt with the .wav's, how could the exact same data sound any different depending on whether it's from the original or the copy? I don't see how an exact copy couldn't be a perfect substitute.
It's hard to say really. If you done an exact copy form CD to CD-R in theory it should maintain quality, the only factors changing it would be the laser-type, speed at copied, colour etc. The copying device wouldn't be as good as a big record companys machineary (which I believe is just a stamper, meaning it stamps cds instead of burns them).
If you were converting a wav- mp3 then changed it back eventually to wav to put on a cd, the quality would be lost due to mp3s cutting off a lot of the bass frequencies which human ears wont hear. So the differences (if ripped at a high birate) should be minimal if copying to cd-r just a little less clarity, thats all.
However, if your cd-player has trouble (from hi-fi system) reading copied cd's the quality will be reduced further still, so it is still best to have the original but the differences really, for humans at that frequency, are minimal.
just a comment, but reading the pinned topic 'guide to quality mp3's' it says that through that method of encoding (EAC and LAME if u know what im talking about) the mp3 file will sound exactly like the original CD, even by audiophiles listening with hi-tech equipment. ive tried this method and its sound perfect on the computer, so i would say mp3s should sound just as good, though only if they are made correctly.
its funny you mention the RIAA again my Uni teacher I wa arguing with
he said that it is ilegal to even put you own collection of bought CDs onto your own HD I was arguing with him for hrs so he showed me a site and it cleary states that it is illegal couldn't believe it we
even if we buy CDs RIAA still arn't happy
I have noticed out of a few comps Iv'e made that certain songs are louder than others. But those were using different bitrates, and that was before I knew about different bitrates. As for now I try to keep the MP3s I have at 192 or 128. As for MP3s better than CD? I'll buy a CD from an artist I want to support and want more music from but I'll download MP3s to eather preview something before buying or just get an album for free cuz I can't afford it at the moment.
You can't beat it if it's free!
isnt it legal to copy music for you own personal use? but who cares neways?Quote:
Originally posted by Hogster@20 August 2003 - 21:25
its funny you mention the RIAA again my Uni teacher I wa arguing with
he said that it is ilegal to even put you own collection of bought CDs onto your own HD I was arguing with him for hrs so he showed me a site and it cleary states that it is illegal couldn't believe it we
even if we buy CDs RIAA still arn't happy
well yeah thats what i thought
btw Z where those tities I want to see tities
I would have to say there is no difference between an original CD and
a MP3 file ripped at 192kbps or better using Lame as the encoder
and my choice EAC as the ripper,using the configuration file or one like it
mentioned in the pinned post.
If you can hear the differnce then pm me,because I would like to have you
mix my bands CD ;) ........With ears as perfect as yours then I would be
honored! :lol:
But come on guys we all know how subjective sound is.
to each there own (except please not below 128kbps and realy
192 sounds so much better :) )
Peace brotherdoobie :D