janrocks i do not buy cd's as to me they are not worth the time or money i use cassette 90 min on each side,all recorded from records,if i bring them into my computer the file format is avi not the crapy rip off stuff...128 or 320kbps mp3.. a avi file can be put on cd as it is..i do have Jimi Hendrix live. and a ton of irish music on vinyl..i even have the records that are on 78rpm..from when i was a kid..example i have all FATS DOMINO on 78rpm,transfered to tape..i have all the album's of the BEATLES on 33 1/3rpm and more........ i say the kids today do not know good quality music as we heard as kids and now...they are being ripped off from the music studios..and the jirks at apple with there ipod drm...and 128kbps crap.. the junk they buy for 99 cents just don't cut it,no quality.. when i play music it through a tube amp i build..
256 vs. 128 kbps: Can You Tell the Difference? http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/003993.html Wow. This is some kind of day. Baseball. Rock Band--an upcoming Guitar Hero sequel with bass, drum, and vocal parts (!)--was announced for the PS3 and the XBox 360. Oh, and DRM-free music from EMI. Clearly I'm pretty psyched. I applaud EMI for making DRM-free music available to online music stores, and I'm glad it comes with a boost in audio quality. Apple will offer the option of converting any eligible iTMS purchases for $.30 a piece. But I'm sure there are at least a few people out there who are just fine playing their $.99 128kbps tracks on their iPods. The new DRM-free files may be twice as big, but that doesn't mean they'll sound twice as good. (Demo below requires the QuickTime plugin.) So is the boost in quality worth it? I certainly think so, but then I'm a bit of a freak about sound quality. Here's a quick way to see for yourself. I dug around the office for some CDs and ripped a couple short clips (nothing over 20 seconds) in both 128 kbps and 256 kbps AAC. Download these files, give 'em a listen and let us know if you can tell the difference. Or for an even better test, fire up iTunes and rip a few of your own CDs at different bit-rates. It's cool. I'll wait. Or just play the files right here: Mozart in 128kbps Mozart in 256kbps We also have a short sample of "Man on the Moon" by R.E.M. R.E.M. in 128kbps R.E.M. in 256kbps So what do you think? The difference is more obvious in the 256kbps Mozart piece (the strings don't sound so "mushy"). The R.E.M. 256kbps excerpt has more clarity or brilliance. Now, I'm listening on headphones and I usually don't mind casual (brief) music listening this way or on my PC's speakers. However, it's my personal experience that almost anything encoded at less than 320kbps played on my living room stereo system draws my attention to the low quality and it quickly becomes annoying because of that. ImaPhake April 02, 2007 7:11 PM PT Buying music at 128kbps is like buying a book that only shows every other letter - you don't experience the work as intended by the author. Remember, lossy compression is named that way for a reason. logandurand April 03, 2007 5:40 AM PT My day job is building and operating extremely large concert audio systems. Low bit rates MP3's are quite obvious even to the untrained ear. Totally acceptable for my computers multimedia speakers, but in a high quality audio environment, nothing beats a good old C.D. GO HERE TO HEAR THE DIFFERENCE,YE NEED APPLE QUICK TIME TO PLAY THE TOONS http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/003993.html
He has the same day job I used to have.. Live sound system op. Nothing beats a great live band, and I have seen some of those in my time. My setup disks on the road were Joe Satriani and Robin Trower.. Sat for the clean power and dynamics, and Trower because there is a depth to the Bridge of Sighs recording that is so missing from almost every modern multitracked work. The title track (especially off vinyl) has to be heard to be believed. I have a really nice copy of this.. almost totally clean, surprising as it's from way back (74 I think) which is deserving of a lossless rip. The one I got off some torrents a while ago was 320, and crackly... not to mention FLAT!! I remember this album being the first thing I ever saw on CD, for a philips £2000 odd cd player and came with it as a demo. I think the real shame of the digital age isn't so much the technology as the total garbage the big4 are pushing down our throats.. What ever happened to taking a risk (remember Stump?) and giving the public something different for a change, instead of the constant diet of talentless rap, r&b (rubbish and boring.. when did r&b mean black artists only? The Stones are an R&B act.. according to the "file under" instructions on my copy of Aftermath) and created girl and boy "bands", I use that term very losely.. really I mean "no ideas of their own talentless karaoke singers".. To quote the Jello Biafra "Is my cock big enough, my brain small enough.. For you to make me a star... Give me a toot, I'll sell you my soul.. Pull my strings and I'll go far" Remember Pop Will Eat Itself?.. weren't they so right? Oh.. the same goes for digital TV.. ever watched something like a motorsport event and ended up thinking you were watching a computer simulation, not the real thing? When we eventually lose all analog broadcasting they will control everything we see and hear, and we will not be able to tell reality from digitised fiction. I don't know why. but I don't somehow like the idea of that.
