WHY would a sane person BUY an mp3?

Music is raped into MP3. WHY would any sane person buy one? Sure, buy music, but expect quality for your money. Download FLAC? Great idea, too bad no one sells under that model.

:Z

The ONLY reason people downloaded MP3s were because they were zero cost to them so the quality loss was acceptable.

Sure there is quality loss, but it can be down to a minimum if ripped properly. But most people do not even hear the difference…using low-medium grade MP3-players with similar quality headphones…

Another reason to use MP3 is because it still is the most commonly known and widely accepted format out there…especially for those with less technical knowledge.

i agree to RedSkittle! :iagree:
i never understood why people started to pay for low Q mp3’s - or even iTunes AAC or whatever?! :confused:

if you want to have good quality with small file size compareable to mp3, use Ogg Vorbis!
The “Oggenc 2.8 using aoTuVb4.51” produces great results when used at -q 6 (average bitrate around 192kbps); it’s “officially” known as transparent sound :wink:
sure, lossles formats might be even better (even if i doubt that any one could hear a real difference) but who wants to d-load 15-20 MB for a single song? (around 4 minutes of music)? :wink:

I think RedSkittle’s question wasn’t about why people use MP3 as an encoding method, but rather why someone would buy an MP3 as opposed to the actual CD. I’d agree that buying a CD is certainly the higher quality alternative, but most people who buy MP3s do so because they don’t want to pay for the entire album when they only want one or a few of the songs on the album.

I don’t know if audiophiles would agree with that. If you visit a forum like HydrogenAudio, you’ll see that Musepack is the favored lossy format. The only problem is lack of support from portable players.

Well, comparing to the price you pay for a fresh audio cd i think the itunes and mp3 sales aren’t that bad.

The ONLY reason people downloaded MP3s were because they were zero cost to them so the quality loss was acceptable.

Then do tell me, why is the ringtone business so booming? That are freaking midi/real audio files of the same music! Horrible horrible quality, yet everyone seems to download or purchase them.

Real audiophiles would never agree with a lossy format :wink:
and Ogg Vorbis has been tested with blind listening tests very often, and it was often called transparent. this just means, no difference noticable between the original sound file and the compressed one.
well, i must admit, i’m an Ogg’er :wink: my complete music archive is in .ogg - i just like it :wink: and nowadays, there are the first portables player out there wich support ogg as well :slight_smile:
even if i don’t understand why not every portable player supports it, as using .ogg if free, no license fee to pay. :wink:

Well, I do not purchase or download them. There’s even no ringtone available, which is “my music” :wink:
but, for anyone else than a 12 year old girl (sorry, cdf-ladies :wink: ) it should be not problem making a ringtone-mp3 yourself with a simple audio editor. load your song, cut off the part you want to use, downmix it to mono, normalize it, take out the bass a bit and re-save it as mp3 in 64kbps. copying is done via bluetooth :wink: that’s it… :slight_smile:

Well there was a test on the Gadget Show over here a while back, where they tested MP3 against a unripped CD on a number of players from cheap to top of the range (£20k) players and they found none of them could distinguish between MP3 or CD.

Very few people actually can distinguish between them, many say they can but in many it is thought doing it as they know when they are listening to a CD or MP3. Whereas in the Gadget show test where they thought they would it was a blind test the listener and speakers where either on the other side of a screen so couldn’t see what was being used or in another room (I can’t exactly remeber which they do a lot of testing).

I have used minidisc since it first came out and cant fault it,mp3 is a poor man’s minidisc but without the disc.Once you have deleated an mp3 track its gone.then have to import the track again at a later date.What a waste of time. Once its on a minidisc just take it out and put in another group of songs on another disc.its like having loads of mp3 players at once.For once sony had the right idea now they have hd minidisc for storage of files etc via the computer.Can only get better.

It all depends on your ears. If you’re one of those nuts that say that anything less than 320kbps is murder on the music, I feel for you. Personally, I have ears that, while sensitive, adapt very quickly to the quality of the music. A 160kbps mp3 sounds perfectly fine to me. I can juuuust hear the slightest quality loss in 128kbps mp3s, but I don’t notice it if I don’t look for it, and it’s so small it doesn’t bother me anyway.
I’ve also transcoded my whole music collection to (horror!) quality 2 Ogg Vorbis (average of 96 kbps) and it still sounds perfectly fine to me.
While there are golden-eared audiophiles that may even be able to hear the difference between a 320kpbs mp3 and a 192kbps one (and if you think you can, I encourage you to try blind testing), for the vast majority of people a 128-to-192 mp3 will be fine, and that’s why people buy (or, most often, download) music in mp3 format.

I’d just wish the world switched to ogg.

:iagree:
Amen!

if a good encoder is used i cant really tell a difference between the orignal and a 160kbps MP3, ive always used 192kbps MP3 anyway, i can certainly tell a difference at 128kbps or lower and 64kbps WMA quite a popular one amongst the kids just sounds like somebody playing music through an underwater telephone box :slight_smile:

If An Average CD Price Is $12.95 Canadian And There Are About 17 Tracks That Comes Out To About $0.75 Cents Per 1.5Mbps File. I Think A 320Kbps File On ITunes Should Be About $0.05 Cents!

In My Opinion A Standard CD-R Recorded In Playstation XA Mode Is 750MB Or 700 In Joilet Mode 1 And The Average 4 Minute 320Kbps 44.1khz Mp3 Is 9Mb In Size And A 700MB CD Can Hold 6300 MP3s? So Thats Like 360 CDs! So If The Average CD Is 17 Tracks At $0.50 A Track On ITunes That Means $3150 For The Ultimate CD!

If people want to play their music in an Ipod and do not have the time or knowledge to convert to mp3 it does not bother me, that is their business. Plus they would have to purchase a cd just to get the songs they want off of it. I think most people paying for them listen in Ipods etc. with mediocre headphones etc. Personally I have very few mp3s and any recording of music I do is in wav at a minimum and usually in DVD-AUDIO format but some would say that is a waste and for most it would be unless they have something to play a DVD-AUDIO disk with.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but music is raped before it’s put onto the CD. Current mastering practices compress (rape) anything that’s recorded and ruining their dynamics for a commercial sound. To convert to mp3 and call it raped is moot.

maybe cause they want to listen to their music on the go?

Well, at lower than 128kbps bitrates mp3s start sounding really bad. Good for voice, but definitely not for music.
What irks me about wma is (aside from the DRM thing) that micro$oft has managed to convince the manufacturers of mp3 players that a 64kbps wma is equivalent, quality-wise, to a 128kbps mp3. Which is absolute bullshit. Even 64kbps ogg vorbis sounds noticeably worse than a 128kbps mp3; wma is even less efficient. Yet, you always see on the technical specs of players “You can store up to 2000* or 4000** minutes or music”. Then you look for the asterisks, and you find something along the lines of
*: 128kbps mp3 **: 64kbps wma
Of course, no sane person would ever want to have 64kbps wmas, but who cares, when such brilliant marketing allows you to put a larger number on the box?

GD_ROM_XA: do you actually press shift at the start of every word to type like that or do you have a program that does it for you?

It’s all subjective, you can’t really claim someone is a “nut” because they’re more sensitive to quality loss or have better hearing or superior playback equipment than you

Well, I was kinda joking… the “nut” part wasn’t entirely serious.
I say “kinda” because while I know that I am less sensitive to low bitrates than most, I seriously doubt that people can notice the difference between a 192kbps mp3 and a 320kbps one. When I see someone who can do it during a blind test, then I’ll eat my own words. But it has yet to happen.