rant: music

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Let's see. You want to commit intentional copyright infringement, and you are PO'd because your friends didn't do it good enough? I guess you get what you pay for.

I'm not trying to preach here, but I am chuckling a bit.


TL
 
oh I know, but still it's like an etiquette of music... don't make it ****ty.
 
The death of musical nuance was the invention of discrete recording formats. Everything today is just too damned clean, and I am not talking about the hiss and pop you get from scratched vinyl. It's nice for movies though.
 
I used to encode at 128kbs. I could not tell the diffrence, then Itunes imported at 256 so I just left it there.
 
Gah, so i stole this car the other day and the damn thing has messed alignment. Now everytime i drive it i have to keep the steering wheel cocked to the side!
 
I've found the 128kbps aac encoding to be fine for me- a little better than straight mp3. It's a compromise I don't mind making, as I can fit more of my music on my iPod at any given time. I have a good ear, and am a musician, but am not an audiophile. I can tell the difference, especially on good headphones, but very rarely am conscious of it, as I focus in on the musical content and not the fidelity once I get it to sound ok. I'm not questioning your opinion, but just saying that it's not a big deal to some of us who really do appreciate music in a serious way.
 
brewt00l said:
IMHO it just goes to show you the further commoditization of music....

Isn't anything other than a free live performance commodification? If so, what's wrong with people choosing the format they like best?
 
elkdog said:
I've found the 128kbps aac encoding to be fine for me- a little better than straight mp3. It's a compromise I don't mind making, as I can fit more of my music on my iPod at any given time. I have a good ear, and am a musician, but am not an audiophile. I can tell the difference, especially on good headphones, but very rarely am conscious of it, as I focus in on the musical content and not the fidelity once I get it to sound ok. I'm not questioning your opinion, but just saying that it's not a big deal to some of us who really do appreciate music in a serious way.

you can get used to the 128, but then throw in a 320 track and you will hear a difference. It'll be so much clearer, like your actually listening to them rather than through a tin can. The same works vice vera, 320 or flac to 128 and wow, suddenly I though I had earmuffs on.

also please no ethics on the stealing music thing. You keeps yours and I'll do the same.
 
I think the easiest way to hear the difference is to use some in-ear phones. I mean, even the $5 KOSS PLUGS I have are high enough quality to make the high end (cymbals and strings) sound like mud with 128k encoding. The sweet spot for me between size and quality is 192k though as I get bigger and bigger drives, I changed my iTunes rip to 256k for the heck of it.
 
elkdog said:
Isn't anything other than a free live performance commodification? If so, what's wrong with people choosing the format they like best?

....by commoditization I was referring to what the combination of portable MP3 devices and massive availability of content that can be horked online at little to zero cost has done to the music and way many many people relate to it, the acceptance of poor quality being a great example of that.
 
brewt00l said:
....by commoditization I was referring to what the combination of portable MP3 devices and massive availability of content that can be horked online at little to zero cost has done to the music and way many many people relate to it, the acceptance of poor quality being a great example of that.

Ok. Then yeah, I agree. Still, I love my iPod and my 128 kbps music. It's probably worth noting that I still break out the CD's when I listen on my stereo- it's only when I'm out and about that I use the iPod. The background noise probably accounts for my lack of irritation at the lower bitrate.
 
z987k said:
also please no ethics on the stealing music thing. You keeps yours and I'll do the same.

Then, I suggest you do just that. Start a thread about how you are not satisfied with the quality of your friend's illegal acts, and you'll get such a response. Expect it. Deal with it. Start a thread about how pissed you are that you got seeds in your grass, and you'll get a similar reaction.


TL
 
This falls under TMI. If you want to have a discussion about people and their willingness to accept poor quality music files.. leave it at that. It's like talking about cutting up a keg and adding in the extra distracting info of how they illegally obtained it.

FYI, I think Apple continues to include those crappy earphones so you can't hear the difference btw 128 and 256k. If anyone is still using those included earbuds, please do yourself a favor and buy some Koss "The Plug" or "Sparkplugs" for a whopping $15 and get some bass in your ear.
 
Bobby_M said:
This falls under TMI. If you want to have a discussion about people and their willingness to accept poor quality music files.. leave it at that. It's like talking about cutting up a keg and adding in the extra distracting info of how they illegally obtained it.

Agreed, I should have just left that out. Fixed, we can continue the discussion on music quality and such if anyone wants.
 
please no ethics on the stealing music thing. You keeps yours and I'll do the same.

Your complaint boils down to this: you are upset that the artists, producers, and studio technicians utilized hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of the latest, greatest equipment along with their considerable time, effort, and skill to produce music to a very high standard and all of that equipment, time, effort, and skill is compromised when instead of repaying them for their time, effort, and skill you blatantly rob them of their work.

Were you looking for sympathy?

Rick
 
brewt00l said:
If we are going to get into the ethics and economics of it all, give this a read:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Yes! Excellent and 100% spot-on, from a guy who knows what he's talking about! I can't get too worked up about the "poor record companies" shrinking profits these days. They've been ripping artists off for decades and now, their usefulness is coming to an end.
 
Re: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

I'll assume, then, that when you steal the music you send $15 to the band. No?

If you think think the record companies are a bunch bastards, they're a bunch of bastards both before and after you steal the music; afterwards, though, you've become a thief. Bottom line, it's not about sticking it to the record companies, it's about wanting it without paying for it. The rest is rationalization.

Rick
 
I gave Radiohead $10 for In Rainbows. Worth it to me for what they're doing.
 
Back
Top