[Trevor]

On 28/02/2017 11:40 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/27/2017 11:33 PM, Trevor wrote:

geoff (or maybe it was Nil) wrote
Another factor is that some popular music programs like Apple iTunes
and Windows Media Player create low-quality files by default. You can
change that, but I'm sure most people don't know how or care.

Disagree. Most people who could be bothered to encode their own files,
rather than simply download someone else's, know what they are doing.

Again, we have the "most people" argument. While I haven't taken a world
wide poll to prove it, I firmly believe that most people don't encode
their own files. That's too much bother, both to obtain an unencoded
source, and then figure out how to encode it and what to do with it.
"Most people" just let iTunes take care of that business. Really.

That was MY point, "most people" don't. So those who do usually care a
little more.


If you ever looked at the illegal sites you'd see they have
almost universally been at 256 or 320kbs for quite a few years

Show me an illegal site.
And then, show me that what they're deliving at 256 or 320 kbps were
encoded from full resolution files.

OK find a file less than 256kbs on newalbumreleases dot net amongst the
many thousands they have if you can. Plenty of FLAC there too.
NOT suggesting you should actually download any illegally though!!

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/28/2017 11:37 PM, Trevor wrote:

That was MY point, "most people" don't. So those who do usually care a
little more.

OK, so we agree on this. Now we can argue about whether majority rules,
and when it comes to marketing, _other than products marketed
specifically for a non-majority class_, the products "most people" see
are those that are suited for their class.

OK find a file less than 256kbs on newalbumreleases dot net amongst the
many thousands they have if you can. Plenty of FLAC there too.
NOT suggesting you should actually download any illegally though!!

So the way to get _apparently_ high resolution files is from a pirate
web site? I know there are legal (as in making some attempt to adhere
to provisions of copyright and performance rights) sources for real high
resolution files, and anyone, including the proverbial "most people" can
obtain them. But the majority of "most people" would prefer to settle
for lower cost or less risky sources for their music, and are happy just
to have the music available.

But let's talk about something related. Is there anything magic about
"320 kbps" if you don't know any more than that? I looked at the Jazz
and Blues category figuring I'd at least have heard of some of the
artists (and I did). "New releases" suggests CDs, so they start with a
16-bit 44.1 kHz source. But many, at least in this category, might be
new releases on CD but are sourced from material originally issued 30 or
more years earlier. So what's the real bandwidth? What's the real
resolution? What's the real noise floor? What's the real distortion?

You can make a 320 kbps file from a 64 kbps file. And as far as I know,
there isn't a way of deconstructing an MP3 file and getting back to its
original source. Is there?


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

On 1/03/2017 11:51 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/28/2017 11:37 PM, Trevor wrote:
That was MY point, "most people" don't. So those who do usually care a
little more.

OK, so we agree on this. Now we can argue about whether majority rules,
and when it comes to marketing, _other than products marketed
specifically for a non-majority class_, the products "most people" see
are those that are suited for their class.

More usually simply what companies choose to provide, regardless their
customers are a wide range of class and needs,



OK find a file less than 256kbs on newalbumreleases dot net amongst the
many thousands they have if you can. Plenty of FLAC there too.
NOT suggesting you should actually download any illegally though!!

So the way to get _apparently_ high resolution files is from a pirate
web site? I know there are legal (as in making some attempt to adhere
to provisions of copyright and performance rights) sources for real high
resolution files, and anyone, including the proverbial "most people" can
obtain them. But the majority of "most people" would prefer to settle
for lower cost or less risky sources for their music, and are happy just
to have the music available.


As I already indicated, most legal download sites have long since
improved on 128kbs, although many are still 256kbs rather than maximum
rates. I wouldn't pay for any compressed file myself though, I still buy
*MANY* CD's and do it myself. I would accept FLAC if it was actually a
fair bit cheaper, but usually isn't.



But let's talk about something related. Is there anything magic about
"320 kbps" if you don't know any more than that? I looked at the Jazz
and Blues category figuring I'd at least have heard of some of the
artists (and I did). "New releases" suggests CDs, so they start with a
16-bit 44.1 kHz source. But many, at least in this category, might be
new releases on CD but are sourced from material originally issued 30 or
more years earlier. So what's the real bandwidth? What's the real
resolution? What's the real noise floor? What's the real distortion?

That's a completely separate issue. Obviously the CD rips are no better
than the CD's they are ripped from regardless of encoding. But often
much better than 30 YO vinyl, although not always.



You can make a 320 kbps file from a 64 kbps file.

Sure you can, but who does?

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

You can make a 320 kbps file from a 64 kbps file.

On 3/2/2017 10:33 PM, Trevor wrote:

Sure you can, but who does?


Someone who wants to make you think you're getting a high resolution
file. I doubt that there's much of this on the major download sites, but
someone who has a 20 year collection of songs could easily batch-convert
his collection to 320 kbps. Psychoacoustics takes over and he's
overjoyed (with no testing whatsoever) at how much better they sound,
and he shares them with the world.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

On 3/03/2017 10:47 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
You can make a 320 kbps file from a 64 kbps file.

On 3/2/2017 10:33 PM, Trevor wrote:

Sure you can, but who does?


Someone who wants to make you think you're getting a high resolution
file. I doubt that there's much of this on the major download sites, but
someone who has a 20 year collection of songs could easily batch-convert
his collection to 320 kbps. Psychoacoustics takes over and he's
overjoyed (with no testing whatsoever) at how much better they sound,
and he shares them with the world.

"Could", of course. So tell of one instance you know of? Or why are you
worrying about something that doesn't affect you and probably never
happens anyway? Sure doesn't bother me though.

Trevor.