Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: fallacies

Author:Samuel Reynolds
Posted:7/13/2000; 11:56:43 AM
Topic:scriptingNews outline for 7/12/2000
Msg #:18577 (In response to 18553)
Prev/Next:18576 / 18578

Sorry if I'm jumping in late on this one, but I'm curious to know why people would pay so much for MP3's. I've downloaded a few just for the heck of it, and I tried Napster ... and the quality leaves me nonplussed.

I suspect that most MP3s on Napster are home-encoded using the default encoder settings. Those defaults typically compromise sound quality in favor of smaller file sizes. A 3-minute song reduced to 1.5MB is encoded at about 128kbps. It's like JPG (or any other lossy compression format): a file encoded for low quality might be less than 1/4 the size of one encoded for best quality. And, despite the hype, MP3 is a lossy compression format. It tries to throw away only the parts that people don't notice, but the more you throw away, the harder it is to disguise the losses.

I experimented with the bits-per-second setting on N2MP3 (a MacOS encoder), and found that it has a major impact on play quality. At 128kbps, there's significant degradation--like AM radio, or worse. 192kbps is commonly used for pop & rock recordings, but I could definitely still hear the difference there, as well; IMO, it still wasn't as good as FM radio. I settled on 384kbps; a careful listener (or an audiophile) may be able to tell the difference if listening alternately to the original CD and the encoded MP3, but you still get better than 7:1 compression. If the primary distribution format was 256kbps or 384kbsp MP3 (other production elements remaining equal), I'd prefer by far to simply pay for and download the individual songs I want to buying a CD on which I might like only a couple of the songs. (256kbps is okay for rock and most pop, but for folk or classical a higher rate is needed.) I think the real issues are (1) how much to charge/pay for a song or CD (perhaps $X per song or $8X for a 12- to 14-track CD-"bulk packaging") and (2) how can such payments be handled (business model, technology, etc.).

Call me nuts, but lately I've found that part of me wants the MP3 craze not to get industry support, for fear that getting a lossless copy of the music is going to become more expensive and difficult.

On the other hand, MP3 recording is a godsend for me; I have bunches of old, out-of-print LPs. I never played them much; instead, I copied them to tape, then played the tapes until they wore out. Then I'd have to do it all over again. Now I can do them once, and never again have to repeat the (time-consuming) process. 'Course, that means I have to play some 30-year-old LPs again for only the 3rd or 4th time....

And I *haven't* posted them on Napster et al, nor do I intend to do so. I transcribe them from LP for personal use, not for distribution.

- Sam

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:55:40 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.