Help me BUY mp3's
- Thread starter WeGotSnakes
- Start date
- Status
DarkMortar
In Runtime
- Messages
- 339
.wav files are losses right?
Whiteyyyyy
Baseband Member
- Messages
- 28
- Location
- Eastern Seaboard
So is all of MP3 a trustfull site, do any of you use it?
http://www.allofmp3.com all the way...!!! 
It's sooooooo much cheaper than anywhere else online (that I know of anyways) and as already said, no DRM protection to make your life a misery, and there's loads of different file formats and quality levels you can choose when you use their online encoding service, including lossless formats! - makes me very happy.
Allofmp3 also provide a free 'allTunes' application which you can download and install, which, like iTunes, allows you to search, preview, purchase and download songs from their site through the application itself, without having to use a web browser.
As for whether the service is legal or not, currently as I understand it, a loophole in Russian law allows the operations of allofmp3 to be classed as 'legal' (however whether the service is legal to be used in other countries is not clear and is in dispute, and allofmp3 have stated in the disclaimer that, quote...
http://music.allofmp3.com/help/help.shtml?prm=legal&rnd=841248#top
'The user bears sole responsibility for any use and distribution of all materials received from AllOFMP3.com. This responsibility is dependent on the national legislation in each user's country of residence. The Administration of AllOFMP3.com does not possess information on the laws of each particular country and is not responsible for the actions of foreign users.'
Some organizations such as the IFPI and BPI believe that users who use the site break copyright law. Allofmp3 have already embraced legal pressure.
...But, for UK users, there's some comfort as the BPI have stated: "We are going to seek a judgment not against the users of the site, but against the site itself."
If you want to read up on more info, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allofmp3 and some fresh news from ars technica: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7676.html .
It's sooooooo much cheaper than anywhere else online (that I know of anyways) and as already said, no DRM protection to make your life a misery, and there's loads of different file formats and quality levels you can choose when you use their online encoding service, including lossless formats! - makes me very happy
.Allofmp3 also provide a free 'allTunes' application which you can download and install, which, like iTunes, allows you to search, preview, purchase and download songs from their site through the application itself, without having to use a web browser.
As for whether the service is legal or not, currently as I understand it, a loophole in Russian law allows the operations of allofmp3 to be classed as 'legal' (however whether the service is legal to be used in other countries is not clear and is in dispute, and allofmp3 have stated in the disclaimer that, quote...
http://music.allofmp3.com/help/help.shtml?prm=legal&rnd=841248#top
'The user bears sole responsibility for any use and distribution of all materials received from AllOFMP3.com. This responsibility is dependent on the national legislation in each user's country of residence. The Administration of AllOFMP3.com does not possess information on the laws of each particular country and is not responsible for the actions of foreign users.'
Some organizations such as the IFPI and BPI believe that users who use the site break copyright law. Allofmp3 have already embraced legal pressure.
...But, for UK users, there's some comfort as the BPI have stated: "We are going to seek a judgment not against the users of the site, but against the site itself."
If you want to read up on more info, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allofmp3 and some fresh news from ars technica: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060906-7676.html .
I used to use allofmp3.com all of the time before I start using torrents.
003 you need to cut it out.
I'll explain to you why the rest of the world listens to mp3. I use to be a little like you (I didnt force my opinion of others though). that is, I was being too judgmental and believing everything that I read.
I use to read both audio and stereo review magazines back in the early to mid 90's. when mp3 first come out they explain how it compressed the signal and how it threw audible data away and anybody could tell the difference between it and the original source (cd). so I hated mp3 before I even heard it just like every other audiophile did back then.
well one day I went over my friend brian's house (I wasn't into computer then). he show me all of this music that he downloaded off the internet. I put him down saying mp3 sound like shi_t. I refuse to even listen to his songs.
then one day my cousin give me her computer (I use to say that computers will lead to the end of the world, so I would never get one) because she got some new furniture.
I hook it up and dialed up the internet. on a whim I type up a song that I haven't heard in almost 20 years (captain rock). it came immediately up and said click here to download the song (downloading mp3 was legal back then. you didn't need peer to peer programs like napster to get music. you just type the name in google and it was there)
I downloaded the song. it sounded great. it sounded way better than the original song that I will never hear again. I download more old songs. I was hooked into computers forever. these songs sounded better than the versions that I had (cassette and records).
mind you in 1998 the price of a cd recorders was $1500.00 (I had one. I paid 350 for it because a friend of mine own a pawn shop, so he let me get it for what he paid for it. I sold it for $700.00, when my car's transmission went out and I neede to get it fixed to a guy that worked at another pawn shop, so he could have it for personal use). 2 year before that cd recorders were $6,000.00. Anyway having perfect bit for bit perfect copies for music was not into effect yet.
so for the rest of the world, we had to deal with cassette tapes and records for our older music. the more audiophilic people like me had reel to reel, Nakamichi's tape deck (which gave a signal to noise ratio close to cd) or hifi vcr's (they had the same spec as cd, we use to record our favorite music unto them)
guess what? this is what the audio magazines missed
mp3 sound better than records and cassettes and most early cd's. the cassette alway had noise issues plus wow and flutter (we put up with that for 30+ years). record had scratches and warp noise plus phrase distortion (that part actually improve the sound). early cd had a severely harse midrange sound plus they had a bad mike effect to them
back then most people were uploading mp3 from reel to reel. so it sound better than the music that we were already listening to and it took the world by storm. everybody bought a computer. most people bought them for music related purposes.
then they made file sharing illegal. dam
003
80% of the world can't tell the difference from mp3 or cd. most of them are under the false impression that if it is encoded at 320 kbps, that it sound better than the original copy. that use to be one of the myths that was floating around.
stop imposing your will unto people. that is your preference to listen to flac not theirs. if you look you are lightweight dissing .wav. flac is not better, it's just smaller of the same quality
003 you need to cut it out.
I'll explain to you why the rest of the world listens to mp3. I use to be a little like you (I didnt force my opinion of others though). that is, I was being too judgmental and believing everything that I read.
I use to read both audio and stereo review magazines back in the early to mid 90's. when mp3 first come out they explain how it compressed the signal and how it threw audible data away and anybody could tell the difference between it and the original source (cd). so I hated mp3 before I even heard it just like every other audiophile did back then.
well one day I went over my friend brian's house (I wasn't into computer then). he show me all of this music that he downloaded off the internet. I put him down saying mp3 sound like shi_t. I refuse to even listen to his songs.
then one day my cousin give me her computer (I use to say that computers will lead to the end of the world, so I would never get one) because she got some new furniture.
I hook it up and dialed up the internet. on a whim I type up a song that I haven't heard in almost 20 years (captain rock). it came immediately up and said click here to download the song (downloading mp3 was legal back then. you didn't need peer to peer programs like napster to get music. you just type the name in google and it was there)
I downloaded the song. it sounded great. it sounded way better than the original song that I will never hear again. I download more old songs. I was hooked into computers forever. these songs sounded better than the versions that I had (cassette and records).
mind you in 1998 the price of a cd recorders was $1500.00 (I had one. I paid 350 for it because a friend of mine own a pawn shop, so he let me get it for what he paid for it. I sold it for $700.00, when my car's transmission went out and I neede to get it fixed to a guy that worked at another pawn shop, so he could have it for personal use). 2 year before that cd recorders were $6,000.00. Anyway having perfect bit for bit perfect copies for music was not into effect yet.
so for the rest of the world, we had to deal with cassette tapes and records for our older music. the more audiophilic people like me had reel to reel, Nakamichi's tape deck (which gave a signal to noise ratio close to cd) or hifi vcr's (they had the same spec as cd, we use to record our favorite music unto them)
guess what? this is what the audio magazines missed
mp3 sound better than records and cassettes and most early cd's. the cassette alway had noise issues plus wow and flutter (we put up with that for 30+ years). record had scratches and warp noise plus phrase distortion (that part actually improve the sound). early cd had a severely harse midrange sound plus they had a bad mike effect to them
back then most people were uploading mp3 from reel to reel. so it sound better than the music that we were already listening to and it took the world by storm. everybody bought a computer. most people bought them for music related purposes.
then they made file sharing illegal. dam
003
80% of the world can't tell the difference from mp3 or cd. most of them are under the false impression that if it is encoded at 320 kbps, that it sound better than the original copy. that use to be one of the myths that was floating around.
stop imposing your will unto people. that is your preference to listen to flac not theirs. if you look you are lightweight dissing .wav. flac is not better, it's just smaller of the same quality
First, hi-fi system based around vinyl will sound just as good as the most expensive CD/digital system (or better to some peoples ears). It's not that they can't tell a difference, and it's not like I'm hearing things that nobody else can hear either. It's that they don't even know there is a difference, because they have never directly compared the CD to a 128kbps mp3 on a good pair of speakers or headphones, and even if they did a lot of them probably would not even care about the difference. And as you stated most people think a 320kbps mp3 is better than the original.
I'm not imposing my will, I'm saying if you pay for music you should AT LEAST be getting a lossless copy of it so it's as good as the original. If you then want to make mp3 copies of it thats fine, but if you pay for something you should be getting the real thing. You are right FLAC and Wav sound the same. But FLAC is half the size. I don't know about you but that is something I would consider "better".
I'm not imposing my will, I'm saying if you pay for music you should AT LEAST be getting a lossless copy of it so it's as good as the original. If you then want to make mp3 copies of it thats fine, but if you pay for something you should be getting the real thing. You are right FLAC and Wav sound the same. But FLAC is half the size. I don't know about you but that is something I would consider "better".
I don't disagree with that, vinyl do sound better than cd under 2 conditions (the phrase distortion that records introduce give them a warmer sounding tone)
1. you have a nice record player
2. your records are in mint condition
most are not
back in the late ninety, I had owned over 6,000 - 8,000 records. maybe 20-30% were scratch and warp free. the rest weren't. scratched and warped records doesn't sound better than cd. they introduce all kind of distortions
at one point (1997) I gave DJ Wise about 75% of my record as I had accumulated too much stuff in my house. A couple of years later as I'm am now into mp3's, I converted most of my most important songs to cd from my records and then I gave the rest of them away. I still regret that
I had to put water of all of my scratched records to record them so it would take the extra distortion out.
1. you have a nice record player
2. your records are in mint condition
most are not
back in the late ninety, I had owned over 6,000 - 8,000 records. maybe 20-30% were scratch and warp free. the rest weren't. scratched and warped records doesn't sound better than cd. they introduce all kind of distortions
at one point (1997) I gave DJ Wise about 75% of my record as I had accumulated too much stuff in my house. A couple of years later as I'm am now into mp3's, I converted most of my most important songs to cd from my records and then I gave the rest of them away. I still regret that
I had to put water of all of my scratched records to record them so it would take the extra distortion out.
Crysalis
Systems Engineer
- Messages
- 1,675
- Location
- United States
003 - one question.
What sounds better?
FIX: 24 bit mp3 or 8 bit FLAC?
What sounds better?
FIX: 24 bit mp3 or 8 bit FLAC?
- Status
