I have another question.

Who's been able to download songs using PayPal without having to start their own account with that website?

...and folks here actually wonder why I prefer physical media, and don't do mp3s.

inspireof said:

I like this one I see you took my advice hehehe ;p

Glad U like

udo said:

TheEnglishGent said:

Have you ever done an honest ABX test? Most people can't hear the difference between lossless and 320k mp3.

Define 'people'.

Define 'difference'.

Define 'lossless'.

Define '320k'.

And what are we listening with, to and on?

It all depends on quite a lot of variables.

When you imply that watering down even average 'HiFi' CD-quality audio (16 bit PCM at 44.1 KHz sample rate) is OK do you rally mean that?

People = humans.

Difference = not perceptibly the same.

Lossless = Not compressed by some kind of digital algorithm, or for arguments sake, less than CD quality because CD isn't lossless.

You're listening on whatever equipment you have.

Most people don't have 1000's of dollars worth of top end audio gear. Heck, most don't even have 500 dollars worth. I'm not saying a lot of people don't have the gear, just that most don't. In the same way that a Ferarri might be a great car but most people don't own them.

I'm saying that when I tested a few years ago I couldn't tell the difference, so to me I do really mean it. It's not perceptibly watered down to me, even though I know that there's some technical shenanigans going on.

I'm not implying anything, just asking if others have done the same blind tests on their own gear. Are you implying that most people can tell a difference on their gear?

[Edited 2/6/13 6:01am]

Giovanni777 said:

...and folks here actually wonder why I prefer physical media, and don't do mp3s.

I'm still wondering.

Things didn't go any better when he sold physical things. In fact I'd say the Crystal Ball fiasco was much worse. Lotusflow3r t-shirts? The problem isn't the format or wether something is electronic or physical, the common problem in it all is Prince.

I know I'm an idiot but....

So I paid for the songs but now how do I download them? Right after I got to the payment confirmation screen, Safari "unexpectedly" quit however I got my confirmation e-mail. I paid via CC instead of Pay Pal.

Can anyone help?

RRA said:

I have another question.

Who's been able to download songs using PayPal without having to start their own account with that website?

Me. No problem. just clicked 'not now'.

divo02 said:

I know I'm an idiot but....

So I paid for the songs but now how do I download them? Right after I got to the payment confirmation screen, Safari "unexpectedly" quit however I got my confirmation e-mail. I paid via CC instead of Pay Pal.

Can anyone help?

If you made an account try:

http://3rdeyegirl.com/my-account/

Otherwise maybe:

http://3rdeyegirl.com/order-tracking/

RRA said:

I have another question.

Who's been able to download songs using PayPal without having to start their own account with that website?

Me..!

I did dl the songs with no problems, after paying w. Paypal I was directed back to the 3rdeyegirl site after 5-10 secs, automatically... and there - my downloads.. absolutely no problems at all...

TheEnglishGent said:

funkaholic1972 said:

I totally agree, if others want to listen to degraded, incomplete music files that is fine with me, but don't call people who care about audio quality idiots...

Have you ever done an honest ABX test? Most people can't hear the difference between lossless and 320k mp3. Some people can but they are very few and respect to those who do hear a difference but a lot of people put down mp3 just becasue they know it's lossy rather than actually being able to hear it. Most have never done a comparison to know for sure that they can tell the difference or not.

Personally I can distinguish 256 / lossless but even then, only when hearing them together. I couldn't just listen to one on on its own and tell you which was which. At 320k I can't even tell in a direct comparison.

If you've never done the test, give it a try, you may surprise yourself. But like I said, if you can tell the difference, awesome. I'm so glad I can't .

I have tested extensively, and on my home system I can clearly hear the difference between different formats/bitrates. I was shocked at the lack of definition in lower rates of mp3, the sounds gets more muddled/ blurry the further down you go in bitrate.

I have to admit at 320 it gets harder to distinguish, but still there is difference. You can hear more definition in the sounds/instruments as you go up in bitrate, and more clarity.

That's why these days I prefer to listen to high res recordings (24bit/96kHz) or vinyl, if available. I just want the best quality available, and I believe an artist should offer his/her art in the best possible quality.

It is like watching TV, if you have a HD tv you don't want your favorite movie broadcasted in SD quality. It's just a watered down low quality version that looks extra shitty on you HD tv.

TheEnglishGent said:

People = humans.

I think that is way too broad.

Hearing changes with age.

Environments shape hearing.

Training influences hearing.

And there may be more.

Difference = not perceptibly the same.

That is OK I guess.

Lossless = Not compressed by some kind of digital algorithm, or for arguments sake, less than CD quality because CD isn't lossless.

CD is not perfect but calling it `not losless` implying lossiness is kinda confusing.

You're listening on whatever equipment you have.

We can listen on my little PC, my living room stereo/TV (CRT!) system or my computer/CD room system.

Most people don't have 1000's of dollars worth of top end audio gear. Heck, most don't even have 500 dollars worth.

The latter category really needs to listen more.

I'm not implying anything, just asking if others have done the same blind tests on their own gear. Are you implying that most people can tell a difference on their gear?

That depends on the gear and the people.

And doing a blind test takes some effort when your're alone.

But I think I could do that sometime. (dump the mp3 to WAV and have the CD WAV played or the mp3 WAV, depending on some random factor)

^ that discussion is "like fucking flies" like we say in Denmark..

Giovanni777 said:

...and folks here actually wonder why I prefer physical media, and don't do mp3s.

Ok, ok, -- OK!!! >>> I would prefer CDs as well,

but since that isn't an option you better download those 4 new tracks in wav/ mp3..

It's imo silly not to, "just because"... you can't have it "your way".

Imho you really should consider to give in -- 1) the price is "rather low", 2) the quality of the songs is "rather high". (the "artistically" quality lol)...

In other words,

you should open up a little... And enjoy the music...

Come on... I know you will "enjoy the ride".. after you have made those downloads: now don't be that silly, refusing this great offer....

pleassse.. join the 2013 experience..

I know you want to, and I promise: you won't regret..

thedance said:

^ that discussion is "like fucking flies" like we say in Denmark..

in holland we say "like fucking ants"

udo said:

But I think I could do that sometime. (dump the mp3 to WAV and have the CD WAV played or the mp3 WAV, depending on some random factor)

So to sumarise, you haven't done the test.

Google abx comparison and you'll find software that can help do the test, you won't know which is being played, so it's a nice fair test. I'm not saying that you won't find a difference, you may have great ears and great equipment.

funkaholic1972 said:

I have tested extensively, and on my home system I can clearly hear the difference between different formats/bitrates. I was shocked at the lack of definition in lower rates of mp3, the sounds gets more muddled/ blurry the further down you go in bitrate.

Well yes, lower bitrate mp3 is shocking. As are lower quality wavs!

I have to admit at 320 it gets harder to distinguish, but still there is difference. You can hear more definition in the sounds/instruments as you go up in bitrate, and more clarity.

And that's all I've been saying. Those with great ears and great equipment may notice but my old ears don't. And it's quite hard work to listen for the differences too, which distracts from the music.

That's why these days I prefer to listen to high res recordings (24bit/96kHz) or vinyl, if available. I just want the best quality available, and I believe an artist should offer his/her art in the best possible quality.

High res recordings rock but that's a whole different playing field.

It is like watching TV, if you have a HD tv you don't want your favorite movie broadcasted in SD quality. It's just a watered down low quality version that looks extra shitty on you HD tv.

That is true, I'm a video snob as I said before and can't wait for 4k and better, which make current 1080p on blu-ray look rubbish. But even that is dependant on the viewer, my wife couldn't tell you if she was watching a blu-ray or a dvd unless they were side by side comparisons. On the other hand, she has amazing ears. But all that aside, would you refuse to watch something that was only in standard def as some here are refusing to pay for mp3?

IstenSzek said:

thedance said:

^ that discussion is "like fucking flies" like we say in Denmark..

in holland we say "like fucking ants"

That's funny.

the people that crack me up are the ones that insist on a FLAC or WAV version of something sourced from a 128kbps mp3, as if it's ever going to sound any better

Can I just say though that I'm not saying that the 3rd eye wav is not the best version out there. It's better than the iTunes m4a file for instance .

When I convert the wav to 320k mp3 I can't hear the difference but there is a clear difference to the iTunes version.

errant said:

the people that crack me up are the ones that insist on a FLAC or WAV version of something sourced from a 128kbps mp3, as if it's ever going to sound any better

But it's a flac, so it must be better.

I think this is where I'm getting at, there's a lot of ignorance regarding sound files. People say it has to be better because they know it technically is better regardless of what happens in the real world.

[Edited 2/6/13 7:19am]

TheEnglishGent said:

errant said:

the people that crack me up are the ones that insist on a FLAC or WAV version of something sourced from a 128kbps mp3, as if it's ever going to sound any better

But it's a flac, so it must be better.

I think this is where I'm getting at, there's a lot of ignorance regarding sound files. People say it has to be better because they know it technically is better regardless of what happens in the real world.

[Edited 2/6/13 7:19am]

I have a sneaky suspicion that some people actually KNOW a great deal about music and how is is supposed 2 sound while other simple don't care.

Graycap23 said:

TheEnglishGent said:

But it's a flac, so it must be better.

I think this is where I'm getting at, there's a lot of ignorance regarding sound files. People say it has to be better because they know it technically is better regardless of what happens in the real world.

[Edited 2/6/13 7:19am]

I have a sneaky suspicion that some people actually KNOW a great deal about music and how is is supposed 2 sound while other simple don't care.

if it only exists as a 320 kbps mp3 and nothing "better" has ever been heard then they don't know how it's "supposed" to sound.

Graycap23 said:

TheEnglishGent said:

But it's a flac, so it must be better.

I think this is where I'm getting at, there's a lot of ignorance regarding sound files. People say it has to be better because they know it technically is better regardless of what happens in the real world.

[Edited 2/6/13 7:19am]

I have a sneaky suspicion that some people actually KNOW a great deal about music and how is is supposed 2 sound while other simple don't care.

I would say most don't care so long as it's not stupidly bad, I'm quite content listening to iTunes stuff if that's all I'm listening to. In know it's not the best, can tell in a blind testm, but don't really care. I'd say it's even more true for the younger generation where music has been largely reduced to something that's expected to be freely downloaded and not paid for.

For what it's worth, Breakfast Can Wait is a 320k mp3 sounds bad to me. Not because of the encoding but becasue of all the damn clipping. It hurts my ears!

Graycap23 said:

TheEnglishGent said:

But it's a flac, so it must be better.

I think this is where I'm getting at, there's a lot of ignorance regarding sound files. People say it has to be better because they know it technically is better regardless of what happens in the real world.

[Edited 2/6/13 7:19am]

I have a sneaky suspicion that some people actually KNOW a great deal about music and how is is supposed 2 sound while other simple don't care.

dontcha thank it'll be "released" properly on CD .....

TheEnglishGent said:

For what it's worth, Breakfast Can Wait is a 320k mp3 sounds bad to me. Not because of the encoding but becasue of all the damn clipping. It hurts my ears!

I agree. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't sound any better on a CD because that's how he's mastered his last several albums.

No problem downloading the music when I made my purchase. Why not set up a Paypal account for the site since you'll probably be buying more music in a few weeks or so? Audio nerds go get laid already, it's 13 pages in and y'all are still whining about MP3s. Nerds!!!

luvsexy4all said:

Graycap23 said:

I have a sneaky suspicion that some people actually KNOW a great deal about music and how is is supposed 2 sound while other simple don't care.

dontcha thank it'll be "released" properly on CD .....

Something will but I'm not sure about these particular tracks.

serpan99 said:

inspireof said:

the 20pr1nc3 site is working fine for me, didn't go down here...

Rightclick and choose refresh/reload...the site is a black page, and it says COMING SOON on top...

Perhaps it's a Euro thing because I did refresh 3x and the site still works fine here!

Sorry but not sure what's up in your end...

errant said:

TheEnglishGent said:

For what it's worth, Breakfast Can Wait is a 320k mp3 sounds bad to me. Not because of the encoding but becasue of all the damn clipping. It hurts my ears!

I agree. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't sound any better on a CD because that's how he's mastered his last several albums.

I know and it's really sad. I'd actually rather have a 256k mp3 from a properly mastered source than a clipped cd. This is a far worse crime to the material than iTunes downloads. But hey it's CD, so it must be awesome.

inspireof said:

serpan99 said:

Rightclick and choose refresh/reload...the site is a black page, and it says COMING SOON on top...

Perhaps it's a Euro thing because I did refresh 3x and the site still works fine here!

Sorry but not sure what's up in your end...

Sounds like you're viewing a cached version. What are you using to view? If a PC, try pressing ctrl + F5. On a Mac try command+r.