u have no idea how many people i have heard say:
"i dont buy music i download it" (for free)

like its just a rule now

i was at awesome boxing day sale at HMV
and
i saw Outkast Idlewild on sale for like $8.99 CANADIAN
the cd! the whole album
and my brother in law was like:
"i vow to never buy another cd again"
i'm like:
"i dont get that!"
hes like:
"i dont look over the liner notes, so an audio cd is a big bulky media to me"


but to me
shit
i cannot rely on a computer
i dont see the point of downloading stuff and then having to
a) BACK IT UP ON DISC
or b) HAVING TO TRANSFER IT TO A MEDIA PLAYER

its like when i am walking out the door, i got my cds sorted alphabetically, i grab the ones i want and i JET

#1 thing is
i do NOT trust the compression on mp3s
they got all these kinds of new compressions that is supposed to calm my fear
i'm not having it

does this sound nuts/out of date?
i feel like i already moved away from cassettes to cds
there are cassettes i still want ON CD!
i could have perfect downloads of them but it aint the same

I don't TRUST compression, even at 192 kbps. I'll be like... damn I think I hear some scraping warble on those open highhats.

CinisterCee said:

Your ears are far more critical than mine. But then again, I love the sound of digital.

I think the real problem (especially with home studio recordings) is there are some bedroom engineers that can't mix worth a damn. I can hear those "scraping warble" sounds on some awful techno & trance tracks!!!

I only use 128 on all my stuff

CinisterCee said:

Then downloads are not for you. However, I don't see what that has to do with mp3 players. You could still get an iPod and rip everything using lossless compression. My CDs are my backups; they stay at my house 24/7.

I've the importance of cd's when I lost all my stuff when my HD died...

Kids, always buy the albums you love

I prefer to download albums- I used to download a lot from Wal-Mart.com but my operating system is now out of date and can no longer use the site.

TonyVanDam said:

Is mp3 warble the new "tape hiss" that people have come to love?

Even records have surface noise. I can't fault CDs on hardly anything (except maybe the whole early un-mastering issue).

POOK said:

Forreals, that's about the only way I store mp3s.

MikeMatronik said:

Then again, you're supposed to backup everything! (As if I would care to spend time doing that).

CinisterCee said:

I'd be glad 2 back u up!

CinisterCee said:

No way!!! "Tape Hiss" are an 80's classic. It's also one of the best studio FXs to use on certain tracks for that "retro" feel of the music.

i wish my ears cared about sound quality...


im an emotional b*tch...i need to "feel" the entire physical process in order to appreciate the music...

call me...oh i dont know what....just don't call me susan.

sosgemini said:

whitney reference!

MikeMatronik said:

TonyVanDam said:

I'm starting to think warbly/scrambled treble is the new lo-fi classic for da 00's.

I rip everything in 320 AAC or Lossless and then store the CD's away in the closet when I'm done with the liner notes.

CinisterCee said:

You can set it to happen automatically.

jtfolden said:

I keep hearing about this "Lossless" but I need way more info.

You know what is lossless? .wav's

CinisterCee said:

Songs compressed with a lossless codec are about half the size of WAV files without losing any information (hence "lossless"). The two most important are FLAC (the most popular) and Apple Lossless (built into iTunes and can be decoded fast enough for use on the iPod).

AlexdeParis said:

Noted.

Nice topic.

It's probably a question of how you came up with music.
When I came up (the vinyl era), there was a whole procedure in acquiring music...

~ Making the trip to the "record store"
~ Going through the bins and finding the single/album.
~ Reading any details on the record jacket on the way home.
~ Finally playing the disc and reading any info (multiple times) on the record sleeve .

...That extra info was important.

In those days (pre-internet) the only other place to get info on a particular artist or a recording outside of the liner notes were publications like Rolling Stone, downbeat, etc.

That touchy-feely thing that went along with the acquisition of the music was and always will be important.

As far as audio resolution goes, has anyone been able to dl a 24bit/96kHz audio file yet?

There's one service, Music Giants, claiming "High Definition" downloads (470-1100 kbps).
(only supporting Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player)

Currently, does quality (on any level) really matter anyway?


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

CinisterCee said:

Maybe.

theAudience said:

I can understand when listening to classical or jazz. But the other genres? I don't think so, IMO.

In fact, sometimes funk & hip-hop sounds better on vinyl and cassettes than on crystal clearing digital audio like CDs & mp3.

I purchase downloads and buy cds as well. The only time I don't purchase a download is when the music is out of print. Should I be backing up my dowloads on a disc? How do I do that?

I agree. MP3's in general sound crappy on decent stereo systems.
I'm not buying anything off itunes until they start offering music in at least lossless format.

Go with the apple lossless when importing cd's. It's pretty sweet.

_

Janfriend said:

The best way to backup would be to get an external firewire or usb harddrive and copy your whole library to it. It will probably set you back about US$100 depending on how big your library is. You could also copy your important files to it.
Otherwise you could backup to cd or dvd if you have a writer. But you may need to burn tonnes of discs. The method of doing this would depend on your computer and which playback software you use. Also with buring to disc it's hard to keep track of songs you've added to your library since your last backup... I guess you could make a playlist that you add every new song to though.
If you have an external drive you can just copy your library to it every few months. Very simple/fast.

_