Re: MP3s etc

[Steve Parrott <luxvivens>]

Quality is fast becoming a thing of the past. No one is really 
surprised at slipshod "stuff" any longer, no matter what the product / 
service. No one expects anything made today to last for any 
considerable amount of time. Faster and cheaper is what the majority of 
the public wants, quality really does not enter the picture to a great 
extent.
Steve

On May 16, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Mike Spindloe wrote:

> 20 cents per track seems about right for MP3s, since they contain +/- 
> 10% of the information contained on a CD, which in turn still has 
> artificial limits that make it inferior to analogue. That's two steps 
> backward now from the music industry, all in the name of convenience. 
> Has anyone on this list ever compared an MP3 file to a CD (wav file) 
> on a decent stereo? The difference is pretty obvious. While there's 
> something to be said for producing fewer artifacts (our culture is 
> drunk on producing STUFF - we're not "successful" unless we produce 
> more every year, right?), I also care about the quality of the sound 
> I'm buying (as well as the quality of the music - an even more 
> subjective area!).
>
> Today is census day in Canada. Our government contracted our census 
> out to an American company, Lockheed Martin, which if I understand 
> correctly is mostly engaged in the production of weapons of mass 
> destruction. That's probably why I'm so cranky.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>> These albums are also available on eMusic, a paid-download
>> service. On the plan I personally signed up with (they have several
>> tiers), the Verlaine costs me 20 cents per track, and the files
>> are VBR MP3s which come in at around 192 kbps.
>>
>> If you hunt around, you can find various offers of 50 or even
>> 100 free emusic.com downloads on a trial basis.
>>
>> (And thanks to the other poster for the heads-up. Tom is
>> here in Philly tomorrow night. I had no idea!)