Not true, AT ALL. Most DVD's and even CD's are DIRECT recordings in studio, so there is no "analog" input, because they are recorded directly from the source, with digital, to CD. No other medium involved. You are still under the impression they are using DAD technology, but that would be incorrect. rijp, that's always assuming that someone who sings has a digital voice. Everyone I've ever spoken to " or heard sing" has had an analogue voice. We live in an analogue world. So I'll ask the question I asked earlier on "Can someone explain to me the physically impossible task of converting an analogue sound into digital, then back to analogue and have it sound better than the original source? Vinyl is an analogue playback method, which is why the sound quality easily outperforms CD. One reason why so many turntable manufacturers still exist"

lossless is great news, I however, am for free codecs - I would choose FLAC (free lossless audio codec) verses any other lossless audio codec.

Don't forget you can get an original WAV file turned into FLAC at www.edmdigital.com or even better, the original WAV file itself burned onto a CD and shipped at www.beatport.com.

double-post.

I believe 256 already good enough for many people.
or Maximum 512, no need until 1100 it is useless.

Now we also need better MP3/WMA player to handle this files, and better headphone too.

Look if they want to impress or make a difference or actually do something cool...start putting online DVD-Audio and SACD catalogs as downloadable items.

This would mean Sony would have to open up it's SACD format so that PC based players could be made but--whatever.

If I could download DVD-A and SACD online I would. Who knows, maybe this would be the thing that finally jump starts this dead, albeit awesome sounding format.

And as far as what sounds better, this entire analog versus digital debate...look analog should sound better no matter what. The problem is finding media that can play analog at it's best potenial. Records ain't it. Reel to Reel wasn't it. Only the original studio multi-track is the way and that's just not practical at home now is it?

Records add noise, hiss and ticks. As do reels. Even on $24,000 tables I've heard, they sound noisy.

This is why SACD and DVD-A are such gifts from heaven. They allow the masses to hear the closest thing to live recording in their homes. Provided the masses do have decent stereos and speakers that is.

Sony's DSD recordings especially are awesome because you are hearing directly captured mixes. These really show off the format.

You have to realize that all SACD's and DVD-As of older recordings are coming from, yup, analog sources. Sources recorded to multi track recorders. Now your SACD or DVD-A will sound better than the record version of that recording, most likely. Especially after repeat plays and years of usage. This assumes the mixes being the same of course.

However, this is why DSD recording's are so special as they don't inherantly add anything to the recording like tape systems did back in the day. You get a clean multitrack recording session. With only the mics adding any semblance of 'analog noise'.

AND the audio range of what both formats can capture is well OUT OF THE RANGE of what humans can discern from. I don't care what you say. If you claim to hear anything "missing", it's the MIX, not the disc.

Downloadable DVD-Audio or SACD is a great idea, but the only problem would be the file size. Current home broadband connections are not suitable for downloading such a HUGE file size. DSL speed maxes out at 1.5 mbps and cable internet speed maxes out at about 6 mbps. Maybe if fiber optic internet access in the home becomes more widespread downloadable high definition audio might actually happen.

Actually, I think the main problem would be the hardware you wanted to play it on. Sure, you could listen to it on your PC, but an Audiophile is going to want to use a high-end Hi-Fi system to play the music on. You DEFINATELY couldn't burn the tracks to SACD, but due to the copy protection methods on a standard DVD-A, it's unlikely you could create one of them either. Currently, there's not a single portable device that will play more than stereo channels.

I doubt people would pay a premium (coz let's face it, they would charge as much as they wanted for DVD-A quality music) to download music that could only be listened to on your computer.

"You have to realize that all SACD's and DVD-As of older recordings are coming from, yup, analog sources. Sources recorded to multi track recorders. Now your SACD or DVD-A will sound better than the record version of that recording, most likely. Especially after repeat plays and years of usage. This assumes the mixes being the same of course.
"

Not true, AT ALL. Most DVD's and even CD's are DIRECT recordings in studio, so there is no "analog" input, because they are recorded directly from the source, with digital, to CD. No other medium involved. You are still under the impression they are using DAD technology, but that would be incorrect..

The new recordings, those done from approx '95 and newer are utilizing direct CD digital recordings, some studios that are cheap that have not made the upgrade may utilized Analog sources, but that's normal.

Besides, I will bet you a dollar to a donut you couldn't tell the difference, unless you are listening to a 70's recording on a CD, then you can tell its an analog source.

I have this argument with MP3 recordings in my car. If I burn MP3's (any source, doesn't matter, I judge them as good quality) then I take the same indentical song from CD source. I can play them back to back and you will *NOT* be able to distinguish between the two. if you can, then someone has some really crappy Mp3's. My Mp3 dervived mostly from Analog sources sound EXACTLY like the CD (in digital format). I have many people listening, and just about everyone mistakes half the songs because they can't tell the difference.

The result then becomes they start listening to Mp3's because they now know its as good as the orginal. Same with DVD SACD. The recordings are indistinguishable.

But you are correct, the MIX or the type of recording is the main difference, its all in the software.

_Jaz_ You're cofusing quality of equipment with quality of sound. The quality of sound from my Linn sondek/Ekos/ Karma easily out performs my iPod. Why should it do that if digital is better?

Sound is analogue. People hear in analogue. Can someone explain to me the physically impossible task of converting an analogue sound into digital, then back to analogue and have it sound better than the original source? Vinyl is an analogue playback method, which is why the sound quality easily outperforms CD. One reason why so many turntable manufacturers still exist

I see more than one audiophile here ( defined as one that believes in his convictions more than in proofs) so I won't continue with the debate.

Still, this post needs some words from me:
Converting from analog to digital, and back to analog does not improve the signal. Why should it do so?.
an ADC (analog to digital) converter gets samples at a rate, with a determined bit depth. These two values determine the fidelity of the recording. The most simple one, is a cascade of resistors, also the less efficient. Today ADC's are quite good.
Then the DAC ( digital to analog) converter converts back those samples. The analog sound out of it is smoothed with condensers, which remove the stair-like view of a digital signal and creates almost the same analog wave you had at the input.

You seem to asume that everything that is analog is better than anything that is digital. Is a simple Tape from the 80's and 90's any better than a CD? a tape has a SNR from -56 to -60dB and a bandwidth from 15Khz to 18Khz (depending on the tape quality and tricks). a CD has an SNR of -96dB and a bandwidth of 22Khz ( limited originally to 20Khz because of less accurate filters). A usual Vinyl is said to have similar ranges to that of a tape (without the hiss, but with crackles instead), and just a good one ( no 33rpm one can be considered as such) can surpass it, while degrading each time it is played.

Finally, the reason turntables still exist today is because Vinyls still exist. Moreso, the are releases that don't exist in CD, but rarely a new release. There is more 2nd hand market in turntables than it is of first hand (that i am aware of).

anyone who thinks this bennefits artists at all is sorely mistaken. With the global nature of the internet, it is easier then ever to get into small genres.
Until there is a legal service that fills the EDM spectrum better then the big 2 labels in the states, and a few imports, I won't pay.
I want it when it's released, not when some guy who thinks he knows his music says I can hear it.

A true Hi FI music format would be a 24 bit, 192k or 96k wav or aif file extracted from a DVD Audio disc, or some form of DSD file extracted from a SACD disc. You could have an option of either Stereo or Surround formats. Start from there and I would consider such a format if the price was right. Of course I'd be happy with a car stereo that could play both DVD Audio and SACD discs in either stereo or surround.

A true Hi FI music format would be a 24 bit, 192k or 96k wav or aif file extracted from a DVD Audio disc, or some form of DSD file

Rubbish.

"True audiophile" nonsense has been negotiable since the model came out. Those of us old enough to remember VINYL (and I'm one of those) recall what "true audiophile formats" were back then. The de-facto format is 16/44 today and isn't going to change any time soon, mostly due to the inertia of the installed base.

"extracted from a SACD disc"

Which goes to show how much you know aobut audio. SSACD is an ad hoc cobbled together mess by Sony, created for the sole purpose of fuelling sales in a proprietary format that company could control.

"You could have an option of either Stereo or Surround formats."

Ah yes, surround. the latest buzzword and gimmick. I marvel at the "audiophile authenticity" of sitting in the middle fo the orchestra while it plays.

Riiight...

"Start from there and I would consider such a format if the price was right."

There is indeed a sucker born every minute, isn't there. As to the price being right, I've already covered that.

Of course I'd be happy with a car stereo that could play both DVD Audio and SACD discs in either stereo or surround.

In a CAR. An AUTOMOBILE. With all the additional sound intrusions that environment has, unless you're driving a Rolls Royce. Uh HUH.

(sigh)

Who in their right mind would want to listen to the cracks and pops from a vinyl record instead of a crystal clear 24-bit 192KHz stereo DVD-Audio or SACD? I've yet to listen to a vinyl record that creates a realistic sounding music performance in front of me.

By the way, Direct Stream Digital recording is the only current true high resolution audio format that resembles an analog waveform. SACD is a format that sounds good both in practice and on paper.

Dude, I have been asking this question since I was a kid that listened to vinyls. I refused, back then I even remarked "what's all that clicking and buzzing?".. "Oh! that's the natural music"... "What are they playing, the kitchen counter top?"

The clarity of music is NOT in vinyl. Vinyl sucks, its only those that grew up with and it was their first experience that have been subdued into thinking that's how it should sound, believe its a great sound. Its total BS! Their hearing has been so disjointed, as to make them wash out music. I guarantee those people that listen to vinyl keep their equalizer on high mids, almost no treble, and zero or negative bass... What does that tell you? that have to use their equipment to drown out the "natural" music.. yeah! ok..

No thanks, I will wait for CD to come out - 1979.

Not to mention, vinyls are very fragile, wear easily (a diamond on a plastic surface.. hmm..great idea!).. While we are at it, lets write with protractors in butter..lets see how long that lasts.. or use a blow torch to solder connectors right on the board... A vinyls time has come.. and gone (thankfully)

Unfortunately, I signed up for this service Friday 10/14. I decided I wanted to buy a couple albums...I kept getting "Unable to Find That Song". So, even if I wanted something, I couldn't get it.

The service needs A LOT of work before could consider becoming viable. If I don't get a refund from this "service", we'll have a dispute.

My bottom line: Caveat emptor.

Give it time! Damn its been out what, five minutes? I found some songs last night, yeah a few I wanted weren't there, I could give you a list RIGHT NOW I gurantee iTunes does not have or any online music service.. They have been out for years, and they STILL don't have a complete collection.

Ocassionally I still buy CD's from europe, because I can't download them or find them in a USA music store.. And most of them are american artists.. And people in USA are so lazy and apathetic, they don't order the things, luckily it doesn't happen very often.

And before anyone blasts me, I live in the USA. Born here, so I *KNOW* how lazy America can be. So don't even try it.

I don't want to burst you bubble... but if you want true HiFi you'll have to go back to analog, digital cuts off all "rounded" sounds and they become squear peaks. I used to DJ back in the early 80's with records (33/45's), I was showing a couple of my buddies here one day the difference in the clearity of the sound from the same recording of an artest on a LP record to the same artest on CD... and if you listen close you can hear the clipping of some sound and this is with Most CDs - This 32 times over sampling simply needs to be done another 64 times. Plus the worst thing of all listening to CD's will make your ears seem more tired than if you had listened to the same music on records.

I don't want to call you uneducated, but that isn't completely correct.

First, you are mixing clipping with sampling rate. Clipping is what happens when someone (when mastering) tries to put a signal stronger than what the digital signal can store. In analog this happens aswell, but it is not a strong cut, and in extent, less noticeable.
In both cases, the faulty is the engineer, not the media.

I don't know why you mention oversampling. Oversampling is generating (or capturing) a signal at a sample rate higher than what is going to be stored/reproduced. This allows to process the signal and get less distortion than that at the target sample rate.

I will not contradict that an LP sounds different than a CD. I also accept that the analog sound can be perceived as better than digital. But saying LP's are HIFI is a NO-NO.
A signal on an LP is not even stored faithfully, needing a standarized EQ curve to boost back the frequencies (especially bass, so that the needle doesn't jump).

"I don't want to burst you bubble... but if you want true HiFi you'll have to go back to analog, digital cuts off all "rounded" sounds and they become squear peaks."

The first intelligent audio comment I've read thus far.

Bravo!

I don't know if your rational is true but the first time I heard a CD compared to a vinyl record through a high end system the CD was sadly lifeless compared to the vinyl recording. Even with better digital recordings 20 years later analogue still brings music to life while digital merely imitates it.

I started DJ'ing about 26 years ago, I totally believe in the use of EQ's. Tayloring the sound to one's ear is the best way to get the sound you are looking for in your room. 16 to 24 chanel should be fine. If your stereo is not covering the Full range of 20 to 20000 Hz then you are missing some sound. MP3's cut off at both ends most of times and your ears seem to get tired of listening to them much sooner even at a low volume, it's because it's digital sound, analog does not tend to do this as quickly even at a higher volume.

Jaz sorry... but perhaps I used the wrong wording when I wrote that... but it seems you got the just of what I was saying... and it's not 'cause I'm under educated, but perhaps you are over educated? Did not mean to talk UP to you. hehe

Anyone that starts a sentence with "go back.." doesn't have all their oars in the water. True HiFi does not entail we take a step back, sorry, nuh uh, no way jose. Sorry! You are wrong.

We move forward not back, lets just say the true HiFi hasn't been invented yet.. There are many music studios that don't invest in good equipment that's the problem.

You need your hearing checked. Where are you getting your CD's, from the convenience store on the corner? You don't buy your music where your mama sells her chicken dude, it doesn't work.

Says a lot about your IQ right there.. 2 + 2 = ? Still less than anyone with some good audio equipment already can tell you, its crap!

You two need your own studio, where you can listen to your hearts content all that vinyl stuff.

Here is an idea, why do you suppose vinyls can't be found in music stores anymore? Why are they selling for 5 cents a piece at a flea market? Becase they SUCK!!!! So you and this other deaf DJ wonder boy agree you like vinyl, you are nuts. The rest of the world doesnt' agree with you, otherwise vinyls would STILL be available...

Hearing feedback in an audio track is not music, its noise. CD's and dolby Cassettes that attenuate those sounds is called clarity. The music sounds like its missing something, because it is.. the background noise, the clicks, the sound of the diamond bouncing on the vinyl record.. that's NOT a part of the original music, so why must you people convince yourselves its true music? When you got a concert, do you complain you don't hear those noises? Of course not, because you are hearing TRUE natural sound, no clicks, no buzzing, no whining, no feedback, no low quality cables in your house that is rated at 8 ohms running to a 4 ohm speaker from a two-bit 30 dollar stereo from walmart that pumps out a whopping 30 watts per channel, running across your cheap a** circuit breaker on the floor connection to 120 volts that penetrates that unshielded speaker wire. That's where your problem is. Get some better equipment, you uneducated throw back.

"However, I will cede to Microsoft that it has the format down pat. Compared with Apple's iTunes, music on WM Lossless just seems to be fuller with more depth. Bass is more pronounced, vocals sound more natural. And to the audiophile, it's the little things like that which count."

Does this guy know what "lossless" exactly means? My guess: no.

Just my thoughts too.

Almost like propaganda...

I'll just stick with allofmp3.com....

Albums for $1.50
Song for .20

Just because allofmp3 is selling you music, doesn't make it legal. allofmp3 has not licensed any music and none of the money you pay goes to the artists.

So, you may as well be downloading from P2P networks illegally, because all you're doing is filling the pockets of a shady Russian company.

In this case I think legality doesn't really matter to most. Allofmp3 users likely realize that while legal for now, it's iffy, and morally, it's about on par with p2p. Generally, just finding out about the site requires this level of tech savvy. Does Joe Itunes User even know of it's existence?

It's the convenience, organization, pretty album art, and YOUR choice of pretty much ANY codec/bitrate, all without the p2p headaches that make allofmp3 worthwhile. I mean, what's $0.1-0.2/song and $1-2/album... essentially free unless you are an obsessive hoarder type. Plus, no allofmp3 users have been sued, yet, which is something for those who have been scared out of the p2p world, though, yes, they should probably just get peer guardian or some such, not upload 10 GB of top 40 tunes on Kazaa, etc.

I've said it many times and I'll say it again:

- 50 cents per song for lossy content

- $1.00 per song for lossless content

- No WMA Lossless or ALAC garbage - that's non-standard proprietary junk perpetuated by companies with not-so-hidden agendas. APE and FLAC have long been the standards and none else merit consideration.

- No DRM of any kind

- No extortion in the form of "subscription fees", even fees credited towards purchases.

If any of these aren't met, it's not even worth looking at, let alone considering. At $1.30 per song only suckers need apply - you'll pay LESS in the stores.

A final comment to the author:

If any difference is perceived between lossless formats, there are only three explanations:

1) the formats are not really lossless (possible)

2) the decoder is somehow faulty (unlikely - very easy to check)

3) problems between the keyboard and the chair - in short, placebo (EXTREMELY likely)

If sources are lossless, there can be absolutely no differences whatsoever between them. They are bit perfect copies of the original and thus identical. If you don't understand that single basic fact, you don't understand lossless - period.

There endeth the lesson.

Preach it, brutha Roj! ;-)

One thing you forgot - media players play media differently. For example, Windows Media Player is quiet. dBpowerAMP doesn't sound right on my speakers - the music just sounds...blah. Quicktime is the best, but it uses a ton of memory for playing a song.

I think subscription fees are ok. In this case it simply means that at the end of the year, if you haven't used up your $50 in songs, you have to go and download some more music. I hope that they let you store up credits though.

Unfortunately, we live in the real world where your above requirements will never be met (especially the no-DRM one). So how about coming back down to planet Earth and making a compromise? Otherwise you can keep buying CDs for $13 a pop and get a bunch of songs you never wanted in the first place.

At $1.30 per song you're paying more in stores ONLY if you want the entire CD. And only if that CD is on sale. If you just want a lossless copy of a few songs, a service like this is pretty useful.

Most audiophiles don't want just one song though. I, personally, can't just go and download one song. It bothers the hell out of me unless I have the entire CD.

I have to agree with roj on EVERY point save one: I think there IS another lossless format that now merits SERIOUS consideration, that being WavPack. It is free, open-source, actively developed, and features better compression than FLAC. It has replaced FLAC as my lossless format of choice.

lol this is probably one of the funniest posts I have ever read...so let me get this straight, you want:

Lossless digial music with no copy protection what so ever in the format you want that nobody uses (ape and flac may be out there and you may consider them "standards"...but I have never seen those format in use anywhere)...do you want the band to come to your house and give you a private concert as well for $2, but only if they come without any form management??:)

- .50-1.00/song I can agree with you on that (although personally I'm perfectly happy with subscription based services like YME).

- I don't care what format...I don't want ape's running around on my pc or "flac"...give me mp3/wma/aac/ape/flac I don't care...what's the big deal anyway????? wma is made by MS so it's not good enough for you...aac is apple so you refuse to use it...only format that "YOU"approve of are ok? That' funny.

- No DRM? So basically let the industry trust the same people that used to rip them off to not redistribute the "DRM Free" music they just downloaded? That's like giving the thief that robbed you a key to your house and hope he doesn't rob you again because now you gave him a key so you think you're "friends". Yes I can see DRMless music legitly coming our way soon...it's genius!

- no subscription fees...ok I'll agree except if it's a subscription service.

MP3 is not lossless you twat. WMA and AAC may say their lossless, but their encoders are for s***. Errors come up constantly with those encoders, meaning the rips are bad.

You say you've never seen APE or FLAC formats in use? Then you don't deal with lossless formats, do you?

nope...wma and mp3 (and sometimes I've even used aac) sound perfectly fine to me...I wouldn't pay any extra money or use up any extra space for a difference that I can't even hear with my own ears...thansk for your biased OPINION of wma lossless encoders not being "worthy" you twat

I don't find these ridiculous at all. Essentially the parent post is asking for the same price, value and features in digital downloads that you get when you purchase a physical CD.

That's the point so many people, especially the online services themselves seem to miss.

If you stop making fun of him and think about it for a minute, you'll realize he is quite reasonable to want this. It is also the reason I have never bought music electronically. It seems to me you give up way too much value for very little in return.

Most audiophiles will listen to artists who are capable of creating more than one or two good tracks per album.

They sound perfectly fine to you, but not to everyone. I easily notice the difference of an MP3 and and lossless file.

It's not an opinion of WMA Lossless encoders, it's a fact. It's not a lossless community standard, and is easy to screw up during the rip. It's true with every lossless encoder, but more with WMA.

Yes, and it's also a matter of opinion on that note.

Say I enjoy listening to Black Sabbath's original release, the entire album. Someone else may only enjoy one or two songs. That's their fault.

There are no albums I have in my collection that I don't enjoy only one or two songs of.

"Lossless digial music with no copy protection what so ever in the format you want that nobody uses (ape and flac may be out there and you may consider them "standards"...but I have never seen those format in use anywhere)"

Then You need to get out more. How long have you been on the web? Five minutes? Those formats have been in use for more than a few years now in forums ranging from file sharing on through Usenet. They LONG predate any of the Apple or MS-built drivel.

"do you want the band to come to your house and give you a private concert as well for $2"

Sure, if they're up for it. I'll serve them tea and crumpets.

:) :) ;)

"SERIOUS consideration, that being WavPack"

OK, I'll concede that. I have in fact seen wavePack in all of the forums I've mentioned in other posts here.

NuQ!!!!!!!!!

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey mon, there's a nym I haven't seen in a Coon's Age. How be ya and hope all is well!

Cheers, bro!

Good, Roj. Not near as active, but lurking (occasionally posting) in a.b.s.lossless. Hope you are well.

"So how about coming back down to planet Earth and making a compromise?"

No compromise.

I'm not a rube to be led down the garden path by ridiculous restrictions and lack of value.

You accept the drivel of the online stores and you give into mediocrity, thus giving them a license to perpetuate it further. Then you'll bleat that your rights are gone and you get less value for your money.

I don't buy into that mindset.

"Otherwise you can keep buying CDs for $13 a pop and get a bunch of songs you never wanted in the first place."

Or I can refuse to buy CDs that offer three good songs and thus not fuel the machine. After all, quality artists put out more than one hit wonders.

"One thing you forgot - media players play media differently. For example, Windows Media Player is quiet. dBpowerAMP doesn't sound right on my speakers - the music just sounds...blah. Quicktime is the best, but it uses a ton of memory for playing a song."

QuickTime the best? that pile of steaming crap warps sound so badly that it's bent more than an accordian. Any Media Player that can't reproduce the sound accurately and FLAT isn't going to be of much consideration anyway to an audio enthusiast. And there are only a handful of those (hint: the ones you mention need not apply).

"Hope you are well."

Hanging in there as best I can bro and living quietly in the group (and the hierarchy) you mention. You'll see me ask for something there a time or two. :)

"nope...wma and mp3 (and sometimes I've even used aac) sound perfectly fine to me..."

That indeed speaks volumes right there.

You don't think asking for the industry to sell music without DRM is unreasonable?? C'mon give me a break...you can't honestly say that it's not an unreasonable request. It's like reopening the pirating floodgates...

Park your car in newark and leave a note "The keys to my car are in the ignition, please don't take my car!" If your car doesn't get stolen within a week, then tell the music industry that people are not thieves after all....and then I'll also agree that it's not an unreasonable request.

Ha get out on the web more...that's funny. I didn't say I've never seen those formats...I'm saying I've never seen them used in real life by anybody I know. I could go out on the web and find you plenty of things that have been out since before you were born yet you would have never seen it actually used widely or at all.

Maybe ape and flac is used widely by the 2% of music listeners that are true audiophiles...but I hardly consider those formats "standards" just because those 2% said it should be.

and applies to at least 90% of music listeners...

It's a fact? Really...show me the proof? Don't send me links to articles posted by someone I've never heard of saying "WMA sucks because it's easier to screw up the encoding then it is with other formats". Show me some hard facts that wma is indeed garbage...and is somehow someway easier to "screw up during the rip".

"I didn't say I've never seen those formats...I'm saying I've never seen them used in real life by anybody I know."

Like I said, you need to get out more. Those formats are used by a LARGE lossless community. Just because YOUR little circle doesn't use them doesn't mean they're not widely used.

Don't pontificate on things you have no knowledge of - it only highlights your (sorely) limited experience.

"You don't think asking for the industry to sell music without DRM is unreasonable??"

Hell no. The industry either adapts or It Will Die. Swiss watchmakers learned that lesson the hard way when the digital watch came out.

"C'mon give me a break...you can't honestly say that it's not an unreasonable request. "

I'm never unreasonable. Hard and unforgiving maybe, but never unreasonable. :)

"It's like reopening the pirating floodgates..."

Riiiiight.

You are obviously quite young. Taping was supposed to do that thirty years ago. It instead grew the industry that those fat cats leech off now.

"Park your car in newark and leave a note "The keys to my car are in the ignition, please don't take my car!""

I'm FAR too intelligent to live in Jersey. :)

If your car doesn't get stolen within a week, then tell the music industry that people are not thieves after all....and then I'll also agree that it's not an unreasonable request.

The industry tried to use the same argument to stamp out taping. Back then they didn't own the politicians lock, stock and barrel so they failed. Their industry prospered.

Your point?

People who are going to buy will buy. People who weren't going to buy wont'. I download a lot of music (thankfully we don't have a Draconian government that regularly is on its knees wearing kneepads and a bib before the entertainment industry) so it's legal here. But I digress. A lot of it is lossless. If the album isn't a two or three hit wonder, I go out and buy it. Just like I did albums that I'd tape decades ago. I've easily spent over $500 on music this year alone.

The greedy PIRATES (with their graft, payola and bought politicians and lobbies) who run the recording industry want EVERYONE who listens to music to buy and that's simply never going to happen. It never did and it never will. The concept of "give a little to get a lot" which grtew their industry in the first place obviously escapes them - as it does you.

Bottom line:

if they dropped their ridiculous prices and their copy protection and DRM, people would buy more. What they're charging now IS theft. What this service wants to charge is no different.

"Really...show me the proof?"

Google is your friend. You want that we should educate you on the use of the web along with everyhing else?

(sigh)

"I wouldn't pay any extra money or use up any extra space for a difference that I can't even hear with my own ears..."

Try cleaning them - the difference is stark and VERY audible on even half-assed crap like the Logitechs / Creative Labs fodder most kidz buy.

"and applies to at least 90% of music listeners... "

That number is no longer valid (and in any event I would invite you to prove that "statistic"). The change has spurred multimedia vendors like Klipsch, Altec-Lansing, Monsoon and even that bastion of mediocrity Creative Labs to improve the quality of their wares.

I have exposed many peole to lossless formats (more than 20). All have embraced them. They still download mp3s and keep those for their cars and portable players and even the house music server but lossless generally becomes their preferred format for anything other than background music.

That's 20 people *I* know. There are many more like me in a VERY large lossless community out there. That would bespeak quite a large number of people becoming aware of quality standard lossless formats, to whit APE and FLAC. I can remember people talking about them five years ago. Furthermore, a company such as the one in question would not be opening a business to try and sell lossless if they didn't expect a reasonably large customer base to make profits on.

In short, you're quite off base in many of your pronouncements on "the user community".

But hey, I've wasted enough time on this. Your tunnelled view of the universe won't change what actually is. I'd invite you to go out and discover for yourself (do learn Google skills, at least) but it has become more and more obvious that I'd be casting pearls before swine. You display a disturbingly teenaged / twentysomething self-limiting approach to things outside your experience that is indeed difficult to overcome (I have teenagers so I know that of which I speak - one must gently wean them in to a broader view of the universe over time).

Carry on with great exuberance!

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org

Ha...those formats are used by a LARGE lossless community huh? Unfortunately for your argument...the lossless community itself makes up for less then 2% of music listeners...so a LARGE portion of 2% is...how can I say this without offending your lessless ego...pretty meaningless?

Just because you frequent lessless community forums and it may seem to you that most people are into it doesn't mean it makes up a large portion of the population...people who listen to death metal seem to death metal is very popular when in fact it's not....you're sort of in that same category.

"YOUR little circle"

Your circle is much smaller then mine, trust me.

"Hell no. The industry either adapts or It Will Die. Swiss watchmakers learned that lesson the hard way when the digital watch came out."

Sorry, the industry will not die if they don't adapt DRMless formats...no matter how much you dream about it happening.

"You are obviously quite young. Taping was supposed to do that thirty years ago. It instead grew the industry that those fat cats leech off now."

I am quite young...not young enough to not be part of "taping".

unfortunately for your argument, "taping" is nowhere near on the level of digital distribution. I can tape some songs, give it to a few of my friends...or I can distribute mp3's to thousands or millions of internet subscribers.

"People who are going to buy will buy. People who weren't going to buy wont'"

Wrong...people who are going to buy, will buy at the right price...people who aren't going to buy may buy at the right price but won't if it's too expensive. I'll place myself in the latter category...ever since YME I haven't downloaded a single song.

I download a lot of music (thankfully we don't have a Draconian government that regularly is on its knees wearing kneepads and a bib before the entertainment industry) so it's legal here. But I digress. A lot of it is lossless. If the album isn't a two or three hit wonder, I go out and buy it. Just like I did albums that I'd tape decades ago. I've easily spent over $500 on music this year alone."

I agree I'd do the same thing...butthis doesn't make what you're doing legal....just because you think it's right doesn't make it the law.

"The greedy PIRATES (with their graft, payola and bought politicians and lobbies) who run the recording industry want EVERYONE who listens to music to buy and that's simply never going to happen. It never did and it never will. The concept of "give a little to get a lot" which grtew their industry in the first place obviously escapes them - as it does you."

How does that make the music industry wrong? If they release something, they should get payed for it right? If I create a piece of software, or I'm simply the distributor...I want my money, you don't get to use it for free...not legally....and it's money from my pocket if you do.

"if they dropped their ridiculous prices and their copy protection and DRM, people would buy more. What they're charging now IS theft. What this service wants to charge is no different."

You're half right...if they dropped their ridiculous prices people will buy more...majority of people don't care about DRM that much unless it interfers with the way they listen to their music (and properly implemented DRM does not interfere with how you listen to your music).

FYI...what they're charging is not THEFT...they can charge what they want, they can charge $100 for a CD if they like...you don't have to buy it. But if you go out and download it without paying, that IS theft. Listenint to music put out by the music industry is not your right...they don't put out music for charity purposes.

You don't know what I do for a living obviously...and no need to get into that kind of war anyway...:)

Can you prove 2% of music listeners make up the lossless community? I would like to see where your getting this from.

Death Metal actually is pretty popular, just not in the States.

"However, unlike competing services that encode their songs at 128 kbps,"

Yahoo! Music Engine encodes WMA at 192Kbps, not 128!!! For $60 a year, I can have access to millions of songs, not just 50!!!

Rip your OWN song off cd, twice.

1 as 128Kbit MP3.
1 as FLAC.

Listen to both on Quality speakers through a quality sound system.

If the song in question contains either guitar distortion or cymbals, you will easily be able to tell the difference almost immediately unless your ears have been beaten to sh1t by years of aural abuse.

Seriously. Try it. It's the exact method I use with friends/relatives.

Best song I've found so far to use? "Sweet Home Alabama" Don't ask, still trying to figure that one out, but it gets the biggest response.

If you think about it, 2% of music listeners is probably a pretty large number of people!

I agree though, if you want lossless audio, FLAC should be used. It's an open standard like mp3, and unlike WMA lossless or Apple Lossless, it's not proprietary, so it doesn't tie you to a particular platform. We don't want the digital music industry to end up in the same state as the Office Software industry, where one company dominates and you continuously have to buy the same thing over and over.

Just because they don't have giant corporate backing with hooks in your music and pockets doesn't mean that .APE and .FLAC aren't standards. They are probably the most widely used and accepted lossless audio codecs around... and I'm fairly sure that they pre-date the crappy lossless junk pushed down your throat by Microsoft and Apple.

Regarding DRM... it's a pipe-dream. Any protection scheme CAN and WILL be broken and rendered useless.

Prosecute the pirates (those who duplicate and sell music not belonging to them) and leave your customer base alone to enjoy the music.

So you are saying WMA can't be AS good as MP3? Using your pinhead logic, you stated:

"If sources are lossless, there can be absolutely no differences whatsoever between them. They are bit
perfect copies of the original and thus identical"

Then am I to understand that IF WMA can match lossless audio, then its not garbage? I think you spent too much time ranting, and not enough time thinking, perhaps your brain has so much vinyl tracks with that beer coated medium you forgot to be coherent, so I am pointing out what you tried (and failed) to state. Good quality music is good quality music, NO MATTER THE CURRENT STATE. ALAC and WMA can't be garbage if I play it, and you can if its Mp3, mp4, APE, or FLAC, period.

Go back and read the book, the lesson aint over yet, speed reading and glancing over highlights doesn't count. Or maybe you need to quit buying lossless for dummies books. I think your hooked on phonics must have been vinyl recording, because you sound like a broken record.

Haha..

Yeah... WavPack can provide the 'best of both worlds' kind of experience... creating a smaller 'lossy' file for portable use (when space is at a premium and quality can be sacrificed) and a 'lossless' data file for reconstructing the original waveform (when you want CD quality restored.)

I like the idea and the sound... but haven't used it much myself only because APE, FLAC and the aging SHN are so prevelent in the community.

Agreed... If an artist can't fill a CD with decent material I don't bother.

Death metal? That too is up for evaluation. What exactly is the genre? I have heard of acid rock, heavy metal, how do I know you are not making this up? Maybe forgeiners make up this music genre so they can be unique. its not recognized by 15.5% of the listeners.

45.6% of all stats, are made up on the spot. - ???

Oh that's debatetable. I think your pansy a** wouldn't survive long enough to find out how intelligent you THINK you are.

Never heard of death metal huh? It's pretty crazy stuff...look in google...the genre even has it's own site...www.deathmetal.com. I don't listen to it...but I know people that do.

45.6723% of all stats maybe made up on the spot...but it's not arguable that TRUE audiophiles are a very small percentage of the population...not to mention that only a small percentage of the population can even afford audiophile quality equipment. :)

I know one TRUE audiophile...I don't know what digital format he likes, I'll ask him next time I talk to him...but he always seems to like the sound of the music more then the music itself....he also spent at least $20k on his home audio system.

What the hell are you talking about? He was stating how a service should act, not whether or not you know about lossless formats.

He also never mentioned Vinyl once.

lol I can't help but laugh when I read your posts...you are so wise aren't you? You're a member of the small (compared to mainstream) lossless community...and "your" community likes flac/ape over wma/anything else...therefore, flac/ape must be better. It's funny...it's also funny...

here, this is from the very first post in a google search "flac vs wma"

"Actually, any lossless format is by its very nature the same.
It is conceivable that one might have slightly better metadata tags,
but all that I've looked at seem the same to me."

"WMA has a slightly better compression ratio."

Ouch...your very own community completely wiping out your entire argument against wma...

Matter of fact, I've decided to read some of the forums on flac vs wma (in your very own "LARGE" lossless community) and apparently...flac and ape vs wma is VERY debatle by your very own "l33t l0ssless community"...everybody is pretty much saying wma is just as good in quality as flac...but people don't like the DRM...so, your very own community disagrees with you of this supposed wma "inferiority"...thanks for preaching your biased thick headed flac beliefes.

Any DRM can and will be broke, you're right...but that alone is illegal. It's kind of like car and house alarms...they can easily be broken, does that mean you shouldn't have them and leave your house wide open?

Essentially what you're saying is that instead of taking preventive measures, the industry should take action after the act...how logical is that?? You take preventive measurements in just about anything you can....you want to stop it from happening in the first place, not try to control it after it happens. You not gonna take a flu vaccine because you can take tylanol flu after you get sick?

APE and FLAC may be used by the "lossless community"...but it's not an INDUSTRY standard and it never will be as long as the format doesn't support DRM. You may belive that in your little "lossless community" world that it's a standard, but again it will never be an industry standard and you will never be able to LEGALLY buy/download in those formats (unless you encode yourself ofcourse).