Jesse McCartney!! OMG! I have to run out right now and download that before supplies run out! ROTFL. Translation: We can't sell it, so we're giving it away. Hmm, maybe RIAA will start to realize it's about quality, not packaging. A pretty CD case with nothing inside is all they would sell if they could get away with it.

can someone please point me to an article explaining the advantages and disadvantages of lossy and lossless audio?

http://www.google.com/ur...=5zBIenuEquxabbOf-pedRQ

Hydrogen Audio is also a good place to look for audio info:

http://www.google.com/ur...=lZT7SaeNuZxlwTThTb7Gpg

is it possible to actually hear the difference between lossless and mp3 or do people prefer lossless for other reasons? i found the wikipedia page on audio data compression earlier but i really didnt like the content of it.

Some will tell you they cannot hear the difference, some will tell you they can.

It depends *greatly* on your audio system. Most consumer speakers aren't capable of producing clear audio to begin with.

If you *do* have a decent sound system, including good speakers, then yes. The difference is quite noticeable.

Few things:

You will not "hear" the difference in your car, there's too much background noise, though you may "feel" the lower bass.

Studio headphones, or good speakers in a quiet environment will make the difference quite pronounced. Otherwise, in a typical household or public location, you'll never know.

The audio cut from lossy encodes is typically very close to the top and bottom frequencies we can hear, which is why in environments where other sounds filter in, it is difficult to notice.

Also, many bands' soundboards are of such low quality now that the highs and lows are cut before they even hit the CD presses.

I can't really hear the difference, but I back up my CD's to Flac then convert it to Ogg for playback on my iAudio X5 60gb MP3 player (to save space). Then that way if I want to change to something different, like MP3, then I can by converting the Flac to it. That way I don't lose any sound quality.

This man speaks the truth.

Another factor that you can hear in better quality stereos is the quality (or lack thereof) in the DAC of a soundcard/portable music device.

so the only way to get lossless audio is by encoding it from a cd?

No lossy encoder cuts the low frequencies, basically because there is no gain to take in it.

Next, there's is *much* more to lossy compression than lowpass filtering. Actually, filtering helps reducing artifacts, which are the real problem of lossy codecs. warbling, pre-echo, metallic sound, dropouts,... ( http://www.ff123.net/training/training.html )

You're right in saying that the equipment and room do affect the hearing abilities, but you seem to say that they are everything in being able to hear the differences. You're not right then.

Last, but not the least, lossy encoders can (and many times do, if given enough bitrate) sound transparent (i.e. indistinguishable) from the original (i.e. the lossless/non compressed file).

A lot of hot air to fuel a debate. You three got it right below...

Link is bad. The awesome power of Betanews must've have brought it to it's knees (or is it it Ars Technica's awesome power...or Techdirt's awesome power...)

Anywho...

This still sucks. $10 for a lossy rip? No thanks.

Typical, though. Set it up for failure so that they can claim they tried and the model just doesn't work.

It does work, and it is working. Just not here in the states *because* of doomed attempts such as this.

It is still better than $10 for a lossy rip with DRM.

For people who would have either bought a DRM copy for $10 or people who would buy it on CD only to rip and play on their iPod it isn't the worse deal in the world.

I applaud Yahoo for doing this, while it is most likely a gimmik it is good to at least see someone try it. Maybe it will fail, maybe it is designed to fail. Who knows.

If I were Yahoo I would put some big spin on this and the fact that Zune will not play PlaysForSure protected content yet their music will always work anywhere.

It is still better than $10 for a lossy rip with DRM.

Crap is better than crap+crap?

Whatever.

You missed the point completely.

As for Zune not playing PlaysForSure content, you're full of it, as is the EFF. They took the *lack* of stated support as a statement of *non* support, which is absolute BS.

Of course MS didn't mention that they support PlaysForSure on the Zune. It's a 'Duh' feature, they don't need to mention it.

The whole CF came from a footnote (yes, a frikkin' footnote) on their press-release stating, "Zune software can import audio files in unprotected WMA, MP3, AAC; photos in JPEG; and videos in WMV, MPEG-4, H.264."

Notice it does *not* say they do not support their own DRM.

Press release here:
http://www.microsoft.com...ts/zune/docs/ZuneFS.doc

Normally, the EFF comes across as at least somewhat lucid. This time, however, they're tripping. Apparently, ACiD isn't just a CSS test anymore. ;)

Who? Jesse McCartney?

Who would want to pirate that?

And what muppet, pray tell, will buy the WMA version?

I would rather have a WMA version than an MP3 version. I used to be a huge anti-wma pro-mp3 guy, until I started using WMAs. WMA at the same bitrate tends to keep a more diverse frequency range than MP3s. From my experience, WMAs just sound better. I know they're not as universally playable as MP3s, but that's fine for me.

Why doesn't everyone just use allofmp3.com? They sell DRM-free versions of all songs.

At what bitrate are you talking? 64kbits? 32kbits? WMA standard (i.e. the usual wma format) is not better than mp3 anywhere from 128 upwards, and it *might* sound better on lower bitrates because it has a higher lowpass filter, which translates in more artifacts, and the typical metallic sound of low bitrate wmas.

64kbps : http://www.hydrogenaudio...p;type=post&id=2542
80kbps : http://www.hydrogenaudio...dex.php?showtopic=35438#
192kbps (notice they are almost equal here): http://www.soundexpert.info/coders192.jsp

(there was another at 128 but i can't find it right now)