It depends on how it's been coded. 256kbps isn't too bad... the problem is that you have to have a really high level of kbps to get anything like something worth purchasing which obviously means massive files. I don't see why anyone would wanna BUY mp3's so they're not really commercially viable (and lets face it, even producers need to make a living). Of course, in the case of Napster and MP3.com it's just a case of downloading them, not buying (as far as I know).
Mp3's are better for just demoing stuff via internet... I don't think you can get rid of records... CD's are cooler for just listening to stuff and djingwise, you just can't beat flimsy 12" pieces of vinyl... l8r, Nick (Dj Pacific:) --- Sakari Karipuro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Paul Hudson wrote: > > > Vinyl sounds better than CD and CD sounds better > than MP3. While the > > popular media say Mp3's sound as good as CD's, I > don't think anyone believes > > them do they? I mean, just play a CD next to a > high quality MP3 on quality > > Hi-Fi. They tow don't even come close. Why is it > the poor sound quality of > > MP3's never gets mentioned in these debates. Do > artists not care that > > people won't be able to hear their music as > clearly as intended. > > i wasn't interested in this thread but.. here goes > nothing. i do agree > with paul on this one. there's some uses for mp3's > but sound quality is > really awful - i mean 256 kbps is close to > listenable on good system or > with good headphones, but it's nothing like vinyl or > cd. it's not even > close. > > sakke > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/
