some of the files on these sites are in .xm format - what's the deal with those ? how do they achieve such compression levels ??? Gwendal
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ronny Pries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 9:11 PM > To: 313@hyperreal.org > Subject: RE: (313) tresor meets apple > > > I'm trying to offer the best spread between size and quality on my > netlabels (www.rohformat.de, www.primative.net/schleudertrauma/ < > shameless self promotion - GOTCHA! ;). That's actually vbr mp3's > compressed with lame 3.90.3 codec using the --alt-preset standard > setting. Right now i'm almost alone with vbr in the netlabel > scene. Many > others still use lame compressed 192kb HQ mp3's. I would also love to > offer .ogg which i consider to be way better, qualitywise - > it's not yet > spread broadly enough. Since a lot of people in our > "audience" are using > Traktor/FS i won't move to .ogg before N.I. will support it. > > On a sidenote, the difference between lame --alt-preset > standard or .ogg > and lossless formats isn't significant enough to approach our > users with > lossless compressed files that are up to 7 times bigger. Many > people who > download music from netlabels aren't flatrate or highspeed internet > users. Maybe in some years the public request for lossless > files will be > strong enough to make the step. I don't see that for now as > it's also a > storageproblem, and hd's aren't up for this task yet ;) > > I personally think that discussion about file compression techniques > should be hold under seperate cover (bet that'd be a nice flamewar, > heh...) > > The thing that worries me most about apple etc, they all try to punish > the user to use their own software to play their native formats. It's > the same as with cd copy protection, the customers don't want to have > limited access to products they buy. Back to aac (e.g.), converting > between compressed formats doesn't make sense and are NO > option as some > industry people might tell us. > > About the bandwidth, storage space vs quality problem: > > Of course, bigger files have higher fixed costs. But why is there no > option for the customers to choose buying better quality for a higher > price? I bet the industry assumes that the usual customer is > a dumbo and > satisfied with the crap they sell there (pity, that's even true :/ ). > Well, where is this heading to? I bet it needs some group > effort in the > "underground", i.e. a foundation of independant labels > offering music in > reasonable quality. Instead, i have to learn that Tresor > joins apple :( > > The only thing that makes me a little bit happy about the situation: > > the amount of hits on netlabel websites is steadily growing. > So should i > cry or laugh?.. > > My 2,5 €cent. > > Ronny > > > two threads coming together at the same time... > > > > so as there are a lot of independent label runners on this > > list who might be considering digital distribution what > > format do you think digital releases should be released in? > > > > high bit rate lossy compressed format (mp3/ogg/aac) or full > > width wavs/aiffs? > > > > i favour the latter. i have the bandwidth tho. > > > > robin... > > > > > > -> Too bad the quality offered by Apple is still way below > > enjoyable or > > -> even playable :( Until the point they start selling > music encoded > > -> with reasonable codecs in a file format that can be used by any > > -> application i > > -> can only say: > > -> > > -> IT SUCKS. > > -> > > -> Even if the entire 313 music history would be available there. > > -> > > -> Thx for listening, > > -> > > -> Ronny > >
