I agree with you on all of that Kent, except this bit:
>This isn't the place to debate it, obviously, but the fact is that high-bitrate MP3s can't be distinguished from CDs in blind listening tests. You can argue that vinyl is superior to both those formats, but in the majority of listening situations the difference in sound between the formats is swamped by the quality of the playback equipment. If you come to a club like the one we use and play mp3s, you will soon notice 'The Look' from people out there on the floor. It just becomes bloomin' obvious on a good system when you sling on lossy files. For it to not become obvious *everybody* would have to play mp3s - but then why bother when you can get better quality by using higher-bitrate, albeit having to invest in more storage capacity .... [I'm not mentioning vinyl, note! ;-)] ***************** NB, I for one have no reluctance to not have this debate every time it comes up. The reason why it keeps coming up is that it's important to us - and I would add before someone picks me up on it, it's well on topic too, imo .... -----Original Message----- From: kent williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 5:09 PM To: list 313 Subject: Re: (313) Morgan Geist interview This isn't the place to debate it, obviously, but the fact is that high-bitrate MP3s can't be distinguished from CDs in blind listening tests. You can argue that vinyl is superior to both those formats, but in the majority of listening situations the difference in sound between the formats is swamped by the quality of the playback equipment. And to your second point, as someone who has literally run out of room in my house for vinyl and CDs (and by 'literally' I mean literally literally, and it's not a small house), I am really happy with having my music on hard disk. It's searchable in a way my CDs and vinyl never will be. You have to be paranoid about backing it up, but it's a more manageable way to handle a large collection. And to the third point -- artist compensation -- with a few exceptions, few people make a good living out of music, and that was just as true 100 years ago as now. Technology has upset how musicians make their living over and over again. Some people adapt and do OK, and some people get bitter and complain. Musicians complaining about people not paying for their music shouldn't make the same mistake Software publishers and Major labels do -- every illicit copy does not represent a lost sale. Studies indicate the biggest downloaders are also the biggest spenders when it comes to music. And someone who hears your music, no matter the context, is more likely to purchase it than someone who has never heard it. Even before the bottom fell out of the dance vinyl market, DJs and producers made more money from playing out than vinyl sales. Now, when music is no longer made artificially scarce by being tied to a physical object, it remains true that a live performance is the only irreplaceable, unreproducable thing. It seems to me that isn't a completely bad thing, either. I don't say this to justify something-for-nothing deadbeats that never pay for music, just to point out that it's not a black and white thing. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:28 AM, JT Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The mp3 formulation flat-out sucks. I don't care what > site you uh cite. The "artifact" and "reality" of music is ceasing to > exist -- like MG says, seeing live music is becoming the only way to > have a real music experience now. Technophiles will rant and rave > about the freedom and access allowed by ethereal digital "objects", > but we are losing many of the old ways we marked and appreciated and > valued cultural fuel such as music...the digital revolution got ahead > of itself. It's not just because we're getting old.
