Why do they hack???

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue May 11, 2004 12:26 pm

Originally posted by RandomThug
I'm pretty sure board rules are strict on the amount about Piracy we speak off. I could go on for days about the scene how things are done and why... the why is easy on most levels. Free. Some deeper... like friends I know who only pirate music because of the obscene costs... of course with Itunes and such now adays a lot of thier points are moot.

Well - regarding iTunes:
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_new ... ewsID=8493

Seems the recordindustry isn't interested in having cheaper music - especially avalible online.
Can't say it is surprising though - of couse, they'd rather sell complete albums then making it cheaper to only buy the few "hits" on an album.

Personally - from what I could decipher from my time spend in "the milieu" - or rather when I went to school (lot of things happening in a IT-school) is that it isn't prices as much that is infact the reason why many simply download piracy music instead of buying it legally.

It is the fact that the music these days are made up by so much compilation and greatest hits. If I go into a record store here in Denmark and watch the "Top 10", 80% is either (mix)compilations or greatest hits.
There is a logical number of times one want the same 15 songs on various CDs.
Also combine this with the fact that record companies tend to go more main-stream and safe music (much like the gaming industry is starting), well that means that there is little diversity in publicly spread music. It almost sounds the same all of it - and yes I know I'm generalizing.
Then often there is possible 2-3 songs on an album one likes, and then it is for many people often much easier either getting a copy from friends or downloading the 2-3 songs.

The reason why reccord companies are more likely to back the "main stream" groups/artists is due to the massively falling sales - which they of couse blame on piracy.
However there have been studies done (unfortunally I only have these in danish and no english link to their sources) that there are other reasons why the sales of CDs have dropped massively.
One of the most obvious is that the reason sales have dropped is because the comparison of figures are from the 90's back when many people bought CDs to replace their large LP collections. This will give unproportional high sales figures.
Of couse this fact is dismisshed fast from the record companies.
Other studies tell that it is infact pirates that buy most new CDs - and many I know also use mp3's as a way to "sample" new music before buying it (not all of couse).
I follow this problem intensly on danish computer news sites because we have our own version of RIAA called APG that is cracking down hard with very questionable methods on piracy.

There are incredible many sides to this problem - but unfortunally, there is so little focus on these sides other then "piracy serverly hurts sales", and that is hurting the handeling of the problem.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Tue May 11, 2004 1:37 pm

Congratulations! If you can spot a difference big enough for you to consider offensive between a 192kbps MP3 and a CD you might have the best ears in the world. Interestingly enough, music companies seem to think that 128kbps MP3s are good enough as 128kbps is the standard format provided at online music stores.

Congratulations. If you can't hear that difference, you might have the WORST ears in the world. If you're gonna argue the value of quality between a 6Mb music file and a 60Mb music file, you should really read up on recording tech and basic understanding of how the ear works first.

Kaitsuburi · Post by **Kaitsuburi** » Tue May 11, 2004 8:44 pm

Originally posted by Moonbiter
Congratulations. If you can't hear that difference, you might have the WORST ears in the world. If you're gonna argue the value of quality between a 6Mb music file and a 60Mb music file, you should really read up on recording tech and basic understanding of how the ear works first.

I disagree, @moonbiter. Using Lame VBR compression at 192 kbs, you are very close to "transparency" i.e. not being able to hear the difference between your lossily compressed file and your red-book CD. On average (read: non-audiophile) equipment, you would certainly need very good ears to tell the difference.

On the other hand, with a $1000-soundcard -> $1000-DAC -> $1500-headphone-amp -> $500+-headphones you will clearly hear the difference but then you probably won't be listening to music on your computer at all

-kaitsuburi

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Wed May 12, 2004 5:53 am

Originally posted by Kaitsuburi

On the other hand, with a $1000-soundcard -> $1000-DAC -> $1500-headphone-amp -> $500+-headphones you will clearly hear the difference but then you probably won't be listening to music on your computer at all

-kaitsuburi [/b]

Yep... too bad my soundcard is the cheaper, on board model... *sigh*

Kaitsuburi · Post by **Kaitsuburi** » Wed May 12, 2004 8:29 am

Originally posted by Luis Antonio
Yep... too bad my soundcard is the cheaper, on board model... *sigh*

No, feel good about your wallet

Audiophilism is a VERY expensive hobby LOL

-kaitsuburi

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Wed May 12, 2004 9:37 am

I disagree, @moonbiter. Using Lame VBR compression at 192 kbs, you are very close to "transparency" i.e. not being able to hear the difference between your lossily compressed file and your red-book CD. On average (read: non-audiophile) equipment, you would certainly need very good ears to tell the difference.

Wrong. It's a testament to how our hearing has detoriated and our ability to listen has gone down the tubes that you say this. I'll give you a prime example: I take a song like Stones' "Sympathy For The Devil" and I compress it in my studio at 192 kbs. When first putting on the result, 2 things stand out to MY ears, that would have blown completely by any digi-age little MP3 dependant who hasn't heard the original: You quite simply can't hear the marracas, and you have to strain your ears to hear the rhytm guitar. Period. You can argue this until you get blue in the face, but the evidence is there for any to hear, if they bother to actually LISTEN. Which the current "settle for less" generation doesn't. Hearing for instance a guitar solo on an MP3 is about as tonally exciting as hearing it played by an 80s Casio alarm watch.

Kaitsuburi · Post by **Kaitsuburi** » Wed May 12, 2004 9:56 am

Originally posted by Moonbiter
Wrong. It's a testament to how our hearing has detoriated and our ability to listen has gone down the tubes that you say this. I'll give you a prime example: I take a song like Stones' "Sympathy For The Devil" and I compress it in my studio at 192 kbs. When first putting on the result, 2 things stand out to MY ears, that would have blown completely by any digi-age little MP3 dependant who hasn't heard the original: You quite simply can't hear the marracas, and you have to strain your ears to hear the rhytm guitar. Period. You can argue this until you get blue in the face, but the evidence is there for any to hear, if they bother to actually LISTEN. Which the current "settle for less" generation doesn't. Hearing for instance a guitar solo on an MP3 is about as tonally exciting as hearing it played by an 80s Casio alarm watch.

Would you be more specific about your "studio," i.e. the equipment you used to make the comparison and the codec/compression settings you used?

Please read my previous post more carefully; I am only claiming that 192Kbs VBR Lame-encoded mp3 will sound near-transparent on non-audiophile PC setup. Are you suggesting that 1) my claim is wrong or 2) that I don't bother to/don't care to/can't "LISTEN"?

Without being more specific, you are suggesting the latter which, to me, is pretty offensive.

-kaitsuburi

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed May 12, 2004 10:22 am

Originally posted by Moonbiter
Wrong. It's a testament to how our hearing has detoriated and our ability to listen has gone down the tubes that you say this. I'll give you a prime example: I take a song like Stones' "Sympathy For The Devil" and I compress it in my studio at 192 kbs. When first putting on the result, 2 things stand out to MY ears, that would have blown completely by any digi-age little MP3 dependant who hasn't heard the original: You quite simply can't hear the marracas, and you have to strain your ears to hear the rhytm guitar. Period. You can argue this until you get blue in the face, but the evidence is there for any to hear, if they bother to actually LISTEN. Which the current "settle for less" generation doesn't. Hearing for instance a guitar solo on an MP3 is about as tonally exciting as hearing it played by an 80s Casio alarm watch.

Frankly - I find your tone in the post slightly offensive, indicating that all us that like the MP3 format are setteling for less or can't hear proberly.

Sure there are differences between CD and MP3, because the compression of a CD down to MP3 removes some of the highest and lowest frequencies and mathematically alters some of the other tones to compress it so hard.

For instance, I listen to all my music via MP3s because I have a good soundcard in my computer, and quality speakers (well, they were quality 3 years ago). Furthermore I have a MP3 player instead of a discman/walkman. This is because I prioritise my computer higher then getting new stereo equipment.
First thing I do when buying a new CD is to "rip" the music I like onto my computer. This also saves on the CD

And personally – I can’t hear the great wide difference.

Some people emphasise greatly on the difference between MP3s and CD and use it against the MP3 format. I, fortunally, don't have this problem - because then we could take it a step futher and ask why we even listen to CDs at all - instead of hearing the music live?
But we must also remember, everybodys ear and hearing is different, just as each persons sense of taste or smell differs. And many people are more then happy with the MP3 format, without feeling they miss something, even though you might say they do. It is a choice people make, and it is a legitimate choice.

MP3 is an excellent format for many many reasons, but mostly because its compression is great. Being able to take 10 mb per minute music (normal CD) to about 1 mb per minute (normal MP3) withouth loosing much - is, to me, a much greater gain then what I loose in quality.
MP3 is made for porting music over networks, for instance the Internet - and it does its job excellent. So excellent that it has become the de facto standard audio over PCs despite not having any major manufactures support.
It is the users that have chosen MP3s – otherwise we would listen to one of the other ”supported” formats. RealAudio; Windows Media files and so on.

Also one have to remember, that the MP3 format is not meant to replace the CD format. It is the modern day “audio cassette tape”. You can make your own compilations much easier, the size is significant smaller and it is easier to transfer between audio units.

So blame it on deteriorated hearing or call it tonally unexciting, but the fact of the matter is that many people are happy with the quality, and find it more then adequate for normal use.
And the quality loss then seems insignificant to most.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Wed May 12, 2004 10:40 am

With the above post, you just proved my point. I was in no way trying to be offensive, but the fact remains that you settle for less when it comes to sound quality. You say the consumer chose MP3, and that's even less true than saying that the consumer chose CD. It was, and still is, forced on us by the industry.

I have listened to computer geeks pontificate on the greatness of MP3s for 10 years, and I don't hear a single valid argument. Like David Bowie and Neil Young said 2 years ago, when they went public to tell the story of music biz handling of the CD revolution:

"MP3 is quite simply people chosing quantity over quality."

If you can't hear the difference between a CD and an MP3, that's your problem. When you even admit to it, there is no point in being offended by someone pointing out that there actually IS a considerable difference.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Wed May 12, 2004 10:45 am

Originally posted by Moonbiter
With the above post, you just proved my point. I was in no way trying to be offensive, but the fact remains that you settle for less when it comes to sound quality. You say the consumer chose MP3, and that's even less true than saying that the consumer chose CD. It was, and still is, forced on us by the industry.

I have listened to computer geeks pontificate on the greatness of MP3s for 10 years, and I don't hear a single valid argument. Like David Bowie and Neil Young said 2 years ago, when they went public to tell the story of music biz handling of the CD revolution:

"MP3 is quite simply people chosing quantity over quality."

If you can't hear the difference between a CD and an MP3, that's your problem. When you even admit to it, there is no point in being offended by someone pointing out that there actually IS a considerable difference.

Do you also consider the difference in sound quality between vinyl and CD to be considerable?

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Wed May 12, 2004 10:49 am

Oh yes. Even the difference between analogue and digital recording ON VINYL is enormous. Heh, I remember when one of the first fully digitally recorded albums, Judas Priest' "Defenders of The Faith" came out, and me'n my buddies just looked at each other and went "what's thaaaaaaaat????"

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed May 12, 2004 10:57 am

Originally posted by Moonbiter
With the above post, you just proved my point. I was in no way trying to be offensive, but the fact remains that you settle for less when it comes to sound quality. You say the consumer chose MP3, and that's even less true than saying that the consumer chose CD. It was, and still is, forced on us by the industry.

I have listened to computer geeks pontificate on the greatness of MP3s for 10 years, and I don't hear a single valid argument. Like David Bowie and Neil Young said 2 years ago, when they went public to tell the story of music biz handling of the CD revolution:

"MP3 is quite simply people chosing quantity over quality."

If you can't hear the difference between a CD and an MP3, that's your problem. When you even admit to it, there is no point in being offended by someone pointing out that there actually IS a considerable difference.

What industry have supported and forced MP3s on the consumer?

The reason there is so many products supporting MP3s these days is due to the fact that it became so popular amongst the users - and not because any major manufacture wanted it.
Infact the patentholder and "developer" - gave the format out so everybody freely could create their own encoders/decoders/players and what not.

As you can claim there is BIG difference between the two formats, I can just as well claim that it is your MP3 sampling that aren't very good.
Of couse there are poor MP3 encoders as well as their are poor CD recordings, but the oppersite is just as true.
Lame supposedly (I've not tested it myself, yet) should be very good and I've only seen praise on the quality compared to the CDs, so maybe you are just using poor encoders.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Wed May 12, 2004 11:01 am

And thus, the argument ends in a stalemate as usual. You stick to your MP3s, I'll stick to my CDs, vinyl, tapes etc...

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed May 12, 2004 11:11 am

Originally posted by Moonbiter
And thus, the argument ends in a stalemate as usual. You stick to your MP3s, I'll stick to my CDs, vinyl, tapes etc...

I'm still interested in your claim that the format (MP3) was forced on consumers by the "industry", and would like to know how (and which industry by the way) this was forced upon us consumers?

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Wed May 12, 2004 11:12 am

Another question because my curiousity is tingling:
1. What equipment are you using to listen to music @ MB? There is a huge difference from headphone to headphone (or speaker to speaker) which even a non audiophile like me can make out quite clearly.
2. How are your MP3's encoded? Have you listened to Ogg Vorbis at higher bitrates? If yes, what do you think?

Kaitsuburi · Post by **Kaitsuburi** » Wed May 12, 2004 11:16 am

Originally posted by Moonbiter
And thus, the argument ends in a stalemate as usual. You stick to your MP3s, I'll stick to my CDs, vinyl, tapes etc...

That's fine. Your opinion is respected, but your argument is not very convincing without specific details.

As far as audio compression is concerned, I never compress to mp3 except to put on my cell phone for portable use. For computer playback, I use FLAC (lossless) and MusePack (MPC @q8), both of which have been proven transparent by many people I respect using double-blind testing and high-end equipment.

If anyone is interested, here is a site with a lot of information about audio compression.

-kaitsuburi

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Wed May 12, 2004 11:50 am

Arf arf! Well, if this is gonna turn into another "who has the best gear instead of the best ear" thing, which it usually does nowadays, you'll have to give me some time to take a trip around the house and write down names'n models. Cuz quite frankly I don't remember, except for the new G5 Dual in the studio.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Wed May 12, 2004 12:02 pm

Originally posted by Moonbiter
Arf arf! Well, if this is gonna turn into another "who has the best gear instead of the best ear" thing, which it usually does nowadays, you'll have to give me some time to take a trip around the house and write down names'n models. Cuz quite frankly I don't remember, except for the new G5 Dual in the studio.

2. How are your MP3's encoded? Have you listened to Ogg Vorbis at higher bitrates? If yes, what do you think?

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Wed May 12, 2004 12:04 pm

I KNOW! I was gonna reply to that, but my son is giving me a hard time here! Where's that tranq-gun. I don't know who Ogg Vorbis is, but please do enlighten me.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Wed May 12, 2004 12:14 pm

Originally posted by Moonbiter
I KNOW! I was gonna reply to that, but my son is giving me a hard time here! Where's that tranq-gun. I don't know who Ogg Vorbis is, but please do enlighten me.

(from wikipedia, because copy/paste is easier)
Vorbis is a completely open and free audio compression (codec) project from the Xiph.org Foundation. It is frequently used in conjunction with the Ogg container and is then called Ogg Vorbis.

Vorbis was started following a September 1998 letter from Fraunhofer Gesellschaft announcing plans to charge licensing fees for the MP3 format. Soon after founder Christopher Montgomery began work on the project, he was assisted by a growing collection of other developers. They continued refining the code until a stable version 1.0 of the codec was released on July 19, 2002.
Popularity growth

The Ogg Vorbis format has proved popular among open source communities; they argue that due to its higher fidelity and completely free nature, it is a natural replacement for the entrenched MP3 format. However, MP3 has a popular history dating back to the mid-1990s and as of 2003 is still the primary lossy audio format. It may be some time before one sees more Ogg format files than MP3 files. In the commercial sector, Vorbis has already had success with many newer video game titles employing Vorbis as opposed to MP3. The lack of widely available hardware players is hindering its growth as of November 2003; see the compatible hardware below.

Technical details

Given 44.1 kHz (standard CD audio sample frequency) stereo input, the current encoder as of July 2003 will produce output from 45 to 500 kbit/s depending on the specified quality setting. Though Vorbis 1.0 is tuned for bitrates of 16-128 kbit/s/channel it is still possible to encode arbitrary bitrates chosen by the user. Such figures are only approximate, however, as inherently Vorbis is variable-bitrate (VBR).

Vorbis uses modified discrete cosine transform (MDCT) for converting sound data from the time domain to the frequency domain and back.