kurtz Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 I buy a lot of music, but I can't possibly afford to buy all the music that I want to listen to. So for new music, it's about 50/50, paid for/downloaded. If money was not an obstacle, I would never download anything. The way I look at it, the #1 reason that the bands created the music, is for people to listen to and enjoy. The #2 reason might be to sell it and whatnot. So the question I ask myself is, would the band rather have their music downloaded, listened to and enjoyed, or sit on a shelf and not be heard (because of lack of funds). This may be a very arrogant way of looking at it, and I'm sure some people will disagree, but I feel that the thousands of dollars that I have, and continue to, put into my collection of music gives me some kind of right to take a free listen when I don't have the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante3000 Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 I would like to take this moment to interject something. I don't think Flickr is wrong but I can see why people may not want to agree with you. You're coming off like a bit of a condescending dick. I'm not sure if your purpose is to state your point and possibly convert others or if it's simply to attempt to make other people feel inferior but it certainly seems like you're trying to belittle at least as much as you're trying to persuade. I typically don't care about the audio quality. MP3's for me are pretty much something I listen to on the run or working out. At home I listen to CD's or vinyl. However, you do make some interesting arguments and when I get a bigger MP3 player (something to hold my stuff) I might begin ripping my future purchases to the highest bitrate. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew13 Posted June 5, 2008 Author Share Posted June 5, 2008 I also buy as much music as my wallet allows me. But I love the fact that I can download an album and listen to it a bunch of times to see if it holds up for me and I will buy it. I own a lot of music but I also have a lot of downloaded music, most of which I fully intend on buying when I can. I live in a small town and we don't get a lot of the music I enjoy or don't have here (that will change soon as we're finally getting an hmv) so whenever I go to toronto I go crazy and buy music or dvds.One point that I never see being raised is the fact that there is a big market for used cds I bet the people here (Scott, hate to attack you but I'm using you as an example) still buy a lot of used cds and albums (I do it too) which the band doesn't get a single cent from (from the resale anyway). You may say they saw the money the first time, which is true. However, if this is an album you really love and were intending to buy anyway and you found used for half the price technically you're paying for the album but the only person seeing a profit is the person that sold the album. So in a way isn't that almost as bad? I'm not trying to start a fight I'm just trying to come up with a new point in the debate. a lot of used cds are punch outs too. so the band never saw a penny from them in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew13 Posted June 5, 2008 Author Share Posted June 5, 2008 also, where i live, there's no cd store within 60 mins. and then, the only ones are FYE's that charge $20 for a cd. i loved it in wilkes-barre where they have gallery of sound's with cds AND some vinyl (FYE has none), plus they're indy stores and cds are typically $10 or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexH. Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 whatever though, pay for your shitty mp3s, but the fact that you are spending your money on these inferior audio files makes me loose a ton of respect for you as a music listener. LOLZ Seriously, that's such bullshit. I buy and listen to vinyl when it's practical, but otherwise all my music is ripped into 192 AAC and living on hard drives. Why? Because I don't want to carry around 200 CDs, I don't have the infinite space necessary to rip those CDs onto my laptop/iPod for FLAC, and I get music online (yeah, and some I even pay for). If you want to judge people for listening to lossy music files, go hang out on an audiophile message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skumbucket Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 If I lost 50 records you'd better believe I'd kill someone. I like having music that means something to me, even if it's just some odd physical attachment to consumerism. wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flicker Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 whatever though, pay for your shitty mp3s, but the fact that you are spending your money on these inferior audio files makes me loose a ton of respect for you as a music listener. LOLZ Seriously, that's such bullshit. I buy and listen to vinyl when it's practical, but otherwise all my music is ripped into 192 AAC and living on hard drives. Why? Because I don't want to carry around 200 CDs, I don't have the infinite space necessary to rip those CDs onto my laptop/iPod for FLAC, and I get music online (yeah, and some I even pay for). If you want to judge people for listening to lossy music files, go hang out on an audiophile message board. dude, thats exactly what im saying. thats why i support free downloading. listen to all the free mp3s you want, even at low bitrates. but i just dont get how anybody that claims to enjoy music could support the degredation of the content. I refuse to accept 128k as the new standard for music. if that makes me an audiophile, then so be it. I still dont get how anyone could ever use 'audiophile' with a negative connotation... I would like to take this moment to interject something. I don't think Flickr is wrong but I can see why people may not want to agree with you. You're coming off like a bit of a condescending dick. I'm not sure if your purpose is to state your point and possibly convert others or if it's simply to attempt to make other people feel inferior but it certainly seems like you're trying to belittle at least as much as you're trying to persuade. yeah, i guess i can see that. Although neither of those are really my intentions. I just have a tendency to put things bluntly. Im not going to watse time being even more long winded just so i dont step on peoples toes... i mean i will admit i do use harsh language in order to get people riled up and really start to think about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouncingsoles123 Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 I don't pay attention to the bitrate of my MP3s, I mean the higher the better I suppose, but I don't think I'd notice the difference, so why should I care? There comes a point where you are becoming too picky, plus I need room to store these MP3s (I actually have a lot of CDs not ripped because of lack of room) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flicker Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 There comes a point where you are becoming too picky rofl. so i take it you still have a 15 inch black and white TV that you will use for the rest of your life? are people that buy Blu-Ray for the quality are just being too picky? maybe they should just charge the blu-ray price tag for vhs quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcm1610 Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 I'm not even remotely close to an audiophile but I hate having low-quality mp3s and can tell the difference. I'm on Flicker's side, even though I don't care that much. I'll download a low-quality version if that's all there is, but it's usually a one-time listen to get a feel for the song, then I get rid of it. I rip my CDs at 320 usually and DL what I have on vinyl at at least that level of quality. Maybe in a blind test you can't tell the difference, but for the music I listen to a lot I can absolutely tell it's a shittier quality, and I pretty much only use my mp3s on my ipod in my car, where my speakers are far superior to in my house, so I notice the quality even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew13 Posted June 6, 2008 Author Share Posted June 6, 2008 i think the people saying you can or cannot hear a difference, it comes down a lot to the type of music you listen too. ska you can definitely tell a difference. same with hiphop usually, depending on how complex the background music is. flicker listens to a lot of hiphop if i remember right, so he'd notice a difference. if you listen to mostly streetpunk or emo or metalcore, i don't know how much of a difference there would be. more complex the music, more quality matters IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew13 Posted June 6, 2008 Author Share Posted June 6, 2008 i never said metal. metalcore. the breakdown breakdown cockpunch shit victory puts out. DEP is very complex, and i know you can tell differences on their stuff from experience. 128 does not do them justice. when i'm talking hip hop too, i mean like Sage, Saul, and Atmosphere. they usually have a lot of shit going on in their songs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunkrock Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 i think the people saying you can or cannot hear a difference, it comes down a lot to the type of music you listen too. ska you can definitely tell a difference. same with hiphop usually, depending on how complex the background music is. flicker listens to a lot of hiphop if i remember right, so he'd notice a difference. if you listen to mostly streetpunk or emo or metalcore, i don't know how much of a difference there would be. more complex the music, more quality matters IMO. You think hip hop is more complex than metal? Also correct me if I'm wrong I believe he meant more complex production not necessarily musicianship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtz Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 Hip Hop would not be a good style to listen to different bitrates with anyway. Most of that music is so over compressed you would have a hard time telling the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew13 Posted June 6, 2008 Author Share Posted June 6, 2008 i know sage and atmosphere you can tell a difference with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouncingsoles123 Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 There comes a point where you are becoming too picky rofl. so i take it you still have a 15 inch black and white TV that you will use for the rest of your life? are people that buy Blu-Ray for the quality are just being too picky? maybe they should just charge the blu-ray price tag for vhs quality. No. I'm saying that the difference between like 192 and lossless is so minimal that you are just being uptight about it. Whatever, you can keep being picky but I don't really notice the difference and listen to CDs and vinyl for albums I really like so I don't lose. EDIT: Also your visual comparison is ridiculous, because tv is far from perfect and I think MP3s have gotten nearest perfection for hearing that it depends on your speakers more than the bit rate (over a certain point of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbypuckett Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 A lot of extremes in this thread. It should be noted that I believe a 192kbs MP3 is the bare-minimum that should be sold to consumers. Anything less and you can begin to tell the differences, but anywhere between there and FLAC and you're just getting full of yourself. I have no problems with people wanting to own the best quality if that's what toots your horn. However, the target consumer for purchasing music online isn't audiophiles (not a negative), but Joe Six Pack and Sally Soccer Mom who don't even know what kbs and FLAC stand for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letskissthesky Posted June 6, 2008 Share Posted June 6, 2008 i actually read every post in this thread and boy did that take a while. i personally just have my stuff at 128kbps. it saves room and the sound is perfectly fine to me. i don't really have any superb speakers or headphones or anything so it won't reall make a difference. i've listened to things at different bit rates and it doesn't sound much different to me. plus the fact that i have about 19,000 songs on my computer and it would take way too fucking long to convert them to 192. as far as my collection, i'd say about 35% to 45% of what i have i have paid for. a lot of stuff i have is not readily available at the store and i don't have an insane amount of money to drop on music. but i do spend as much as i can and if i enjoy something good enough i always go out and buy a physical copy. sometimes i've downloaded it, bought the cd, and then bought the vinyl as well. as far as i know, most bands would prefer to actually have their music heard. instead of sitting around not being listened to by nearly as much people, as if they'd been downloaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salparadise Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 It's really funny to me that since oink appeared, half of the people that were registered to that site decided that they were "audiophiles" and were up for debating the difference of bit rates and different audio formats. it's absolutely hysterical to sit and read through all of the half correct bullshit musical snobbery. i absolutely loved the "i buy vinyl because it sounds the best, and i want the best sounding musicz" argument, because while i know we all prefer the "warm" sound of vinyl, scientifically, vinyl is painfully inferior to the digital copy. bring up the analog v digital argument, someone, i dare you. as far as downloading goes, i stopped doing it in such great numbers when my hard drive died and i had nowhere to store it, so i had to cut down to what i could store and ultimately cut down to almost nothing. i'll download things as much as i want, because in particular, i don't really give a shit about what some holier-than-thou douche bag on a message board thinks of me and i don't have to justify anything that i do to make myself or anyone feel better about it. dont tell me how to spend my fucking money that i work hard to have. maybe, because this boards demographic is so bizarre and there seem to either be people in high school and people past college age, and not a lot of people in between, that a majority of you think it okay to buy every god damn cd you might want to hear, because you have a fairly good paycheck, or you have your parents credit cards and a sweet allowance, but most people cant afford to do that. and why should they have to? because it fits in the "punk rock" ethos? i do see both sides of this argument, as i've been on both sides. i just think that no one should be told what to do by anyone else, especially on a fucking message board. bands should learn to suffer for their art, or stop pretending to be fucking artists in the first place, weed out the weak. that would make the market way less saturated and make for a lot less shitty bands. music was never meant to be a business, we should probably stop fucking treating it like one. being involved in any sort of music is just as bad as walking into a room full of pushy, in your face, dumb fucking used car salesmen or attorneys. you've expressed the slightest interest in their service, and they're gonna try and sell you themselves for whatever they can get. that's stupid, and that is not in the spirit of music, that is not the spirit of art. you know why half the records put out by bands on some larger level label sound like shit and come in sub-par packaging? because they don't care what it sounds like, they're selling a product to a community of people that want it, so they can make more money. do you know why everything deathwish puts out is always superior? because they're part of the community they're selling to, and there is concern for art, there is concern for quality. would you rather have a color xerox of whatever you feel is the greatest painting in the world, or would you rather have your friend paint something FOR YOU and give you the original? /rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 I'm not sure why, but most mainstream rap produces really low birates when ripped. So stuff can sound good at low birates, hell Two Gallants The Thrones is like 150 avg, and it sounds alright. So I agree, the style of music and also how it is mastered affect how it will sound when ripped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclz Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts