To the People

I spend around $500 on each CD I put out so that a grammy winning mastering engineer can run my 24-bit audio files through expensive boxes ($10,000 limiters, etc) and then, to make a mockery of things, sell the compressed 128 kbps files on itunes. To call 128 kbps "CD-quality" is as big a lie as saying Saddam had WMDs! And people hooking their ipods up to Bose systems are probably too deaf from prolonged earbud-wear to realize they are sonically shortchanging themselves for the sake of convenience.

However, there are a couple of technologies on the horizon such as FLAC that provide a happy medium between digital delivery and sonic quality. For more on FLAC go here: http://flac.sourceforge.net/ and here: http://digitalmusicfetish.indieo...stop.com/music/

I do want to point out one good thing about Ipods -- they enable people to listen to music much more frequently and hopefully increase the demand for it. The fact that people are willing now to pay for satellite radio shows a resistance to clear channel's vision of a 10 song playlist world. Maybe there will be less musicians having to die slow deaths in cubicles in the future.


I just got my email link to the non-encrypted Sarah McLachlan CD that's mentioned in the article. This was part of a settlement for a massive lawsuit against Sony for bugging up people's computers with that copy protection scheme.

They're sending me a new CD too.


Seriously, anyone that knows anything about music will be loathe to accept a 128k mp3.

Give me a 160-320 VBR track anyday.

Seriously. 128k fucks up the highs like you wouldn't believe.


shit i've been saying the same thing about DVDs' quality....it's always sucked, though it's better than it was. shall we discuss internet video?

that reminds me, isn't apple supposed to come out with HifiPod soon? you know dipped in 24k gold with more oversampling or something. and low resonance.....quartz drive...digital ready.


Name:

Email:

URL:

Comment:  ? 

 

Commenting by HaloScan