Originally Posted by Booga
CDs aren't lossless, so I'm not sure why you expect more from your online music.
It depends on what you mean. As you weren't specific about what you mean, it's hard to comment on it. Some people think that digitization is lossy, but it's not lossy in the same context as a lossy codec.
Originally Posted by Halvri
Agreed, go listen to a DVD-Audio disc and see if you still think CDs are lossless.
Again, same as above. Resampling losses aren't the same as compression losses.
Originally Posted by Halvri
They come from a loss-less sample and that's it. Compressing the file for CDs inherently causes loss. It does the same thing even at higher bitrates. Stop trying to justify your error and just move on. Physical media is dead one way or another so this entire argument is ultimately irrelevant.
If you're going to school people, why not try to use better terminology? Blatantly using the wrong terminology isn't helping you here. Making a CD bitstream from a master isn't compression, it is resampling. It's like the rescaling a photo in Photoshop, that's not compression or decompression, it is resampling. The compression is what happens when you're saving as JPG or similar type of codec for distribution. In determining whether a codec is lossy or not, you do a bit comparison of the data going into the compressor and compare it to the decompressed data, and the resampling doesn't figure into that determination. Anything else is out of context and an improper use of terminology for the context.
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Copyright is a civil, not criminal matter, which is why it's RIAA against person x, not State of Minnesota/Feds against person x and also why no one goes to jail.
I think copyright used to be just a civil matter, but criminal aspects have been gradually added to it over the years.
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
This is actually not true.
It's not Apple's fault (other than negotiating a bad deal), but it isn't due to P2P/Torrents either. The price is up because of the monopoly
position of the labels and the sweetheart deal they get on copyright law.
All the labels act in unison as a cartel, which is just a monopoly by any other name (an oligarchy
technically). Because they are allowed to set the prices artificially and because (with the help of various governments), nothing goes out of copyright anymore, they have carte blanche to do whatever the heck they want.
Monopolies in business are always
bad for the consumer. It's always been that way, and it's why from time to time laws are passed that attempt to eliminate or control them. Monopolies stifle freedom and innovation and are inherently fascist in design.
Until something is purposely
done to free up the market (government intervention), the consumer will be preyed upon. It really is as simple as that.
Copyright is a legal distribution monopoly on a particular work. That doesn't prevent others from making songs to compete against them. You don't have to buy or listen to major label music. BTW: the existence and length of copyright is a form of government intervention in itself, it looks like you're arguing for government to intervene on the results of government intervention.
Originally Posted by hmurchison
The only thing lossless by any stretch is the analog waveform from instrument to your ears.
The CD format is lossy.
Even a bump to a 20-bit word length will yield differences you can hear. Increase the sampling rate and it'll cause differences you can hear. This is of course provided you have proper AD/DA conversion.
I'm curious how 20 bit changes anything if human hearing doesn't have that level of dynamic range. As I understand it, 18 bits is the most you can expect from the best ears and best equipment, and that's assuming the equipment is good, and that's not cheap.
Originally Posted by GordonComstock
Yup. the mic, the pre, the desk, the headstack, the tape formulation, the transport, the playback compensation, the amp, and the speakers to name a few things that adulterate the original signal in the "analog" world of reproduction (and we haven't even gotten to the lathe).
Yes, different kinds of losses. At least with sampling, you can inexpensively cut your losses along most of the rest of the chain, up until the output DAC, then there are conversion & amplification losses, and the limitations of the speakers, environment and ears.
Originally Posted by Gxcad
Blind tests have in the past proven no difference between DVD-Audio and CD. For that matter, the same holds true between 256kbps mp3's and CD's on very expensive and highly respected setups. People who say otherwise need to prove it in a blind test before they go boasting how they are audiophiles and they have superior ears or trained ears that can hear the difference.
Having said that, yes, TECHNICALLY, 24 bit 96khz audio SHOULD produce better quality audio. We certainly won't be able to hear it though.
Same goes for SACD - all marketing.
Maybe the difference is that the SACD / DVD-Audio releases don't employ the same dynamic range compression that is on the CD/MP3/etc? I think that could explain a lot.