[muffinman]

Originally Posted by Nightfly

Sorry I didn't read "quote" properly ...you are right...

OK cool I was getting worried

[mehrens2112]

Originally Posted by Nightfly

Marc,

Hey man,keep the faith,your determination will prevail.

Wishing you the best of luck,

Not even getting callbacks and now having to fight with 1000's of recent college grads willing to do it cheaper. DOH!!!

[rolly]

I wonder what really bothers the RIAA.

The fact that people can buy DRM free music,or the fact that someone other them themselves is making money off the sales.
Or the fact that a huge catalog is collected in one place,making it too easy for people to pay a lower price,and gives them a real easy target.

All the claims about the artists not getting their cut in the proceeds don't wash out very well.
Just a lame excuse.
The artists don't get a fair shake with the so called legitimate sales either.

There are hundreds of blogs,warez sites,etc. that carry on,day after day.
And there is nothing they are going to do about it,and I don't think they even try,or if they are even interested in trying.
Why not?
Because there isn't any money involved with these avenues.

I believe it is the fact that someone is making money,and not sharing it with them,that gets their goat.
They are the real crooks here.

Maybe a offbeat option for sparks?
I'll donate a few dollars their way,and in return for my gracious donation,they tell me where the links are to some of their free music.

[archon.thelawgiver]

What I was referring to is the lack of direct credit card facilities not some tortuous (cmpass etc.) route. Access to paypal or the like would also make life much easier as well. But at the moment, in some countries people don't have this service whilst others (such as myself just don't want to go through the hoops just to gain access to the 'sparks music listings.

Now I totally agree that the RIAA/IFPI goons just don't get it. I'm one of those people who came to allofmp3/sparks from the world of "blank" and cut price cds. I used to love spending hours going through the punk and punk/pop listings AND I was paying for the music. Of course the RIAA etc. refused to accept the payments. And what was their response…to try and close down allofmp3/sparks.

Well go figure what my response has been. So I'm now doing what I used to do after I refused to pay between $AUS20-30. That's what it costs in Australia to buy new cds. The price has dropped a little but not all that much. In the meantime ARIA the Australian equivalent of the RIAA is witnessing the closure of more and more music stores with the stock ending up on ebay.

For the record, the iTunes price for music has been imposed on Apple. They wanted to charge less for their music listings and the music majors wanted more money. You see, Apple doesn't make much from selling music, they make their money from the hardware sales. You may have heard about their product; it's called the ipod.

What a stupid, inane, asinine and short-term music industry policy. Is it working? No! Will it work…absolutely not. And here's the rub; I'm ex-music industry. I've done everything from putting gigs on, playing in bands, working for the union over unpaid muso's wages; the whole lot. So when you get somebody like me, an ex-industry veteran taking this stand then the game is almost over.

The price for music needs to be massively cut to get the punters to start buying music again. Now my business plan is for a concentration on the marketing side for touring artists with free downloads to publicise the new music and the marketing side of the business (specifically, signed t-shirts and cds, special releases and the like).

The music companies can concentrate on the technical side of the business along with specific advertising. Sure it's a whole new paradigm and there won't be as much money in the industry but then again the music majors are a pack of fat cat leeches feeding off most of their acts and sucking the shrinking (paying) public dry. I know this industry too well and frankly it just plain sucks. And this my message to the RIAA/IFPI etc:

You might stop me using mp3sparks but there are many, many fish in the sea.

[Starcat]

Originally Posted by archon.thelawgiver

What I was referring to is the lack of direct credit card facilities not some tortuous (cmpass etc.) route. Access to paypal or the like would also make life much easier as well. But at the moment, in some countries people don't have this service whilst others (such as myself just don't want to go through the hoops just to gain access to the 'sparks music listings.

Now I totally agree that the RIAA/IFPI goons just don't get it. I'm one of those people who came to allofmp3/sparks from the world of "blank" and cut price cds. I used to love spending hours going through the punk and punk/pop listings AND I was paying for the music. Of course the RIAA etc. refused to accept the payments. And what was their response…to try and close down allofmp3/sparks.

Well go figure what my response has been. So I'm now doing what I used to do after I refused to pay between $AUS20-30. That's what it costs in Australia to buy new cds. The price has dropped a little but not all that much. In the meantime ARIA the Australian equivalent of the RIAA is witnessing the closure of more and more music stores with the stock ending up on ebay.

For the record, the iTunes price for music has been imposed on Apple. They wanted to charge less for their music listings and the music majors wanted more money. You see, Apple doesn't make much from selling music, they make their money from the hardware sales. You may have heard about their product; it's called the ipod.

What a stupid, inane, asinine and short-term music industry policy. Is it working? No! Will it work…absolutely not. And here's the rub; I'm ex-music industry. I've done everything from putting gigs on, playing in bands, working for the union over unpaid muso's wages; the whole lot. So when you get somebody like me, an ex-industry veteran taking this stand then the game is almost over.

The price for music needs to be massively cut to get the punters to start buying music again. Now my business plan is for a concentration on the marketing side for touring artists with free downloads to publicise the new music and the marketing side of the business (specifically, signed t-shirts and cds, special releases and the like).

The music companies can concentrate on the technical side of the business along with specific advertising. Sure it's a whole new paradigm and there won't be as much money in the industry but then again the music majors are a pack of fat cat leeches feeding off most of their acts and sucking the shrinking (paying) public dry. I know this industry too well and frankly it just plain sucks. And this my message to the RIAA/IFPI etc:

You might stop me using mp3sparks but there are many, many fish in the sea.

Great post, archon
Thanks for that informative and articulate piece.
You are right. What these record companies don`t seem to realise is that if they were to slash the prices they charge for downloads on "official" sites, they would sell a lot more of them.
But by keeping the prices artificially high, it is driving more and more consumers to find alternative ways of acquiring their music.
And when are Apple going to realise people don`t want to pay a premium for inferior quality bitrates that are infected with DRM??

[archon.thelawgiver]

Apple's bit rates are taken from master copies which are superior to what we get from the Russian/Ukranian music sites. Thus, their music is of a superior quality than just the bit rate alone. However you do make a valid point with the non-iTunes plus music which is sub par.

I'm not sure but I seem to remember that it was the music companies (the majors) who were afraid that they would lose their cd monopoly and didn't want the iTunes music to be of the equivalent quality as what is on "their" pressed media (cds).

It's not that I'm saying that Apple is totally without fault but I don't think that Apple was the real culprit in this instance.

As for the DRM issue that was definitely a "majors" decision and Apple was forced to sell DRM infected music. Apple, to their credit enables a quick work-around for this…burn the music onto a cd and then re-upload to your computer sans DRM, but they're not allowed to trumpet this. The various music and mac magazines have no reluctance in making this known.

Much obliged for the thumbs up on my previous contribution. Any kudos is good kudos.

[squash54]

Originally Posted by archon.thelawgiver

Apple's bit rates are taken from master copies which are superior to what we get from the Russian/Ukranian music sites. Thus, their music is of a superior quality than just the bit rate alone. However you do make a valid point with the non-iTunes plus music which is sub par.

Could you expand on this -

How is a an Apple 'bit rate' superior to a Sparks 'bit rate'? In particular, how is an Apple 256 AAC 'bit rate' superior to, say an OGG 320 kbps(or even 256) from Sparks, one of the Russian/Ukranian music sites you refer to.

How do you know all the music from the R/U stores was not taken from the 'master copies'?

What is a 'master copy' in a digital context anyway? How is it qualitatively different to a copy made from it. Wouldn't a copy of the copy made from the 'master' be exactly the same as the master?

In what way is a 256 kbps AAC track from iTunes 'of superior quality' to, say, a 320 kbps MP3 from Sparks or one of the other R/U stores? Is this an audible difference and, if so, could you describe the differences we should be listening for?

Can't say I have noticed any qualitative superiority in music from iTunes plus (on the very rare occasions I have purchased there) and 320 kbps MP3's from any of the R/U stores I patronise.

Always willing to learn though

Cheers,

Squash

[rolly]

I would also like to read the answers to all of squash54's questions.

If sparks uses .wav,or whatever other lossless format,and it also came from a master,or an original lossless cd that came from a master,how can it be any less quality than as you state Apple has?
If the same proceedures are used as Apple,there is still no loss in digital quality.

Lossless,from lossless,from lossless,from lossless,still = lossless.

I used to buy 'orignal master recordings" when vinyl records were the going thing.
Long before cd's were even heard of.
They are collector pieces now maybe,but did I hear any difference on a high end system at the time?
No.

[archon.thelawgiver]

With any recordings that have been made using an analogue system it is the original that is the purest copy. However those master copies can be cleaned up to improve the sound. Likewise an original recording can be tweaked by sound engineers to get rid of imperfections. Therefore if the when you have digitised versions of this music it then depends which version the vendor is provided with which they then sell. And it is the recording companies who do the cleaning up of the recordings. Likewise with a digital recording there are various tweaked master copies as well and some are superior to others. Remember what we get on a cd is what the recording companies provide. It doesn't mean it is the only version of the music.

Where the bit rate comes in is that if the vendor is provided with a digital copy of the purest or "tweaked" form of the of the provided music then even though the bit rates of the two different vendors are the same it then depends on which has the superior source of the music. Thus if Apple has a bit rate of the purest version of the music then their copies will sound superior to a version of the same bit rate to a different version of the music.

That's the best explanation as a non-sound engineer that I can provide. I hope that helps clear up any confusion.

[archon.thelawgiver]

When you are making a copy of Apple's music it will also depend on quality of the recording equipment used to make the recording. That's dependent on hardware such as laser technology as being just one case in point. In other words if I use my computer to make a copy of a cd it may not be an absolutely perfect copy than if I used superior hardware to make the copy. When you take hardware into the equation there's copies and there's perfect copies. And one last point needs to be made.

Also when we download it also needs to known if you are making copies from lossey of losssless music.

(Pant Pant) There are many factors that need to be understand when talking about analogue to digital and digital to digital. It sum it is dependent on music source and hardware used to copy music.

If you have any more questions please ask a sound engineer but just get them to explain it in plain language because one of the jobs I didn't do in my time in the industry was sound engineering work.