Slashdot Mirror
YouTube-MP3 Ripping Site Sued By IFPI, RIAA and BPI (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Two weeks ago, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry published research which claimed that half of 16 to 24-year-olds use stream-ripping tools to copy music from sites like YouTube. The industry group said that the problem of stream-ripping has become so serious that in volume terms it had overtaken downloading from 'pirate' sites. Given today's breaking news, the timing of the report was no coincidence. Earlier today in a California District Court, a huge coalition of recording labels sued the world's largest YouTube ripping site. UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, Warner Bros, Sony Music, Arista Records, Atlantic Records and several others claim that YouTube-MP3 (YTMP3), owner Philip Matesanz, and Does 1-10 have infringed their rights. The labels allege that YouTube-MP3 is one of the most popular sites in the entire world and as a result its owner, German-based company PMD Technologies UG, is profiting handsomely from their intellectual property. YouTube-MP3 is being sued for direct, contributory, vicarious and inducement of copyright infringement, plus circumvention of technological measures. Among other things, the labels are also demanding a preliminary and permanent injunction forbidding the Defendants from further infringing their rights. They also want YouTube-MP3's domain name to be surrendered. "YTMP3 rapidly and seamlessly removes the audio tracks contained in videos streamed from YouTube that YTMP3's users access, converts those audio tracks to an MP3 format, copies and stores them on YTMP3's servers, and then distributes copies of the MP3 audio files from its servers to its users in the United States, enabling its users to download those MP3 files to their computers, tablets, or smartphones," the complaint reads. "Defendants are depriving Plaintiffs and their recording artists of the fruits of their labor, Defendants are profiting from the operation of the YTMP3 website. Through the promise of illicit delivery of free music, Defendants have attracted millions of users to the YTMP3 website, which in turn generates advertising revenues for Defendants," the labels add.
Why? I do this all the time. If you don't want people listening to your music, maybe you shouldn't put it on the internet?
Just saying....
Through the promise of illicit delivery of free music, Defendants have attracted millions of users to the YTMP3 website, which in turn generates advertising revenues for Defendants," the labels add.
So it's not about copyright infringement, it's about getting money from ads.
There's a hundred sites dedicating to YouTube ripping, not to mention browser extensions and command-line tools.
I can think of a few ways the media industry could prevent them, but suing one particular site will not do much in the end.
As soon as eidetic memory becomes popular, those same idiots will be suing everyone who simply listens and remembers a piece of new music.
So any reason why all these labels dont giv consumer what consumers want? I would be happy to pay 0.5 - 1$ per sonf for good quality mp3 files with no DRM... Its must be my choise what device i use to listen it..
A few facts:
1) The rent-seeking media licensing authorities aren't going to stop with their attempts to use their financial resources to defend their rents via litigation and buying politicians.
2) Geeks aren't going to stop writing tools that facilitate freedom in using media as people see fit
3) Ergo, the path of least resistance is to put such services that are ripe targets for litigation in countries where the licensing authorities do not have reach - ie. Eastern Europe, Asia, some parts of Africa.
Why a company would host a service that would become a target for litigation in Germany is beyond me.
Eventually, I can see a world where the services that the media rent-seekers hate are located in just the places they can't reach - we already see this in terms of torrent sites, and the rest will follow. Since they are very small potatoes in terms of the larger economy, I can't see anything like a war or even meaningful negotiation about the point. So, basically, I can't see any end result but the ultimate eclipse of the rent seekers.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Ahh, the return of the Betamax case, should technology be banned because it can be used to infringe copyright? Supreme court said fuck no.
https://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
"Jack Valenti: I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. "
VCRs went on to be by far the biggest income Hollywood ever got from movies. Jack Valenti nearly killed that at birth. It was nice rhetoric backed by lots of fake studies, sort of like this one. RIAA tried to stop YouTube, now their members put music on there for free with adverts attached and get a billion from Google. RIAA tried to force DRM onto us, when they removed the pesky DRM, they magically had more sales than ever before.
But hey, this is different, there's no legal use for a mechanism to save the audio or video from a track is there?... It's not like you could rip the audio off a video, make a travel video with that, upload it to youtube and youtube would automatically detect the music, and stick an advert on it, or enforce whatever copyright restriction applies, advert for which the artist gets paid for? All with agreement from the artists who own the copyright? Oh right, yeh that's how it works.
Jack Valenti nearly killed the biggest source of revenue the MPAA ever had. Hilary Rosen of the RIAA nearly did the same to the MP3 player, the biggest market they ever had too.
"YTMP3 rapidly and seamlessly removes the audio tracks contained in videos streamed from YouTube that YTMP3's users access, converts those audio tracks to an MP3 format, copies and stores them on YTMP3's servers, and then distributes copies of the MP3 audio files from its servers to its users in the United States, enabling its users to download those MP3 files to their computers, tablets, or smartphones,"
So, because something can be used to commit a crime, that is sufficient reason to assume that it is?
Guns can be used to commit a crime too. A lot of crime involves a gun. But we don't ban those, right?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
"... half of 16 to 24-year-olds use stream-ripping tools to copy music from sites like YouTube."
*cough* BULLSHIT! *cough*
End of line..
Even if they managed to shut down every last YT->MP3 service, it's still a simple matter to just record the audio using freeware like Audacity and save MP3s from it. .
I'm not a millenial and I don't know all the hip websites (as my language indicates), but I don't live under a rock. I've never even heard of or heard allusion to the YTMP3 site until just now. If the site is that popular, why haven't I heard of it? This is just another example of the *I.A.A. groups being asshats of the highest degree.
It's trivial: youtube-dl -x --audio-format mp3 https://youtube.com/watch?v=vi...
If you ACTUALLY do this, you are doing yourself a disservice. If it isn't posted by the original artist, it is almost always a distorted song. The pitch is changed, the tempo, frequencies torn right out of the middle. Then when you hear it on the radio and streaming, the song seems "off" and is ruined forever
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
First..on YouTube, so you don't know the source and quality and then ripped to lossy mp3 format, and I'm guessing it isn't likely to be very high quality mp3.
This is almost analogous to trying to record songs off FM radio onto cassettes...except without having to dodge the DJ talking over the music.
Does no one put value into decent sounding music (just talking about the fidelity of the recording here, not getting into the quality of actual musicianship in the modern day).
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Guns can be used to commit a crime too. A lot of crime involves a gun. But we don't ban those, right?
Guns don't kill. Only dangerous minorities do.
Yours,
Peter Griffin, NRA Spokesman.
Heh heh heh heh heh hehheh
What's the difference between me playing the same song 50000 times on YouTube, or me ripping the song and listening to that same MP3 50000 times?
>> half of 16 to 24-year-olds use stream-ripping tools to copy music from sites like YouTube
I thought this was how most people 50 and under got their music these days: open up about 8-12 browser windows with content I like, flip on the stream ripper, let the computer run overnight, and wake up in the morning to a collection of a few hundred mp3s to pick through. Happy to hear that the young-un's have figured this out too though!
It's been killing music since the 1980s and music isn't dead yet. When will we realize that there is only one way to be sure: Nuke it from orbit.
IFPI, RIAA, and BPI have sued users who have the audacity to recall verses and lyrics from songs they heard on Youtube and the radio.
RIAA spokesperson commented, "Each time one of these social deviants hums, sings, or otherwise repeats our intellectual property to their peers represents an enormous loss of revenue to our members. We intend to aggressively pursue legal action whenever possible to recoup all potential losses. It's clear the recent declining revenue in our industry is directly caused by these unauthorized reproductions of our copyrighted material"
Record labels put the videos up in relatively high quality. This is 16 to 24 year olds we are talking about, so they are ripping stuff off like Drake and Beiber. You don't need high quality audio to hear the same lyrics repeated over and over.
Just create a $0.10 per pop Download button in Youtube and look how fast you'll be cashing in.
Usually when im trying to learn a song, i'll go download it from youtube. Its the easiest way to find it.
Sure the quality sucks, but that doesnt matter all that much when youre just trying to figure out the chord progression.
The thing that bothers me is when they pitch-shift it to avoid the RIAA takedown bots.
... when you can rip full video?
If you are listening on a cheap [pair of headphones, laptop speaker, dollar store speaker brick, factory car speakers] that anything over 128kbps mp3 sounds pretty much identical.
I rip activist videos because so many of them disappear.
I have to imagine the quality of this music is pretty dismal?
"Dismal" is relative. The popularity of these sites suggests that the quality is "good enough" for the consuming audience.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
YouTube-MP3 is being sued for direct, contributory, vicarious and inducement of copyright infringement, plus circumvention of technological measures.
When you switch the defendant to a gun manufacturer and the plaintiff to a munitions supplier who dont want their bullets fired from the manufacturers weapon:
Gun manufacturer is being sued for direct, contributory, vicarious and inducement of usage infringment, plus circumvention of technological measures (matching the weapons bore size to the munition).
If I hear the music I can replicate the music. The replication is not a exact copy, it sounds slightly different because it has been altered by compression. ..over to you.
Let's compare file hashes as a proof of infringement. Chewbacca..
Or, the cheap usb boombox....
Not everyone plays music only on their PC
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Why do we need pirate sites like YTMP3? I don't mind paying for music if I get a freebie now and then (I'm still listening to that free U2 album). The musicians have been more than fair, but all you people want to is take and take and take. Should we make an Obamatunes website so you people can get more for nothing? I agree with OP. Trump 2016.
Sure, it may not be legal in some places. But if half the people are doing it, and less than 1% of people care that it's happening, maybe it's time to modernize the law and bring it in to line with societal norms...
Legality and morality are not the same thing, and when such a large percentage of people think something is right, and comparatively few feel that it's wrong, maybe the law is on the wrong side of the evolution of modern society.
Adware, malware, spyware need not apply.
Loss-less audio and video rip
Support for HD, 3D, 4K
"Asking for a friend"
Well, when I was 16-24yrs, I was into and enjoyed high fidelity stereo....my friends all did as well.
Hell, when I was about 12yrs, I went into a high end audio shop at the time, and heard my first pair of Klipschorns hooked to a McIntosh tube amp...and was hooked.
I've been building my system ever since then...started with little crappy stereo from Santa for xmas one year...and over the years with $ from lawn mowing, and baby sitting, I bought and traded through life.
I'm close to that now. I have the Khorns, hell, I have a whole Klipsch surround system, with Cornwalls as my surround speakers. I don't have the McIntosh amp (yet), but do have a pair of nice single ended tube amps for the front channels.
But I wasn't the stand out of my day...all of my friends for the most part worked for and bought good stereos for home. We did have mobile, using the old walkman with cassette tapes...
So, wondering when the masses stopped caring at all about how the music sounded?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Storing the .mp3 on their servers is where it gets iffy. So how about turning the whole thing into a Javascript application that does all the dirty work on the client instead of the server? Emscripten should make it possible to get video and mp3 coder into the Javascript world. Do current browsers allow enough access to get a Youtube video into a blob that can be processed with Javascript?
Used to be, but music bitrate on YouTube has increased dramatically over the past 5 years.
And even if the quality is a bit low, it's free.
RIAA, MPAA etc. etc are not the original artist so they have no vested interest and no say.
As for the artist... Sorry bout that. I guess all we can do is play you a song...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MokNvbiRqCM
I am amazed it took them so long, because the fun part of this story is that the local arm of the music mafia in Germany already tried to get rid of the site back in 2014. But funnily enough not by sueing the owner, because their lawyers for a change were smart enough to realize that what the site was doing is probably* not illegal in Germany. They tried to intimidate all the companies that bought ads on the site, claiming that they were complicit in unlawful activities. As a final laugh, the music industry representatives were then hit by an injunction saying that they were not allowed to claim that the service was unlawful, since the law is not clear enough for anyone to tell.
*probably, because the law is fuzzy and no one on the content owner side dared to battle this out in court yet, there's too much at loss if they lose.
>I have to imagine the quality of this music is pretty dismal... .WAV file to .mp3 using razorlame with Variable Bit Encoding - the upper limit being 320K. I looked at the Bitrate Histogram while the .WAV file was being converted. The histogram had a sharp cutoff past 160K - worse than FM radio quality!
Actually it is. For grins I captured the audio off an "HD" music video using my sound card and Audacity about a year ago. I then converted the
So yeah, the audio quality for "HD" videos is not great: even worse for Standard quality. But then again, I doubt that most Youtube music video listeners could tell the difference that and CD quality when its being played over a cheap set of earbuds or speakers.
Oh the irony - the latest technology, that allows you to listen to music from anywhere on your mobile phone, played on the cheapest technology.
And don't get me started on quality of music from today's bands.
Given that you can youtube-dl to get an mkv of mp4 file, then ffmpeg -i in.mp4 -vn -c:a copy out.m4a, or similar, which ytmp3 just does behind the scenes and caches its output, this strikes me as yet another publicity stunt to get more and more pro-ip anti-tech laws. These guys think that nothing in the universe is as important than their financial income. Such greed is a cancer in society.
John_Chalisque
and Brainwaves.
A couple of decades ago, Cable companies tried to sue people for intercepting their signal, and the court ruled it was freedom of the airwaves in favor of defendants. Saying those transmitting had an option to encrypt.
YouTube made it available to anybody without logging in, so it's clearly intended for anybody to listen to.
If they try to claim advertisements are not being seen, then our response is to say you are using our bandwidth, our electricity without our approval, and collecting our personal information which is MY intellectual property.
By reading this or any other text or images I post anyplace on the Internet, you are accepting that i am the sole owner of it and all intellectual property and it may not be used, traded, sold or blocked in any way.
40 years ago, people were taping music from FM radio. Standards might be generally up from those days, since people generally can get lossless copies, but the actual bar for human enjoyment is lower than that.
I wonder if we grups sometimes lose sight of what it's like to be a kid with no money. I don't mean they're living in poverty (after all, we're talking about people with computers and internet access, presumably they have a roof over their head, etc) but having little to no cash. In a situation like that, if lossy transcoding lets you hear the music, that's gonna be good enough.
(I remember walking into a record store, seeing that AC/DC's Powerage LP cost $8 and thought, "OMG, that's way out of reach," and then a few years later when I was older, I finally had the $5 for the cassette version. I'm not talking about the media differences here; I mean the money. Something I think of as absurdly cheap, was still too much because I was a little kid and didn't have a job!)
And selling these people out by having them look at ads, might be the only way to make money off 'em, so there might really be a good case for this kind of business. (Indeed, that's pretty much what radio was.) This is a particularly interesting situation, in that a legit company ought to be able to offer a superior product (no transcoding artifacts) to this pirate. (But only because this pirate is choosing a bizarre means of acquiring content.)
Hell, when I was about 12yrs, I went into a high end audio shop at the time, and heard my first pair of Klipschorns hooked to a McIntosh tube amp...and was hooked.
While there is nothing wrong with appreciating high quality sound, being willing to pay big $ for it makes you something of an outlier among the General Public.
But I wasn't the stand out of my day...all of my friends for the most part worked for and bought good stereos for home.
They did so because that was the fashion of the day. I seriously doubt many of them were audiophiles. Most young people I've ever met with expensive home stereos tend to listen to them at volumes that will ensure loss of hearing so that they will never be able to appreciate quality sound. In my college dorms 20+ years ago it was de-rigeur to have a ridiculously oversized stereo and to play it at volumes that would wake the dead. Subtle details of the sound were not important. Some of them were actually genuinely nice pieces of kit but that wasn't why anyone bought them.
So, wondering when the masses stopped caring at all about how the music sounded?
Why do you assume they ever really cared? People want to listen to music that evokes an emotion in them. For most the quality of the sound is largely incidental to this. Nobody really gives a crap if the latest Brittney Spears album has amazing fidelity.
So, let me get this straight:
Youtube is a company that makes large amounts of money off of people uploading pirated content. It then puts up a cumbersome problem plagued automatic system to "address" copyrighted content problems, but in reality has such a big legal budget that most organizations wouldn't want to go up against it in court.
And now, the MPAA etc are up; in arms over sites that help users "pirate" this pirated content.
I know there is no shame, but that's a pretty big elephant standing in this coat closet.
My headset costs 15EUR. The music boxes I have at home are around the same price range. I listen to music to have background noise. Do you seriously think I need to have the perfect quality of music?
When I go to a live performance, I am more interested in the "sharing an experience with friends" part then I am listening to the music. In fact, some of the best evenings where when the music was absolutely horrible. (Lousy music AND lousy PA)
So no, I do not put value into decent sounding music. To me music is like a hammer, a tool to either share time with friends or family (that is what I value); a way to have memories about these events by listening to the music and have my memory triggered or just as background.
It could very well be that I value things you deem worthless and I will not judge you for that, so please do not look down on others who do not have the identical values as you have.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Exactly, all those steps, what a hassle.
If a song is available on Amazon, I will gladly pay the buck, it is good quality, and the artist gets something. It is worth it.
But all songs are not available on Amazon or iTunes (I hate going through that software to manage my music, not easy under Linux), then I will go through the hassle of downloading it from youTube.
Like a rare dub version of an Orb song, of some live version of a tune that never made it onto Amazon, or old stuff out of print.
I'm starting to get tired of TorrentFreak copy-pasting RIAA press releases.
Here's the real source of the article: http://www.bpi.co.uk/media-centre/worlds-largest-music-stream-ripping-site-faces-international-legal-action.aspx
How many lives does the music industry have anyway? Can't it just stay dead? It must have been killed by enough new technologies by now, with cassettes, CD-ROMs, MP3 players, USB thumb drives, and now Youtube rips laying into it.
> So, wondering when the masses stopped caring at all about how the music sounded?
It started when CD's became popular and became cemented with the iPod.
16-bit @ 44 KHz was "good enough" for the average Joe.
Studios started making "hot" music with very little dynamic range in the 90's.
Ripping to 128 Kbps more so.
> I have the Khorns, hell, I have a whole Klipsch surround system
How do the Khorns sound compared to Tannoy's Horns or MartinLogan's Electrostatic speakers ?
--
"When I die I hope my wife sells my speakers for what they're worth rather than what I told her I paid for them."
So, because something can be used to commit a crime, that is sufficient reason to assume that it is?
It's not sufficient reason by itself in most cases. But generally there is more to the story than just the existence of a tool.
Guns can be used to commit a crime too. A lot of crime involves a gun. But we don't ban those, right?
Umm, yeah actually a lot of places do. Not surprisingly those same places tend to have much lower rates of deaths and injuries from firearms and fewer crimes committed using one.
There is an intentionality to most tools. For a firearm their designed purpose is to injure/kill. That IS what they were designed to do. Sometimes there are defensible reasons to use a gun for its intended purpose (hunting, self defense, etc) but when the purpose of a tool is to injure some care in its use and handling is in order. Other tools like a hammer have less specific purposes - while a hammer can be used to injure that isn't the primary designed purpose of one. We don't have arguments about hammers because their designed purpose is typically not to cause physical harm to another.
Similarly when a tool is purpose built with a particular job, it is generally safe to presume that the tool will be used for that purpose absent evidence to the contrary. If it happens to have other uses then those should be taken into consideration when evaluating if a crime is being committed. It seems clear that the purpose of these ripping sites is to commit copyright infringement. Now you may not have an ethical problem with that and that's possibly a reasonable position to take but it IS a tool which is primarily being used to commit a crime under current law.
I dont see the use for having a website-based ripping tool for youtube videos.
I have been using jDownloader for the better part of a decade, if I recall correctly, and am very happy with it.
Not only does it let me rip mp3s from youtube directly to my PC without going through another sever (with ads) first, I can pick dozens of file formats for audio and video as well as resolutions (if available) for youtube alone. And it supports hundreds of different sites out of the box, many more if you pass the adress of the video with the option to do a deep-search looking for media.
I even used it to download comics and mangas from online readers in batches.
Originally I installed it because I was on a 10GB 3G mobile connection only, downloading the videos only once instead of every time I wanted to watch them made my mobile data plan last much longer.
As far as I know the program is completely free (they do nag you if you download from 1-click-hosters using the free option to buy premium, so I guess they get comission).
I have to imagine the quality of this music is pretty dismal?
Maybe for some people you can actually hear and appreciate music quality? For majority, they don't care because most adults have already lost their hearing at a certain level.
First..on YouTube, so you don't know the source and quality and then ripped to lossy mp3 format, and I'm guessing it isn't likely to be very high quality mp3.
You are correct, but who cares in this case when majority can't really hear it? Or you are suggesting everyone needs to buy an overly expensive headphone which may help the hearing a bit? Would you care to subsidize the cost for all of them in order to help them appreciate what you can?
Thus, music quality is overstate by only a few who believe they are elite. Asking for appreciation is one thing. Telling them to appreciate music quality is another.
I didn't grow up in poverty, but was lower middle class.
My parents didn't buy me luxuries for the most part. As I mentioned, I worked before I was 16yrs mowing yards and babysitting to earn extra money. When I was 16yrs, I started washing dishes in a restaurant and worked my way up to head bus boy through HS.
I worked hard, made money and saved to buy each audio piece (and other things I wanted). I didn't buy it all and once, and basically I did this through my life so far, saving, finding a deal and upgrading pieces here and there.
I used to have to save for a good bit before I could buy that AC/DC record (when it was new on vinyl)....
Do kids not work summer jobs and part time through high school anymore? Does mommy and daddy now buy EVERYTHING for the snowflakes?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
>Actually it is. For grins I captured the audio off an "HD" music video using my sound card and Audacity about a year ago. I then converted the .WAV file to .mp3 using razorlame with Variable Bit Encoding - the upper limit being 320K. I looked at the Bitrate Histogram while the .WAV file was being converted. The histogram had a sharp cutoff past 160K - worse than FM radio quality!
So you did another lossy conversion? And you think there was a 'sharp cutoff past 160K'? Seems like you don't really know what you're doing or talking about.
The histogram would be in kilohertz, so any cutoff due to an MP3 encoder's psychoacoustic model would be near 20kHz, not 'past 160K'. Considering human hearing tops out at ~22kHz, you're clearly confused about encoder bitrate and frequency spectrum.
What you should have done is demuxed the audio from the video, and done whatever with the resultant AAC file to attempt to prove your 'YouTube is garbage quality' conjecture.
Also: Razorlame isn't an encoder, just a front-end, variable bit-rate not variable bit encoding, and you apparently don't realize that the graph you were referring to during encoding charts bitrate used over the frequency spectrum, not the actual frequency response of the encoded media.
Hmm...I think this new way of thinking about music is a loud statement on the quality of music content being put out today.
Musicianship has gone out the door, and I think it is exemplified by music not seeming important to youth as yourself, no emotional or binding common anthem for your generation. I think popular music died sometime just at the start of the 90's for a plethora of reasons.
Your post is kinda starting to confirm that for me.
I find that sad.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
#!/bin/bash
;;
OPTIND=1
while getopts "dh" OPTION; do
case "$OPTION" in
d) DEL=1
h) echo "-d will cause the original to be deleted"
esac
done
shift $((OPTIND-1))
for i in "$@"; do \
WAV=$(echo "$i" | sed 's/\.mp4/\.wav/')
MP3=$(echo "$i" | sed 's/\.mp4/\.mp3/')
mplayer -quiet "$i" -ao pcm:fast:file="$WAV" -vc dummy -vo null -channels 2
lame -h -b 192 "$WAV" "$MP3"
rm "$WAV"
if [[ "$DEL" = "1" ]]; then
rm "$i"
fi
done
Sounds fine. Not like a concert, but certainly good enough to enjoy on a CD.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Do kids not work summer jobs and part time through high school anymore? Does mommy and daddy now buy EVERYTHING for the snowflakes?
Well, I come from the Best of all Possible Worlds. Mommy and daddy didn't buy me shit outside of food and clothing, I didn't have transportation (essential if you want a job in the urban-sprawl South), no clue on how to get a job - especially since one of the first questions on the application was usually "do you have transportation" and to top it off, an almost autistic lack of social skills (that part remains with me even now).
Yes, I was broke and pinched and got my jollies from radio, hand-me-down stereo equipment and stuff from the library (one of the few places I could actually wangle transportation to).
I didn't have any income to speak of until after I graduated high school.
So depend on it. There are people who would have been jealous of your wealth and its perquisites.
16-bit @ 44 KHz was "good enough" for the average Joe.
And by that you mean "mathematically proven to capture everything the human ear can hear". But I'm sure your cables are danceable.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Just use FFMPEG to split the audio from the video. It wont be mp3 (AAC IIRC), but it wont suffer a conversion loss.
Or, if you're using Tor:
torsocks youtube-dl -x --audio-format mp3 --user-agent "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0" URLGOESHERE
Now I know where to go to get pre-ripped YouTube audio streams. Thanks for the info! Would have never heard of it if it wasn't for the lawsuit.
Well, when I was 16-24yrs, I was into and enjoyed high fidelity stereo....my friends all did as well.
Er, not unless your parents and friends' parents were very well off, or all of them were in the military and bought their equipment duty-free in Asia you didn't. Before digital, in America a high fidelity stereo (let alone quadraphonic system) would cost your a couple grand.
I used to have an audiophile-quality system I bought stationed in Thailand, but it was stolen in a burglary. I have a pair of JBLs now, three way with twelve inch woofers. I miss my old stereo.
But I rip from YouTube occasionally, and rip from KSHE every Sunday night when they play six full albums. With Windows all it takes is Audacity and a setting in mmsys.cpl to capture a signal sent to your sound card, you don't need those goofs' web site.
I make CDs from KSHE's albums for the car, and they sound as good as factory CDs -- in the car. Their difference in quality in the house with the JBLs is marginal. It's a LOT better sound than a cassette recorded at home.
If you're in St. Louis (I'm not) you can plug your digital FM radio's "out" jacks into your computer's input jacks and you actually will have CD quality music.
The labels are fighting a losing cause.
Free Martian Whores!
What's an audio shop?
The masses today have no idea what you're talking about and no connection to your experience. It's just golly gee swell that you had that slice of life, but it is completely irrelevant in 2016.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
I was dreading the day that the record companies would learn that they'd been voluntarily uploading their music to a new Napster for years.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Pretty much this. I have spent too much time around airplanes, race cars, rock concerts and firearms to be able to tell the difference between the various quality formats of mp3. Plus, I primarily listen in the car, so even if I could tell the difference, the high ambient noise environment makes it a bit of a waste.
I'll probably be down-modded for being snarky but just because you're "tone deaf" and can't tell the difference between 16-bit @ 44 KHz and 24-bit @ 192 KHz doesn't imply everyone else is.
I never mentioned the shenanigans of bullshit cables such as this one:
https://www.amazon.com/AudioQu...
But keep bringing up non sequiturs.
Good for you. Most people don't care.
Err..there are still plenty of higher end audio shops out there, I've been to them.
Hell, even the chain Best Buy has in some stores a high end area called the "Magnolia Room"....I was at one a couple weeks ago, they had the McIntosh MC275 tube amp.
Its out of my range right now...but looking for one of the older 60's Mc's....that can be had for a fraction of the new price.
But audio shops are not a thing of the past, I see them in many towns/cities I visit. Maybe not as prolific as in the past, but they're still out there.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Reference Media is such a shop here in Bellingham, Washington. This is their website: http://www.reference-media.net...
Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
But all songs are not available on Amazon or iTunes (I hate going through that software to manage my music, not easy under Linux), then I will go through the hassle of downloading it from youTube.
Like a rare dub version of an Orb song, of some live version of a tune that never made it onto Amazon, or old stuff out of print.
So you don't *really* care about quality, then? Because if downloading from youtube equals 'stealing', then you might as well do it right and get lossless copies of said files from a private music tracker if the legit market isn't catering to your needs.
RIAAday26, MPAAmonth13, 2137 PostMafiaa
It was discovered today that time travel was used to sue ancient radio broadcasters out of existence because of listeners' use of tape recorders to record live "broadcast" music that impeded the *IAAs record profits from 1970 onward. We expect the ripple effect to hit our timeline in approximately.... ...No Carrier...
No, we weren't wealthy...lower middle class.
No one said you bought the WHOLE system at once, no we could not afford that.
I started off with a present from Santa in about 4th grade...a department store little stereo of a turntable and two small speakers..which maybe were 1'x1'x1'.
Not the best sound in the world, but where I started.
I saved my money, and bought a decent Marantz receiver......when I was sick, my Dad found a closeout deal on some decent for the day larger speakers and got them for me, I think they were Fisher speakers. I later saved and got a decent pioneer turntable. Later, I added a nice Sharp cassette deck (one of the first ones that could auto detect spaces and you could song skip on it.
Later years, I saved and bought a used Nakamichi cassette.
Later years...I found a deal on some old Klipsch Cornwall speakers from the 70's...cabinets had some wear but they sounded great, got those for $700.
Along the way the marantz blew up and I got a good deal on some display units of Carver pre-amp and amp....years later the Cornwall speakers got stolen...and I haggled with insurance to get Klipschorns that were display from an shop and got the pair for only $1600. That's a fraction of the price they usually are.
And from there..I found a good little tube amp from a company named Declare online....back when I got my pair (run them bridged for front channels) they were about $499/each. Now mind you at this point, I make a good living.
But I didn't start that way when I was young. I bought, built and traded through the years and through the different technologies with CD, BluRay, etc.
I do decent now, with some disposable income, but I"m now wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. While my hearing isn't what it used to be, I can still tell the difference in sound quality....AND more importantly, a system that doesn't give me "ear fatigue" and allows me to listen pleasurably for hours.
Sure I have iPods and decent shure earphones for the gym and I listen to mp3's for there and the car, since in those environments you aren't gonna hear a discernible difference, but for home and real enjoyment.....you can't beat a good system, and there is no replacement for air displacement.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Tell your friend to use streamtuner and streamripper - much more convenient.
Do kids not work summer jobs and part time through high school anymore?
They do not, for several reasons that I've been able to dig up.
I have cousins in one or more of each of the above situations. If you can describe good workarounds, I would appreciate them.
Musicianship is still alive in older metal and hard rock bands and progressive rock bands as well as jazz. However, there are not as many good young bands as there used to be, so yeah, musicianship is being downgraded...dunno if it will ever finally die.
So, wondering when the masses stopped caring at all about how the music sounded?
Somewhere around the time of the Loudness War when many recording artists stopped caring about dynamic range in their music and instead decided they liked the way that amplitude clipping sounded (~1994). As someone who has worked in pro audio stores, I appreciate high-quality systems and speakers. I listen to music encoded at least to 196k through Sennheiser headphones at work. Most of my friends are content with the label "Bose" or "Harmon Kardon". As long as the bass shakes them up a bit, they're happy. If it's any consolation, the tide seems to be returning to using more dynamic range in music... though maybe not for "pop music".
When I was 12, I was doing well enough just to hit "record" on the boombox when BBC Radio 1 started playing something I wanted to keep.
(Two years later: substitute "AFN Kaiserslautern" for "BBC Radio 1," but since they were both on AM, audio quality on either of them would've been dismal by modern standards.)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
That term doesn't mean what you think it does, though you used it three times in one short post.
Myspace alone offers 53 million songs by 14 million artists, with 13,000 songs uploaded each day. BMG has 312 artists signed to their label. Over 99.9% of musicians are not associated with a label.
Yet there is some reason you want that 0.01% of music, not the 99.99% or so that's independent.
If you feel that you really want to have the tiny, tiny fraction of music that's distributed by the major labels, that the vast majority of music, which is free, isn't good enough for some reason, that obviously means that the label music is, in your opinion, BETTER in some important way. If label wasn't better in some way, you'd ignore it and listen to the millions and millions of other songs.
Maybe you want the label music because the millions of free artists include too many that aren't good and you don't want to spend the time to find the good ones? Perhaps the labels discover some of the best artists and promote them so you know about them?
Maybe you want the label music because the production quality tends to be a lot better, being produced by experienced professionals in multi-million dollar studios rather than in the artist's basement?
Maybe it's just predictability - you know that "Warner Music Nashville" will give you the type of music you like, without having to hunt through millions and millions of songs.
I don't know *why* you have such a strong desire for those relatively very few songs that are distributed by labels, but clearly you do, most people do. There's *something* about the music that the labels are involved in which people strongly prefer; it's better in some important way. The labels add some kind of value that is important to people.
The definition of rent seeking is acquiring a profit without adding any value. It can occur when the rent-seekers control most of the supply. Rent seeking can occur when have to buy from the rent-seeker at an inflated price because you can't just skip the middle man and get the item from the source.
With music, 99.99% of it isn't controlled by the labels. You *can* get it from other sources - in fact the vast *majority* of musicians distribute their own music, no label involved. But you don't want the free music. You want the label music, because there's something you value that the labels give you. Since you want, you value something about what the labels offer, that's the opposite of rent-seeking.
Even if iTunes purchases don't have DRM, one still has to install DRM to use it. Last time I checked, the iTunes client application was available only for macOS (hardware locked with "Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext"), Windows (Genuine Advantage anyone), and iOS. Or since when was iTunes made available for an operating system that doesn't itself require DRM?
YouTube audio quality at the HD setting (720p/1080p) is 128kbps AAC, which is close to being considered "audibly transparent" (I believe for AAC the bitrate is a little higher for that - 192kbps?). At lower quality settings, the audio quality does go down.
And a lot of it is ripped, so you do start with a good source material.
iTunes sells non-DRM'ed music files in AAC at 256kbps.
Have you or anyone else reading this been able to make a purchase in iTunes in Wine? If not, making a purchase requires first purchasing Apple hardware or a Microsoft operating system.
You are being given what you want, so what exactly is stopping you from paying?
"Not available in your country". Region coding is one of those things that'll probably still be around for decades until old contracts and old businessmen die off.
those same idiots will be suing everyone who simply listens and remembers a piece of new music
They're already doing that and calling it "plagiarism lawsuits". See Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music ("My Sweet Lord"), Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton ("Love Is a Wonderful Thing"), Gaye v. Thicke ("Blurred Lines"), Wolfe v. Led Zeppelin ("Stairway to Heaven"), and Ed Sheeran getting sued twice. This is not to mention other cases that you don't hear so much about because they're settled out of court: "Stay With Me" by Sam Smith is too close to "I Won't Back Down" by Tom Petty
Slashdot is now censoring comments just like Google/Youtube does.
Anyone can make a recording of their garage band playing an original song
If I write a song, how can I tell whether it's original, as opposed to an accidental infringement on an existing song?
That way it doesn't have to go on any servers, just the user's hard disk
16-bit @ 44 KHz was "good enough" for the average Joe.
And by that you mean "mathematically proven to capture everything the human ear can hear".
"Experimentally proven to capture everything the human ear can hear, and add some as well". Unfortunately, even the best 16b-bit 44kHz reproduction chains introduce uncorrelated high-order harmonics that fall in the audible range and can add a harshness to the sound that makes people tire of listening more quickly. Higher resolution and higher sample rates push these spurious components farther up in frequency, where they are inaudible, or at least less audible.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
They skipped over YouTube itself then? Interesting approach
Requiem for the American Dream
So, wondering when the masses stopped caring at all about how the music sounded?
About the time the industry started compressing the hell out of everything until it clips.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
"Defendants are depriving Plaintiffs and their recording artists of the fruits of their labor, Defendants are profiting from the operation of the YTMP3 website. Through the promise of illicit delivery of free music, Defendants have attracted millions of users to the YTMP3 website, which in turn generates advertising revenues for Defendants," the labels add.
Buried in there is a big clue on how they could have instead changed their business model to make a lot of money for themselves. I wonder...how long do you suppose it will take them to figure this out?
Err..there are still plenty of higher end audio shops out there, I've been to them.
I was just in Tokyo last month and there was a little district that seemed to have a dozen such shops, and shops that sold musical instruments were up the street. A lot of the gear appeared to be older/used, but it was high end stuff for sure.
Breakfast served all day!
The music business is doing fine
HOW they are doing fine, I have no idea. I know I sound old, mainly because I am, but I am quite astonished what my nearly-teen daughter listens to. It's not that I don't get it... some of it catchy. But so much of it is just terrible in every way. I pull songs off of youtube for her, mainly because I can then monitor what she listens to and I can look up the lyrics as well. Also, she listens to things like parodies of songs and other things that aren't necessarily under the thumb of the music industry.
The other reason I can't believe they doing fine is because the entertainment industry has never really embraced digital music. If they had done so back in '98, '99, 2000, etc. they would have been able to capitalize on the desire for it. Instead, they fought against it. Just like VCRs, cassettes, CDR, DVDR, etc. They just can't loosen their grip on trying to maintain complete control. This is no different.
And I will say, I do listen to youtube at work, it's easy to just pull up some music. And if there is a particular old album out there that I don't have... it wouldn't be inconceivable to just download it from youtube, rip the audio, and run mp3splt with silence detection to get individual tracks.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Shoot one - it fragnents into four (five?) more.
Hmmz. I guess that the logical conclusion is that everyone runs their own streamripper locally with piracy-from-elsewhere and buying/renting (looo......ooool) the experience of listening to their formulaic nonsense as fallback positions?
Requiem for the American Dream
introduce uncorrelated high-order harmonics that fall in the audible range
Arguing against math is rather pointless, you know.
and can add a harshness to the sound that makes people tire of listening more quickly.
It's rather the other way around. Most recordings, including some great early jazz recordings, are "unlistenable" if reproduced accurately, because the engineering simply didn't care abotu top-octave noise. In the early days, there wasn't any equipment to reproduce it with any fidelity, and recordings were mastered to sound great on the equipment of the day. More modern pop stuff people just don't care when mastering, as they know their audience will be listening to low-bitrate MP3s anyway, so again the songs are mastered to sound OK for that audience. PLay that on real, modern equipment and it's jarring.
So there's a crowd that loves tube amps, records, and other gear that's lossy (in a nice-sounding way) in that top octave.
But it's the very lack of accuracy that makes stuff sound better.
Also, of course, there's utter scams like HD-DVD, where they put both the normal and HD track on the disc, except they add noise to the "normal" track (really).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If the packaging is nicer than the product, why bother at all?
Requiem for the American Dream
I have to say this thread reminds of the joke that audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment :-D
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
And how much did you pay, after being convinced by the salesman that you could hear the difference? Or did you get scammed by HD-DVD? Do you believe you can hear 90 kHz, or do you believe Nyquist was wrong, or did you get taken by a staged A/B test?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Clearly, musicians need to figure out how to monetize their offerings in a way that doesn't require them to stop everyone in the world from doing technically-trivial things with their own hardware.
I don't understand... a kid, by default, does NOT have loads of money... LET THEM LISTEN TO THEIR GROUPS -> IT'S FREE PUBLICITY (else you'll generate a generation of kids that don't give a fuck about music at all).
I can't call that English
The "masses" of yesterday didn't know either.
This "back in my" shit has to stop.
In the "70's" 90% of the public listened to music of fucking 8-tracks, shitty turntables, or fuckin am/fm radio with shitty single paper speakers.
In the "80's" they "upgraded" to cassettes. ROFL
In the "90's" we got CD and the snobs complained about the "loss" in sound? are you fucking kidding me?
"cheap" equipment and MP3's today is 10 times better then what 90% of the public used EVER.
Trump in the White House, the fascists will rejoice.
Does no one put value into decent sounding music
Based on the quality of audio gear available today, I'd say no.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
I have to imagine the quality of this music is pretty dismal?
Maybe if you're a dog or a bat, but for the majority of people it sounds fine. If you're listening to it through a pair of $30 earbuds, you aren't going to hear everything that's encoded in the file, period.
Besides, once you hit about 35 or so a lot of your hearing response at the upper and lower ranges is gone, never to return. That's a fact (a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless).
Damn few people over 40 can hear down to 30hz or 40hz or up past ~16000hz, and for a lot of people it comes earlier than that, based upon lifestyle and environment (listening to loud music frequently, shooting without proper ear protection, exposure to workplace noise, etc).
I suspect that a lot of self-styled audiophiles would fail miserably in double-blind tests of high-end equipment versus modest- or medium-range gear.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
This is 16 to 24 year olds we are talking about, so they are ripping stuff off like Drake and Beiber.
Technically I'm not sure that actually qualifies as "music", but that's a discussion for another day.
Jimmy Kimmel commented on Justin Bieber Winning 'Best Male Artist': "I count at least 3 lies in the title of that award."
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Then prove it with an ABX, Golden Ears. Until then, you are completely, 100% full of shit. Human ears cannot hear much beyond 16KHz @ 16-bits per sample.
I don't understand... a kid, by default, does NOT have loads of money... LET THEM LISTEN TO THEIR GROUPS -> IT'S FREE PUBLICITY (else you'll generate a generation of kids that don't give a fuck about music at all).
I was quite pleasantly surprised last month at the Foreigner concert in Boise just how many youngsters were there; 20-somethings, teens, tweens, and younger; all actually enjoying the concert. Will be interesting to see tomorrow night how many young fans turn out for the Def Leppard, REO Speedwagon, and Tesla concert.
Then again, it could just be that Boise (as well as Eastern Oregon where I am) are like that place Gorak in South Park went off to because the world of a few years in his future was just too much for him. :D
This space unintentionally left blank.
Let's hope your taste in music isn't as poor as your taste in television shows.
Again, there are millions and millions of songs available for free on Myspace and a million other places. Literally 99.9% of music is free. Why would anyone in their right mind pay the record labels?
They would pay the record labels only if the labels were giving them something they want, adding some value.
don't sue youtube, the world's biggest copyright infringer who has made many billions off poor artists.
No, sue the little guy who is merely downloading things off youtube!
What a punch of spineless pussy holes
Do kids not work summer jobs and part time through high school anymore?
They do not, for several reasons that I've been able to dig up.
I have cousins in one or more of each of the above situations. If you can describe good workarounds, I would appreciate them.
My youngest nephew (I think he is 12 or 13 now) accompanies us (myself, and his parents) on thrifting trips to Boise and The Dalles. Some of what he gets, he keeps for himself, and some he has his dad (my little brother) put up on one of their family eBay accounts. When said items sell, he gets to keep what remains after eBay and PayPal fees are deducted.
That is how kids can have their own $$ for fun stuff these days. My tween and teen self from back in the 80s and late 70s is envious of the me here in the future, because back then, we had to rely on turning in bottles and cans for their deposits, doing whatever little chores we could muster, or if you were one of the lucky ones, have a weekly allowance.
This space unintentionally left blank.
So I'm going to take all of your copyrighted work and upload it to the internet. then I'm going to put up a $.10 to download button so if anyone wants any of YOUR work I can profit off it.
This is no different than selling bootlegs at the swap meet.
Fuck you and the retarded niggers who modded you up
I mean you can download a MP4 from the stream with a few add on. Then use an open source project to transfer the sound track to mp3. What is the difference with that youtube mp3 service ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Damn I can't even pay myself a good show... are all the kids now completely spoiled (except mine lol) ? :/
Many kids does not have access to this kind of money, even if many have access to
I can't call that English
Damn I can't even pay myself a good show... are all the kids now completely spoiled (except mine lol) ? :/
Many kids does not have access to this kind of money, even if many have access to
Well, the Foreigner concert was only $9, due to it being at the fair last month. Plus, our thrift shopping that day more than paid for the entire trip.
This space unintentionally left blank.
So, wondering when the masses stopped caring at all about how the music sounded?
My guess would be, right around the time when the artists and producers stopped caring.
I have to imagine the quality of this music is pretty dismal?
You don't have to imagine anything. You can check this for yourself. Most of these videos are 160kbps AAC and put up from original rips by the studios themselves.
That's plenty good for ... well pretty much everyone.
128 kbps? Audibly transparent?
Only on the promotional materials for MP3 players that came out at the beginning of the century (back when capacity was still measured in megabytes on most of them). That whole "64 kbps is FM quality, 128 is CD quality" was a huge joke -- even then.
A few years ago, I asked my son, then 22, to recommend some contemporary music that I might appreciate. He said, Dad, today's music sucks. The only music worth listening to is in your collection of vinyl. You know, Miles, 'Trane, Dolphy, Weather Report, etc., and just about any blues and vocal group harmony. This was music I played on my rig while he was growing up. I was so impressed I gave him my entire record collection, including some rare stuff, and my high end system to play it on, knowing how much he appreciated all that wonderful music and would carry one of our family traditions forward.
More millennials than you might think appreciate truly good sound.
> As for the labels, they used to discover the best artists and promote them, and do a great job with production. That all ended somewhere in the late 1990s or so.
I too prefer the "classic rock" station, vs the top 40 station. My favorite station advertises "the best music from sixties, seventies, and eighties". The pop station plays the weekly top 40, the songs that are popular this week.
It occurs to me that "sixties, seventies, and eighties", 30 years, is a MUCH broader library to choose from than this week is. It may be that there was plenty of teenie bopper crap cranked out in the 1970s too, and we let it stay there. Heck I know the Beatles cranked out more teenie pop than Justin Bieber, sometimes spending less than two hours on a song. We don't play the crappy ones from the 1970s today, because they are crappy and we have more than just one week of music to choose from.
Is this what they'll go after next? Right-Clicking on images? YOUR WALLPAPER FOLDER IS FULL! YOU HAVE BEEN FINED $3,000,000 AND SENTENCED TO 11 YEARS IN STATE PENITENTIARY.
It's called a high quality speaker cord.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Joking aside, 16 to 24 year olds are usually ripping them because they cant afford yet another subscription service.
https://www.cnet.com/news/the-...
And you make up 1% of people who listen to music.
To the other 99%, it doesn't really matter.
After a few concerts, it doesn't really matter for most folks any more.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
you tube audio is decent quality now. At least if you have decent bandwidth. Bear in mind its often the Studios own channel where you watch these things. I use you tube as my duke box these days.
That old saw? Modern DACs reduce that distortion to inaudible levels at 16-bit, and with proper dithering it vanishes completely into the noise floor.
https://wiki.xiph.org/Videos/Digital_Show_and_Tell#Dither
So, wondering when the masses stopped caring at all about how the music sounded?
When I was diagnosed with partial deafness at age 12.
When I was issued hearing aids in my 20s.
When I gave up on them and decided to live life in the quiet in my 30s.
Are Klipschorns real or was that an elaborate piss-take on audiophiles? Sorry, reality blurs with satire on this topic.
It's also pretty silly. There's masses of great music out there, more and more accessible than ever before.
He maybe just hasn't found it yet.
I'll probably be down-modded for being snarky but just because you're "tone deaf" and can't tell the difference between 16-bit @ 44 KHz and 24-bit @ 192 KHz doesn't imply everyone else is.
There's a time and a place for 24-bit @ 192 KHz, and it's when you're converting/modifying the music such that that distortion would become noticeable. Otherwise, 16-bit @ 44 kHz and 24-bit @ 192 kHz are indistinguishable by the human ear.
> Otherwise, 16-bit @ 44 kHz and 24-bit @ 192 kHz are indistinguishable by the human ear.
Maybe your ears, but not this person's.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/...
Who said anything about salesman?? Oh wait, you keep bringing up non sequiturs.
You also keep assuming that the conclusions that the "BAS study" is true:
âoeAudibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playbackâ
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/brows...
The results are inclusive as these two people point out:
The BAS Study Revisited
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p...
and
Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/...
Which are linked in this thread:
http://www.computeraudiophile....
Instead of criticizing others for your ignorance it would behoove you to spend some researching the topic instead of spouting dogma.
The guy admits that his hearing is shot above 12kHz, and his headphones don't reach the upper limits of hearing, so the obvious conclusion is that he is hearing artifacts from the downsampling/conversion process.
Instead of criticizing others for your ignorance it would behoove you to spend some researching the topic instead of spouting dogma.
You're now perfectly channeling the crackpot who just knows Einstein was wrong. But for a better crackpot score, you should call me a hidebound reactionary and accuse Nyquist and Shannon of being part of an establishment conspiracy to silence the truth.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Why do you attach meaning to music? Music is just a way to occupy your ears while you work.
But if he can hear 12 kHz, Nyquist's theorem tells us you need 24 kHz in order to be indistinguishable from lower quality sampling
16-bit @ 44 KHz was "good enough" for the average Joe.
And by that you mean "mathematically proven to capture everything the human ear can hear".
That doesn't make much sense, unless you think the human ear cannot sense frequencies higher than 22 kHz. The human ear does not have an absolute cutoff there. The finest hair cells in the cochlea correspond to a resonant frequency of about 15 kHz, after which sensitivity to higher frequencies quickly falls off. But it does not immediately go flat. In fact, some people are able to hear frequencies up to 28 kHz; it's just that you have to raise the volume a lot to get a response.
Depends but if you don't have ffmpeg avconv is a drop in alternative.
personally I don't like to convert from mp4 to mp3 with a good video with a little tag editing you can get iTunes to put the mp4 of a song in the same album as the audio tracks you can do that with pdf files too.
avconv -i input.avi -threads 2 -vcodec libx264 -crf 25 -crf_max 35 -maxrate 4M -bufsize 2M -acodec aac -strict experimental -ab 192000 -ar 48000 output.mp4
my recipe for video not particularly fast but the video is smooth glitch free in action sequences the audio sounds good. With often a reduction in file size. So far that has varied between 20-66% saving on file size. It is compatible with iTunes and Html5 and works well streaming from my NAS
I quite like iTunes these days, if you generate a playlist you can export the playlist as an m3u file and select all the tracks and drag them onto the android file transfer window with 1 more drop for the m3u file. Google music on android picks up the new files and figures out the m3u (the file location is different). I did try double twist but it eats ram and takes forever to be actually be able to use.
I'm also a fan of musicbrainz picard i use it in 2 ways in first importing i use it to verify and tag files and rename files and move to the automatically add to itunes folder. This frees space on my laptop it can also help with dupes if itunes isn't running as it organizes to artist album and they are easy to spot.
Sometimes itunes can make a mess of things duplicating album tracks a lot of the time with several entries for one physical track. it is often easiest to delete the album and keep the tracks and get picard to move them to the automatically add to itunes folder. Sometimes itunes can be used to do the reimport.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I wish I had a playlist from the audiophiles on Slashdot. I've heard what music is bad, I really want to know what is good.
Sig: I stole this sig.
It can be of several qualities but once you get to 720p it tends to be reasonable, unfortunately streaming 720p content tends to hit the buffering problem if your connection isn't good so then its better to download and listen and watch later.
It isn't all music either there is useful instructional video's too.
Why rip from youtube anyway? In theory it is there anytime you want it, but the reality is that service quality is intermittent sometimes its fast and reliable other times it glitches like crazy or there is no coverage, so really it is the failure in the infrastructure which is generating the use of these other solutions.
Why do bands make promotional video's anyway? isn't the clue in the name. It's advertising and it isn't particularly effective advertising, bands maybe performing on their video's but where are the interviews, the substance the communication with fans. It is kind of strange really since musicians can be and usually are great communicators, they move people with their music. There could be a dialogue and with it more commercial success.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
People who listen to it loud just want the pounding bass that you get at a night club or concert.
I get that but I don't really get the appeal unless you are actually in a night club or concert.
It's neat to hear that stuff on headphones
For some people but not everyone. Unfortunately a lot of headphone makers think that means all the rest of us want to listen to absurd amounts of bass in our headphones. Personally I do not. I want the audio to sound how the person who recorded it intended it to be heard for the most part. If I'm listening to a podcast I don't need extra bass if you get what I'm saying. My wife's car has a supposedly fancy branded name stereo system in it and the only notable thing they seem to have done with it is to dial up the bass to 11 as if that somehow makes it better. They of course did not provide a way to turn the bass down in case I don't want to feel like I'm in a techno club.
You are the proof that age is in the eye of the beholder. My experience stats well before the 90-ies. There was shitty popular music before that as well. And I mean A LOT.
I remember that Abba was called shitty music and if you liked Abba, you were a shitty person. That said, even before Abba, I was only into music because of the memories it created with friends. My parents have the same attitude towards music and the records they have where Nat King Cole and Carlos Cardel and the like. And even at that time there was a LOT of shitty popular music.
So it is not the popular music that died. It is that you do not like popular music and that is ok. I never realy like ANY music ever. I just liked the situation it created.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
You absolute love non sequiturs, don't you?
If you would actually _read_ any of the current papers you'd realize Einstein hand-waves the infinite sequence mc^2 as being finite. His work is incomplete as many others point out.
The Factor 2 in Fundamental Physics
He _was NOT_ the first to discover the E=mc^2 relationship. Henry Poincare derived it 5 years earlier.
Mass-Energy Equivalence
Herrmann also points, mc^2, is an infinite series:
E = mc^2 is Not Einstein's Discovery
But go ahead and keep bringing up topics that you know jack about and that have _nothing_ to do with the sample rate of CD's.
> accuse Nyquist
Who said anything about the Nyquist being wrong? Show me where I said that??
CD's 44 KHz playback can only (perfectly) reconstruct signals at 22 KHz. That is inadequate for _some_ people. Why do you assume everyone else is just as tone deaf as you ??
To use an analogy of your stupidity:
Some people (incorrectly) believe you can't see frame rates higher then 30. There is a clear difference between 30 Hz, 60 Hz, and 120 Hz. Most people will never notice it, but for others crappy 24 and 30 Hz look stuttery as hell. 24 Hz is "good enough" for most people the same way 16-bit 44 KHz is "good enough" for most people.
CD's 44 KHz playback can only (perfectly) reconstruct signals at 22 KHz. That is inadequate for _some_ people. Why do you assume everyone else is just as tone deaf as you ??
Ah, now we get to it. You're not a science crackpot on sampling (though apparently on Einstein???), but you believe in humans with super-human hearing. I, OTOH, believe in audiophile salesmen capable of convincing the mark he has super-human hearing in order to drain him of $30k for audio equipment.
Sure, sure, it's a bell curve and a few can hear above 20k at birth, though with significant attenuation, but it won't last long.
Some people (incorrectly) believe you can't see frame rates higher then 30.
No one who saw the HFR version of the Hobbit, or turned on the "make everything look cheap" temporal up-scaling in their smart TV believes that.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Personally I feel that anything beyond 19th century classical music is simplistic garbage.
Yes, it can be transparent at 128kbps. AAC isn't MP3.
Sure, and GP appears to agree with you on the math. The GP is claiming that there are problems with the stuff we use to convert the mathematically adequate sound into actual sound, and that going with quality that would not make any difference with perfect equipment works better with what we have.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's not Einstein's Theory of Relativity because he worked out the math first, since Poincare did that before him. It's Einstein's theory because he actually paid attention to what the math told him, and ditched fundamental ideas like time and space in favor of spacetime, a more inclusive concept that had very interesting interactions between time and space, so that the Lorentz equations are not stand-alone oddities but are consequences of how spacetime works. I believe Poincare still believed in absolute time when Einstein was working on his theory.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I just use youtube-dl command line program for that. You can save pure audio stream directly so there is no conversion from lossy to lossy codec. You get an AAC encoded file which is playable with everything these days and it does sound better than MP3.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but if the guy can't hear frequencies above 12 kHz, then obviously the differences he's hearing(!) can't be due to frequencies that 96 kHz sampling will reproduce and 44.1 kHz sampling will not.
That fucking sucks for you to not be able to enjoy music. There is a lot of great stuff out there that you are missing out on.
LAME automatically adds a lowpass filter to everything it encodes (for good reason). Did you remember to disable that?
Also, RazorLame hasn't been updated in a decade, which means you were probably using a super outdated and buggy version of LAME.
> You're not a science crackpot on sampling (though apparently on Einstein???),
Calling people who are published on arxiv.org as "crackpots" only makes you look like an idiot. Where are your published papers?
Einstein was human. He made mistakes -- he even admitted to one as the biggest blunder of his life. If you would take off your myopic glasses and realize that criticism != crackpot you might actually learn something.
He spent the rest of his life trying to unify the four fundamental forces and come up with a ToE (Theory of Everything.) Newsflash -- he failed. Einstein's Theory of Relatively, by definition, is incomplete; this is a well known fact. Unsolved Problems in Special and General Relativity also attests to that. It specifically point out 21 currently unsolved problems. Scientists have made zero break throughs in the past 50 years as well. Questioning the fundamentals is the _foundation_ of Science. But keep name calling people who question the assumptions as crackpots. I'm sure you have a replacement theory that explains it all.
Gee, if only there was a List of Unsolved Problems in Science. Oh wait, there is. Are you going to call all THOSE scientists who study these things crackpots as well ??
> drain him of $30k for audio equipment.
Why are you so insecure / jealous that other people have that kind of money to spend?
> but you believe in humans with super-human hearing.
Not just, believe, but I know it first hand because I live with one. My wife has extra-sensory perception in both sight and sound. I'll trust her senses over your denial any day.
But go ahead and keep labeling people who disagree with your limited knowledge. Just be aware that you look like a fool when you do. The real question you should be asking yourself is "When will you grow up?"
Kids these days. Back in my day...
Good point !
> and ditched fundamental ideas like time and space in favor of spacetime,
In his time he would have seemed like a crackpot !
> I believe Poincare still believed in absolute time when Einstein was working on his theory.
Interesting conjecture! Do you have research / evidence on that?
Youtube should sue the recording industry for the trillions of dollars worth of free advertising they have provided them. One court decision awarding damages against the recording industry should shut them up for good.
Repeated in my own words in case I misunderstood: Your middle-school-age nephew is buying used products at thrift stores in other cities with his dad's transportation and consigning the products to his dad to flip on eBay, and that's how he affords to buy legit music.
If I understood your post correctly, that's little different from his dad giving him an allowance, as his dad is providing free transportation and free use of his eBay seller account. Both the transportation and the eBay seller account require being 18 or older. The only labor the nephew contributes is deciding which products are worth flipping.
How does the nephew determine what to buy to flip? I ask because I'm trying to evaluate how well this sort of business would work for my cousins.
Congrats - you just added 25 point to your score on the crackpot index. Well done. (There should really be points for saying "questioning the fundamentals is the foundation of science", but oddly that's missing from the index.)
My wife has extra-sensory perception in both sight and sound. I'll trust her senses over your denial any day.
Heh, I assume you meant you'll trust her perceptions, since you just claimed she can perceive things beyond her senses.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Tone deafness is an inability to distinguish pitch, it has nothing to do with the range of frequencies that can be heard.