Pretty much everything out there supports FLAC. The things that don't support it are the garbage products that you seem to use. FLAC is free, and therefore a really easy way to get more people to use a product without any extra cost added to production.
Try doing some research about the products you waste your money on, maybe you'll find that the trash you've been buying can be replaced with extremely superior products from companies such as Cowon, or even SanDisk.
Then you are going on about software, but software supports any file type, most (MP3, FLAC, OGG) as standard types, and anything less common as a plugin. At the very least, the most mainstream audio software has support, and the best software has standard support for it, like foobar2000.
Also, what are you going on about with phone calls? Voice uses codecs that do under 10kbps, usually around 5kbps. You don't stream music over the phone expecting it to sound like anything more than some fizzes and pops.
All businesses in Canada accept US coins - they can just be put back into circulation by the business because Canadians will also take them back as change. The US dollar coin is the only coin that might get rejected. I've received Euro as change many times, and just the face value is worth double what the Canadian coin it replaced would have been worth, add another.5 for the difference in market value and I'm up quite a nice amount!
The problem citizens of the USA have is that they are afraid of anything that doesn't look like their funny money. The businesses can't take the Canadian coins because they wouldn't be able to recirculate them, nobody will take them as change.
Not that tough, actually. It's pretty well documented and can be easily beaten if you just have the current information, or a scanner that doesn't have that crippling code added to its firmware.
Their books were generally filled with errors, and older volumes are mostly filled with information that's extremely out of date/incorrect. We are better off with niche books that offer much more information on any specific topic, at a much lower cost. Who, exactly, was even able to afford EB's sets, year after year, or even one of the over 30 volumes from a set?
As long as the computers continue to function, there will always be information available from experts - and it will often be free. Of course, many of the online experts could also be "experts", but there was really nothing stopping the EB employees from also being "experts".
I'm not talking about Wikipedia, either, because I really wouldn't use Wikipedia for anything more than just the gist of a topic, and mostly only for information on media (TV shows, music, anime, etc). If you actually bother to use your brain (yes, I know, it's a lot to ask for), you can usually find expert information from the same people who provide expert information offline.
Information really does want to be free, it's just that sometimes there are people who wish it wasn't, making it seem like it isn't readily available from proper sources.
Looking at Gr8Apes' other replies, he was definitely talking about 192kbps MP3s. Completely different thing from a track encoded at 192kHz/24bit and about 5000kbps!
192kHz is not 192kbps. Sampling rate is not bitrate. A 96/24 track will have a bitrate of around 2500-3200kbps. 192/24 will be around 5000kbps. MP3 a 44/16 will be where ever you encode it to, capping out at 320kbps.
Ah, the bottom of the page has a description of how they remastered it. So, it looks like the originals were recorded in a multiple of 44 of some sort, otherwise they'd have introduced interference effects into the final product.
Your comment points out a huge issue with some sites that release high resolution audio, especially if it's older music.
For the last decade, people have been upmixing regular stereo CDs to 5.1, and doing it extremely well. There have been many cases where a few years later the studio releases its own 5.1 version, using the original material (supposedly) and it comes out sounding worse than a stereo upmix that some guy made in his basement. You can search Demonoid for classic examples of this happening, or just to get your hands on some of the upmixes, if you're interested (you'll have to be able to play DTS files).
Back to the point, I wouldn't be surprised if a large amount of the "classic" albums that are released with higher resolutions are just upmixes, which account for situations like HDTracks' Rolling Stones collection being released in multiples of 44. At the very least, it looks like the source material wasn't recorded in the highest quality possible, or maybe at the time the highest possible just wasn't where we are now.
The only reason you are noticing a difference in your 192kHz tracks is because the master is different. Different doesn't always have to be good, either. Yes, it would be nice to actually have the original material, that was recorded at the highest quality, and was edited in the highest quality, sent down to us at the highest quality, but that's not what actually happens. Maybe it will start to happen in the future, or we'll just keep up the Loudness War. It's possible that a very small amount of music is being released in high quality all the way down the line (Linn Records, Trent Reznor), but it's not what's happening with the majority. If you're trying to say that you're noticing a huge improvement in old music that's been remastered and released in 192kHz, it's due to been remastered, and very likely not the 192kHz.
I have a good amount of tracks from HDTracks (new and old), and a bit of it sounds better, but it doesn't sound better due to the resolution, it's because the actual tracks have been mastered to sound better - moving instruments around and doing a better editing job in general. Listening to tracks from the same album, the 88/96kHz encodes vs the 192kHz encodes, there's no difference.
The point is that the 44KHz 16bit track has already been compressed from the original recording. However you rip that track, lossless or lossy, it doesn't matter; you're still not getting the original track.
Knowing this, it doesn't mean that the tracks some sites are selling as 192KHz 24bit are from the original sources, or will even sound better, either. The original track could have been recorded with bad equipment or settings. In other cases, when doing comparisons on CD tracks vs high resolution tracks from sites like HDTracks, you can sometimes find that the HDTracks track is just the CD track with increased reported resolution/file size - possibly due to the inability to acquire the original material, though it could also be as simple as pure greed and laziness. Not that all of the albums on those sites are fakes, but a few of them have been found to be ripoffs.
There's also the fact that it's extremely unlikely anyone can tell the difference between an encode at 96KHz vs 192KHz. If they are both properly encoded from the same source, it's unlikely there will be any audible difference between them.
Yes, unlimited for that person who signed up, on his plan, with a very specific speed that will essentially cap his total usage for a given period of time.
If you let thousands of people access service with a parallel cut of the speed, not just sharing the total speed of the person they're impersonating, then you're not just piggybacking another person's service, you're using speed and service that's reserved for other paying customers, present and future.
The infrastructure is limited and capacity depends on how many customers are accounted for. If thousands of people are using the service without being accounted for, that destroys the service for everyone who did pay.
Do you see where you went wrong with your failed reply?
Where the things you wrote about don't affect the physical world - they are completely based on a guess, an assumption, or on the imaginary - the issue at hand, of using a finite resource, does affect the physical world.
By stealing Internet access, something is physically taken away from people who paid for it - they are no longer able to use the thing they paid for, because someone else took it from them.
Are you really as retarded as you are making yourself out to be, or do you actually not understand something this basic?
By using an ISP's connection without paying for it, you aren't piggybacking on another person's packets, you're using up the limited* space in the pipe. By not paying, and essentially being an unknown factor to the business providing the pipe, you are lowering the quality of service for everyone else. If not through using bandwidth that wasn't accounted for, it's by delaying their packets with your own, during an especially congested time.
* Regardless of how big the pipes are, the ISPs do need to calculate just how much capacity they have for the amount of people they are serving. Adding a few hundred extra people without accounting for them can be a big difference for their neighbours. Add thousands of unaccounted users, and you can have a massive congestion problem that will be extremely hard to track down, and costly to locate and fix.
Symantec's anti-virus software catches viruses just fine. Actually, if you really knew anything at all about the AV industry, you'd know that all AV catch pretty much the same percentage of virus files. Their implementation may not be very good, especially at real-time virus defense, but they have no problem writing virus definitions. The next time you decide to write about something, get some facts before you make yourself look more retarded. In order for a joke to be funny, it has to actually contain humor, by the way.
Slashdot Mirror
APPLE GOOD, M$ BAD.
+1 Insightful. That's all.
By getting one of the very few that don't have it, you are beating the people who are asking manufacturers to include it.
I bet you're a really loud talker.
Pretty much everything out there supports FLAC. The things that don't support it are the garbage products that you seem to use. FLAC is free, and therefore a really easy way to get more people to use a product without any extra cost added to production.
Try doing some research about the products you waste your money on, maybe you'll find that the trash you've been buying can be replaced with extremely superior products from companies such as Cowon, or even SanDisk.
Then you are going on about software, but software supports any file type, most (MP3, FLAC, OGG) as standard types, and anything less common as a plugin. At the very least, the most mainstream audio software has support, and the best software has standard support for it, like foobar2000.
Also, what are you going on about with phone calls? Voice uses codecs that do under 10kbps, usually around 5kbps. You don't stream music over the phone expecting it to sound like anything more than some fizzes and pops.
Wouldn't it make more sense to use 192kbps files? That way you won't have to put them back on your player every day, just every week or so.
All businesses in Canada accept US coins - they can just be put back into circulation by the business because Canadians will also take them back as change. The US dollar coin is the only coin that might get rejected. I've received Euro as change many times, and just the face value is worth double what the Canadian coin it replaced would have been worth, add another .5 for the difference in market value and I'm up quite a nice amount!
The problem citizens of the USA have is that they are afraid of anything that doesn't look like their funny money. The businesses can't take the Canadian coins because they wouldn't be able to recirculate them, nobody will take them as change.
Not that tough, actually. It's pretty well documented and can be easily beaten if you just have the current information, or a scanner that doesn't have that crippling code added to its firmware.
The last time I checked, libraries only have one copy per branch. So, how do you split that up in a post-apocalyptic world?
It's a shame that seeing your doctor is a "dangerous waste of [your] money". Maybe you should consider that point, first.
Their books were generally filled with errors, and older volumes are mostly filled with information that's extremely out of date/incorrect. We are better off with niche books that offer much more information on any specific topic, at a much lower cost. Who, exactly, was even able to afford EB's sets, year after year, or even one of the over 30 volumes from a set?
As long as the computers continue to function, there will always be information available from experts - and it will often be free. Of course, many of the online experts could also be "experts", but there was really nothing stopping the EB employees from also being "experts".
I'm not talking about Wikipedia, either, because I really wouldn't use Wikipedia for anything more than just the gist of a topic, and mostly only for information on media (TV shows, music, anime, etc). If you actually bother to use your brain (yes, I know, it's a lot to ask for), you can usually find expert information from the same people who provide expert information offline.
Information really does want to be free, it's just that sometimes there are people who wish it wasn't, making it seem like it isn't readily available from proper sources.
Looking at Gr8Apes' other replies, he was definitely talking about 192kbps MP3s. Completely different thing from a track encoded at 192kHz/24bit and about 5000kbps!
192kHz is not 192kbps. Sampling rate is not bitrate. A 96/24 track will have a bitrate of around 2500-3200kbps. 192/24 will be around 5000kbps. MP3 a 44/16 will be where ever you encode it to, capping out at 320kbps.
Ah, the bottom of the page has a description of how they remastered it. So, it looks like the originals were recorded in a multiple of 44 of some sort, otherwise they'd have introduced interference effects into the final product.
Your comment points out a huge issue with some sites that release high resolution audio, especially if it's older music.
For the last decade, people have been upmixing regular stereo CDs to 5.1, and doing it extremely well. There have been many cases where a few years later the studio releases its own 5.1 version, using the original material (supposedly) and it comes out sounding worse than a stereo upmix that some guy made in his basement. You can search Demonoid for classic examples of this happening, or just to get your hands on some of the upmixes, if you're interested (you'll have to be able to play DTS files).
Back to the point, I wouldn't be surprised if a large amount of the "classic" albums that are released with higher resolutions are just upmixes, which account for situations like HDTracks' Rolling Stones collection being released in multiples of 44. At the very least, it looks like the source material wasn't recorded in the highest quality possible, or maybe at the time the highest possible just wasn't where we are now.
The only reason you are noticing a difference in your 192kHz tracks is because the master is different. Different doesn't always have to be good, either. Yes, it would be nice to actually have the original material, that was recorded at the highest quality, and was edited in the highest quality, sent down to us at the highest quality, but that's not what actually happens. Maybe it will start to happen in the future, or we'll just keep up the Loudness War. It's possible that a very small amount of music is being released in high quality all the way down the line (Linn Records, Trent Reznor), but it's not what's happening with the majority. If you're trying to say that you're noticing a huge improvement in old music that's been remastered and released in 192kHz, it's due to been remastered, and very likely not the 192kHz.
I have a good amount of tracks from HDTracks (new and old), and a bit of it sounds better, but it doesn't sound better due to the resolution, it's because the actual tracks have been mastered to sound better - moving instruments around and doing a better editing job in general. Listening to tracks from the same album, the 88/96kHz encodes vs the 192kHz encodes, there's no difference.
Oops, using KHz instead of kHz.
The point is that the 44KHz 16bit track has already been compressed from the original recording. However you rip that track, lossless or lossy, it doesn't matter; you're still not getting the original track.
Knowing this, it doesn't mean that the tracks some sites are selling as 192KHz 24bit are from the original sources, or will even sound better, either. The original track could have been recorded with bad equipment or settings. In other cases, when doing comparisons on CD tracks vs high resolution tracks from sites like HDTracks, you can sometimes find that the HDTracks track is just the CD track with increased reported resolution/file size - possibly due to the inability to acquire the original material, though it could also be as simple as pure greed and laziness. Not that all of the albums on those sites are fakes, but a few of them have been found to be ripoffs.
There's also the fact that it's extremely unlikely anyone can tell the difference between an encode at 96KHz vs 192KHz. If they are both properly encoded from the same source, it's unlikely there will be any audible difference between them.
Yes, unlimited for that person who signed up, on his plan, with a very specific speed that will essentially cap his total usage for a given period of time.
If you let thousands of people access service with a parallel cut of the speed, not just sharing the total speed of the person they're impersonating, then you're not just piggybacking another person's service, you're using speed and service that's reserved for other paying customers, present and future.
The infrastructure is limited and capacity depends on how many customers are accounted for. If thousands of people are using the service without being accounted for, that destroys the service for everyone who did pay.
So, you agree with what I said, and you confirm that you're a retard, and you confirm that don't understand the topic at hand in any way, at all?
Do you see where you went wrong with your failed reply?
Where the things you wrote about don't affect the physical world - they are completely based on a guess, an assumption, or on the imaginary - the issue at hand, of using a finite resource, does affect the physical world.
By stealing Internet access, something is physically taken away from people who paid for it - they are no longer able to use the thing they paid for, because someone else took it from them.
Are you really as retarded as you are making yourself out to be, or do you actually not understand something this basic?
By using an ISP's connection without paying for it, you aren't piggybacking on another person's packets, you're using up the limited* space in the pipe. By not paying, and essentially being an unknown factor to the business providing the pipe, you are lowering the quality of service for everyone else. If not through using bandwidth that wasn't accounted for, it's by delaying their packets with your own, during an especially congested time.
* Regardless of how big the pipes are, the ISPs do need to calculate just how much capacity they have for the amount of people they are serving. Adding a few hundred extra people without accounting for them can be a big difference for their neighbours. Add thousands of unaccounted users, and you can have a massive congestion problem that will be extremely hard to track down, and costly to locate and fix.
You told me to present factual information that you should have researched before commenting. I did.
Try doing some research for yourself, next time.
I'm glad I could use facts and logic to get you so butthurt that you went and wrote mentally challenged replies to the last 20 or so posts I made.
Symantec's anti-virus software catches viruses just fine. Actually, if you really knew anything at all about the AV industry, you'd know that all AV catch pretty much the same percentage of virus files. Their implementation may not be very good, especially at real-time virus defense, but they have no problem writing virus definitions. The next time you decide to write about something, get some facts before you make yourself look more retarded. In order for a joke to be funny, it has to actually contain humor, by the way.