I'm really listening to a wide variety of material; anything from baroque chamber music to the latest pop diva.
When the mp3 phenomenon started a few years ago, I was satisfied with 128kb mp3's. What I found after a while was that 128kb mp3s weren't very good, and once I discovered the flaws, they were immediately obvious on any recording. It seemed to me to be roughly on a par with a cassette copy of an album. Okay, so I went to 160, but it only removed some of the flaws. I found that 192kb was fine most of the time, but for music with a lot of transients (which could be anything, orchestral, certain pop, country), there was artifacts. By going to 256kb the artifacts disappeared. But the file sizes are too big. So I've switched to LAME VBR high quality, which is pretty good.
I have no particular beef with AAC (yes, I have heard it, but not extensively); but I would like the option of a higher bit rate. Reviewers comments on ACC (the one in the WSJ article mentioned) lead me to believe AAC at 128kb is better than MP3, but not significantly better. I have more experience with MS's lossy compression, and I haven't found it to be better than MP3. RealAudio's claims of better lossy compression than MP3 are clearly false, so lets say I'm skeptical of someone making magic claims about lossy compression at 128kb.
Do you think the lack of option of higher bit rates is due to technical limitations, or licensing limitations from the RIAA members? Or perhaps the feeling that most downloaders are going to be satisfied with what's offered?
"Actually, your point was that 128 kbps AAC is closer to FM than CD, and I hope I've demonstrated that that's untrue."
Actually you haven't demonstrated that; you've given your opinion that its true. I maintain that for anything other than radio pop, 128kb is not sufficient. XM Radio probably isn't the best determinant of what is CD quality.
In fact, the review in the WSJ pointed out that AAC at 128kb only sounds slightly better than an MP3 at the same bit rate. That isn't really much of an endorsement as I think you'll agree that MP3 at 128kb are not suitable for anything other than casual listening.
But the market is probably geared towards FM pop, so I recognize that my desire for CD quality is in the minority.
Like I said, if that's what sells, I have no argument with that. But it isn't close to CD quality.
I think it depends greatly on the source material. For most pop music, I think you may be right.
But I'm not an audio engineer; what I've found is its not necessarily the "top end" that suffers; I start to hear artifacts at these low bit rates that only show themselves in certain musical passages.
Remember, I'm not comparing AAC to MP3 here, I'm comparing AAC to the original CD. Clearly. Clearly, the AAC is less quality than the original CD in any measurment. If you put it on a scale where FM is on one end, and CD is on the other, AAC at 128kb is close to FM than CD.
Why aren't higher bit rates offered to people who want them?
I had an Epson 800 which would allow me to print 50-60 pictures before needing a new ink cartridge (full page graphics). Cartridges were $32. This is no exaggeration either. So my costs were roughly $.50 per page.
The Tektronix 740p gave me 18,000 copies (roughly) before I had to replace all 4 toner cartridges. The price of this was roughly $550. That comes to about $.04 cents a page.
But to look at it another way, had I printed out that many pages on my Epson 800 (even if it were possible), would have cost me close to $9,000!
This is my personal experience; but I think the costs quoted for color lasers are generally well under 10 cents a page.
Perhaps my epson was an ink vampire? . I don't know. But I know the color laser printers make a lot of sense if you're printing a lot of stuff.
I believe you, but XM Radio isn't close to CD either.
XM Radio can be better than FM, but it isn't always; it depends on the bit rate they choose. At least that's what I've read.
My point still stands; this Apple service costs less per song than a CD because you are buying less quality than a CD. I believe that's a fact beyond dispute. If that's good enough, that's great. I have no argument with people who are satisfied with that.
I'm simply pointing out what's obviously true; I'm not attacking anyone.
Not really; the 128kb bit rate of these files doesn't approach the original in terms of quality. In fact, this is closer to FM radio than it is to CD quality.
So perhaps the reason there are less restrictions on this music is that the record companies are comfortable selling you FM quality music for a buck a pop?
If they double the bit rate (as an option), it will be more interesting. As it is now, I'll just listen to the radio.
if you're doing heavy-duty printing of color images.
My experience with an old Epson 800 was about $.50/page for color images. But with my Tektronix 740p, its averaged less than $.05 per page after about 20,000 images.
The best part is when you no longer care about the cost of a single page, you tend to print color far more often.
Do we really want people voting who can't be bothered walking 10 minutes to vote? I mean, we already have absentee ballots for those can physically can't make it to the poles. But now we're going to leave our decision making in the hands of people who think Oprah Winfrey is a genius?
"Would you not want some measure of control on this technology that you labored over for so many hours?"
In the computer science arena? I think not. I base this on several ideas:
1) Software algorithms are essentially expressions of mathematical formula (in a broad sense). This is inherently not patentable. Its the equivalent of copyrighting a prime number because it took you a long time to calculate that is was prime.
2) Based on 20+ years of software development, I've not seen any new algorithm. Every program is cribbed from some other program. As far as I can tell (and I'm not being facetious), nobody starts a program from a blank editor. Each program, or generation of programs, is in improvement. Allow minor improvements to an algorithm to be the basis of a family of patents is likeChevy patenting the automobile because the new Corvette goes faster than the last Corvette.
Lets look at some practical implications of patents:
1) If you consider my previous point to be true, then a small inventor can't benefit from Software patents because large corporations can always show prior art to virtually any software algorithm. You, as "Joe Inventor" don't have the resources to do this type of research so as a practical matter, software patents aren't useful to the mythical lone inventor.
2) In practice, software patents have been used exlusively by large corporations as leverage with other large corporations in arguments over control of markets.
I think the software industry was more vibrant and innovative prior to the "invention" of software patents. So if the intent of software patents has been to foster innovation, it has failed miserably at that goal and on the basis of that alone should be scrapped.
Finally to address your main point about hard work justifying a reward, consider the case of the man who makes a model of NYC entirely out of toothpicks and spends his entire life doing it. Impressive? Hell yea. Is he entitled to some sort of compensation? I don't think so. Hard work and effort is not equal to money.
Its always about money, but its more about the ability for the record companies to get back to the days when you had to put a nickel in the jukebox to listen to a song. Every time.
Do you know what the one great feature of quicktime is?
When you drag the slider, you can look at the movie frame by frame. Every other player/format I'm familiar with won't play any frames until you hit the "play" key.
" Mechanics liens are very old, and common. They may even originate in English common law."
Mechanics liens are not old, although they are common.
I assure you they have no basis in common law.
No, I am not a lawyer, but yes, I have considerable experience with liens.
They're a costly joke on homeowners. They secretly shift financial responsibility to a homeowner. Effectively, it makes a "contractor" an "employee" of the homeowner without the normal control of receivables and payables that an employer normally has.
"The plain simple fact is that the copying of bits to anyone on the planet without explicit authorization from the copyright holder is illegal. Users need to stop doing it."
This is false. There are exceptions to this called "fair use" that allow this copying take place.
Copyright holders in the form of large media conglomerates seem to believe that copyright gives them absolute control over how their work is used.
But this is false.
I am allowed to make backup copies for my own use. I am allowed to loan my CD's and DVDs to friends. I am allowed to sell my CD's and DVD's to strangers. I am allowed to change mediums; that is, if I have a CD, I can move it to my cassette deck or mp3 player. If I watch a movie on TV, I can record it to watch at my convenience.
All of this is OK and legal.
However copyright holders don't recognize any of this as proper or legal.
That's their problem, not mine. And DRM turns my PC into an agent of the copyright holder and in return I get nothing but less rights than I have today.
Sorry, that's a bad deal for me, and its bad policy for a free society, no matter how you try to spin it.
I usually hate typos myself, but every time I spent 20 minutes crafting a post here, I suspect no one reads it. So I put together a 60 second note, re-read it and it has typos. Like this one will, but hey.
My intention was just to point out that authorities may oversell what they have for a whole variety of reasons... they may want more funding from congress...they may want the enemy to feel insecure and stop using all electronic communications. They may just be boasting.
But think of Enigma during WWII. US & GB really could read all the intercepts from Germany & Japan. But they didn't tell anybody; in fact they went out of their way to make sure the Axis powers didn't suspect (check out Cryptonomicon by Stephenson for a fictional account). Now all of the sudden they're telling everybody that not only they know what the enemy is saying, but where they're located? But then they pay informants anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really listening to a wide variety of material; anything from baroque chamber music to the latest pop diva.
When the mp3 phenomenon started a few years ago, I was satisfied with 128kb mp3's. What I found after a while was that 128kb mp3s weren't very good, and once I discovered the flaws, they were immediately obvious on any recording. It seemed to me to be roughly on a par with a cassette copy of an album. Okay, so I went to 160, but it only removed some of the flaws. I found that 192kb was fine most of the time, but for music with a lot of transients (which could be anything, orchestral, certain pop, country), there was artifacts. By going to 256kb the artifacts disappeared. But the file sizes are too big. So I've switched to LAME VBR high quality, which is pretty good.
I have no particular beef with AAC (yes, I have heard it, but not extensively); but I would like the option of a higher bit rate. Reviewers comments on ACC (the one in the WSJ article mentioned) lead me to believe AAC at 128kb is better than MP3, but not significantly better. I have more experience with MS's lossy compression, and I haven't found it to be better than MP3. RealAudio's claims of better lossy compression than MP3 are clearly false, so lets say I'm skeptical of someone making magic claims about lossy compression at 128kb.
Do you think the lack of option of higher bit rates is due to technical limitations, or licensing limitations from the RIAA members? Or perhaps the feeling that most downloaders are going to be satisfied with what's offered?
"Actually, your point was that 128 kbps AAC is closer to FM than CD, and I hope I've demonstrated that that's untrue."
Actually you haven't demonstrated that; you've given your opinion that its true. I maintain that for anything other than radio pop, 128kb is not sufficient. XM Radio probably isn't the best determinant of what is CD quality.
In fact, the review in the WSJ pointed out that AAC at 128kb only sounds slightly better than an MP3 at the same bit rate. That isn't really much of an endorsement as I think you'll agree that MP3 at 128kb are not suitable for anything other than casual listening.
But the market is probably geared towards FM pop, so I recognize that my desire for CD quality is in the minority.
Like I said, if that's what sells, I have no argument with that. But it isn't close to CD quality.
I think it depends greatly on the source material. For most pop music, I think you may be right.
But I'm not an audio engineer; what I've found is its not necessarily the "top end" that suffers; I start to hear artifacts at these low bit rates that only show themselves in certain musical passages.
Remember, I'm not comparing AAC to MP3 here, I'm comparing AAC to the original CD. Clearly. Clearly, the AAC is less quality than the original CD in any measurment. If you put it on a scale where FM is on one end, and CD is on the other, AAC at 128kb is close to FM than CD.
Why aren't higher bit rates offered to people who want them?
I had an Epson 800 which would allow me to print 50-60 pictures before needing a new ink cartridge (full page graphics). Cartridges were $32. This is no exaggeration either. So my costs were roughly $.50 per page.
The Tektronix 740p gave me 18,000 copies (roughly) before I had to replace all 4 toner cartridges. The price of this was roughly $550. That comes to about $.04 cents a page.
But to look at it another way, had I printed out that many pages on my Epson 800 (even if it were possible), would have cost me close to $9,000!
This is my personal experience; but I think the costs quoted for color lasers are generally well under 10 cents a page.
Perhaps my epson was an ink vampire? . I don't know. But I know the color laser printers make a lot of sense if you're printing a lot of stuff.
I believe you, but XM Radio isn't close to CD either.
XM Radio can be better than FM, but it isn't always; it depends on the bit rate they choose. At least that's what I've read.
My point still stands; this Apple service costs less per song than a CD because you are buying less quality than a CD. I believe that's a fact beyond dispute. If that's good enough, that's great. I have no argument with people who are satisfied with that.
I'm simply pointing out what's obviously true; I'm not attacking anyone.
" that's a pretty hard price to beat"
Not really; the 128kb bit rate of these files doesn't approach the original in terms of quality. In fact, this is closer to FM radio than it is to CD quality.
So perhaps the reason there are less restrictions on this music is that the record companies are comfortable selling you FM quality music for a buck a pop?
If they double the bit rate (as an option), it will be more interesting. As it is now, I'll just listen to the radio.
if you're doing heavy-duty printing of color images.
My experience with an old Epson 800 was about $.50/page for color images. But with my Tektronix 740p, its averaged less than $.05 per page after about 20,000 images.
The best part is when you no longer care about the cost of a single page, you tend to print color far more often.
you get a Color laser printer.
Yes, it costs some $$$ out of the box, but the cost per page is an order of magnitude lower than inkjet.
Do we really want people voting who can't be bothered walking 10 minutes to vote? I mean, we already have absentee ballots for those can physically can't make it to the poles. But now we're going to leave our decision making in the hands of people who think Oprah Winfrey is a genius?
"Would you not want some measure of control on this technology that you labored over for so many hours?"
In the computer science arena? I think not. I base this on several ideas:
1) Software algorithms are essentially expressions of mathematical formula (in a broad sense). This is inherently not patentable. Its the equivalent of copyrighting a prime number because it took you a long time to calculate that is was prime.
2) Based on 20+ years of software development, I've not seen any new algorithm. Every program is cribbed from some other program. As far as I can tell (and I'm not being facetious), nobody starts a program from a blank editor. Each program, or generation of programs, is in improvement. Allow minor improvements to an algorithm to be the basis of a family of patents is likeChevy patenting the automobile because the new Corvette goes faster than the last Corvette.
Lets look at some practical implications of patents:
1) If you consider my previous point to be true, then a small inventor can't benefit from Software patents because large corporations can always show prior art to virtually any software algorithm. You, as "Joe Inventor" don't have the resources to do this type of research so as a practical matter, software patents aren't useful to the mythical lone inventor.
2) In practice, software patents have been used exlusively by large corporations as leverage with other large corporations in arguments over control of markets.
I think the software industry was more vibrant and innovative prior to the "invention" of software patents. So if the intent of software patents has been to foster innovation, it has failed miserably at that goal and on the basis of that alone should be scrapped.
Finally to address your main point about hard work justifying a reward, consider the case of the man who makes a model of NYC entirely out of toothpicks and spends his entire life doing it. Impressive? Hell yea. Is he entitled to some sort of compensation? I don't think so. Hard work and effort is not equal to money.
Top 10 stuff can be had cheaply, but classical and jazz stuff is full price. Its too much money.
"As for cheaper CDs???????? I don't know where you are buying CDs, but they are very reasonably priced."
You consider $18US a reasonable price for a CD? I don't. I think its overpriced by a third.
Its always about money, but its more about the ability for the record companies to get back to the days when you had to put a nickel in the jukebox to listen to a song. Every time.
You do understand this article was a joke, right?
Do you know what the one great feature of quicktime is?
When you drag the slider, you can look at the movie frame by frame. Every other player/format I'm familiar with won't play any frames until you hit the "play" key.
He uses a lot of words to talk about a few simple concepts.
" Mechanics liens are very old, and common. They may even originate in English common law."
Mechanics liens are not old, although they are common.
I assure you they have no basis in common law.
No, I am not a lawyer, but yes, I have considerable experience with liens.
They're a costly joke on homeowners. They secretly shift financial responsibility to a homeowner. Effectively, it makes a "contractor" an "employee" of the homeowner without the normal control of receivables and payables that an employer normally has.
Most people don't realize the Japanese word "Epson" translates in English to "Paper Jam".
If people want to willingly agree to this on their computer, its fine.
But why would this be legislated as is being attempted by the media conglomerates? They view PCs as dangerous and must be under control.
Similar, to totalitarian societies where typewriters, PC's and Xerox machines are considered subversive and must be registered
"The plain simple fact is that the copying of bits to anyone on the planet without explicit authorization from the copyright holder is illegal. Users need to stop doing it."
This is false. There are exceptions to this called "fair use" that allow this copying take place.
Copyright holders in the form of large media conglomerates seem to believe that copyright gives them absolute control over how their work is used.
But this is false.
I am allowed to make backup copies for my own use. I am allowed to loan my CD's and DVDs to friends. I am allowed to sell my CD's and DVD's to strangers. I am allowed to change mediums; that is, if I have a CD, I can move it to my cassette deck or mp3 player. If I watch a movie on TV, I can record it to watch at my convenience.
All of this is OK and legal.
However copyright holders don't recognize any of this as proper or legal.
That's their problem, not mine. And DRM turns my PC into an agent of the copyright holder and in return I get nothing but less rights than I have today.
Sorry, that's a bad deal for me, and its bad policy for a free society, no matter how you try to spin it.
" CS requires that people pay for software, and that is not the direction the economy is headed."
The rise or fall of GPL-type software shouldn't have any effect on the typical programmer/analyst.
Corporations still pay significant amounts of money to develop proprietary applications in-house to support their needs.
Whether I develop on Windows, Linux, or an IBM mainframe, I've still got to pay developers the same amount of money.
Or do people really think GPL software is targetted at vertical markets? That just isn't so.
I usually hate typos myself, but every time I spent 20 minutes crafting a post here, I suspect no one reads it. So I put together a 60 second note, re-read it and it has typos. Like this one will, but hey.
My intention was just to point out that authorities may oversell what they have for a whole variety of reasons... they may want more funding from congress...they may want the enemy to feel insecure and stop using all electronic communications. They may just be boasting.
But think of Enigma during WWII. US & GB really could read all the intercepts from Germany & Japan. But they didn't tell anybody; in fact they went out of their way to make sure the Axis powers didn't suspect (check out Cryptonomicon by Stephenson for a fictional account). Now all of the sudden they're telling everybody that not only they know what the enemy is saying, but where they're located? But then they pay informants anyway?
Seems hard to believe on the surface.
Just because it on the internet doesn't make it so.
Just because a government spokesman says it doesn't make it so.
If your mother tells you that the stork brought you, it doesn't make it so.
Always remain skeptical and ask yourself why they want everyone to have this information.
The telecom industry is in such bad shape these days that ISPs really have no choice but to eat the charges.
I'm not thinking so much for individuals, but for businesses; there is too much capacity right now chasing too few paying users.
If you won't eat it, some other hungrier ISP will, and I'll simply switch.
That may not be right in your eyes, but its the way it goes.
This is why it was a good thing that IBM joined the Linux/Open Source movement.
This lawsuit was bound to happen to somebody somewhere somehow.
The fact that SCO is suing IBM is a good thing insofar as IBM will win either way. They'll either win outright or they'll pay SCO off and buy them.
Imagine if SCO was the champion for open source and IBM was suing them. This lawsuit would have a much different feel to it, wouldn't it?