Have you tried burning the mp3 and ogg tracks to a CD and to check it that way? Try it, and you may be surprised if you play it on a good CD-player.
I once did a similar test but only with mp3-files. My main goal was to determine which encoder I was going to use as some people seemed to belive that anything that was slow were good, and anything fast were bad.
Well, anyway, I came to the conclustion that the decoder was not such a main issue as the DA of the system the tracks were played on. As long as I played the tracks on my computer with its SB64 the performance of the DA, according to my, and my friends ears, worsened with 1/bitrate. And wave files souned the best, of couse.
But when we played the the CD, made of waves from the different encoders, on real CD-player it became apparent that the wave->mp3->wave wasn't an issue as long as the bitrates about 128kbps or higher. (One couldnet tell them apart from the "clean" wave that also was burt on the test CD.
Here a link to a post I made after finishing the test.
Right, but some people have their own ideas... Have a look at this guy.
His quote:
"Now, this theory indicates that "Gravity" is the ultimate cause of God and that brain growth is the direct cause of God. Therefore it also indicates that gravity mediates brain growth. Science does not presently know how this works"
Read and see for yourself. (Sadly, a waste of apparently good intellect if you'd ask me.)
Some watches used to have, and some still have, radio active material in them in order to light the clock face up. However, old watches were constructed so badly that the radiation would go trough the watch and into your arm, while the radiation of the newer watches cannot escape the actual watch.
Possibly, the older watches had substances that would case gamma radiaton while the newer ones only make use of alfa or beta radiation.
But I'm not sure if tritium, if it was used in a watch, would be "bad enough" to cause cancer as tritium radies beta particles (electrones). And the enery of those electrones are only about 5.7keV. So unless one doesn't come into direct contact with the substance it shouldn't be dangerous. Something like 10mm air, or 10 micrometer water would make a good shield.
(Also I think I would have been to expensive for the watch makers to use tritium.)
What you're forgetting is that the very transistors that make up your beloved computers were once patented. Without that patent, we wouldn't even be having this discussion
That's ture, but not the point here.
The point it that I still can build a computer with radio tubes if I wanted to.
I think part of the problem why banner ads fail is because of how the people behind them (not the end users here:) define their success. They seem to think that the purpose of a good ad will instantly, on click, end up in instant revenue. This much unlike how ads in other media works. Say tv for example.
At lest I think I know how the tv commercials affect my anyway. I watch some program and in the commercial hear about new improved detergent.
Later when I go down to the store to buy some stuff, and I need detergent. Say that I see a couble of brands, some of them are unknown to me, but there also is the detergent I have seen commercials about. I most likely would buy the product that I at least had heard about - even though it only was trough some unbiased commerical.
The problem with Internet ads is that somewhere along the way the "interpretation" of the Internet has changed from "a big library" (rember that?) to "a big shopping mall". (At least for the banner makers.)
However, in a real shopping mall, an "on sell" sign might lure me into some speciffic shop to buy someting. This while most users don't interpreat the Internet this way - like most banner people would like to think. To the users the web is still more of a library than a shopping mall.
(Figures a bit old, but I think the main point still applies)
The point is that when I go to a shopping mall I went there to buy stuff, much unlike when I surf to my favourite pages. And they wonder why I find thouse blinking banner annoying? They are annoying because, most of the time, I didn't log on to buy anything.
So, to some extent I think that web ads sould be more like the tv commercials - "get this brand into your heard" kind of ad. But, the success of such ads are of course much harder to measure. Even though computer ads supposedly were to be the dream for copy writers et al. (Should be so easy to measure exposure etc etc)
Also, though it has been mentioned above, just clicking a banner on a site that I'd like to support would not help much in the long run. I'd of course have to click and buy.
If you give people what they want with respect to their ability to copy the music in ways that they think is reasonable, they will not ever attempt to circumvent the technology. Only hackers will attempt to circumvent the technology in order to prove that it can be done. We're not designing the technology for them.
So, he can't be talking of mp3s then, since i would think that not only hackers find making mp3 files from thir cds both resasonable and convenient. And how would the copy protection know what thereafter happends to the mp3-files?
Well, I give you that "MS Worm" sounds as if the worm was created by MS, sort of like "MS NT" etc.
But the professional could simply write "the new worm blha bha that only hits MS systems", given that they'd write that every time, I'd guess that most people would simplify it to "MS worm blha blaha".
Given enough time people might actually catch up with the service pack lingo also as well. So instead of simply saying Code Red, Code Red II, Code Blue, Nimda etc, people might say MS Worm 1.0, MS Worm SP1, MS Worm SP2, MS Worm 2.0:)
Use this link:
http://www.forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/markt/so ftpat/newsgroups?n=forum
For myself I think that some sotware patents are just plain silly. What about the amazon one click buy patent, that is just stupid. (Not really differnt from pressing the coke button on a vending machine.)
I think the problem is that the people that looks trough the patent applications in some cases have no clue on what they are reading. Hence a large number of stupid patents slip trough. Did you hear about that Russian compay that managed to patent the use of a regular bottle?
One idea would be to make all patent applications public availabe, that way anyone could send the patent officials their input if they thought the patent was faulty. Only problem with this approch would be if a patent didn't go trough because of some minor detail, and sombody precived this and send in another application. But that would really be a minor problem in contrast to what's happening right now.
Another raw communist who wants something for nothing
Guess you are looking for a flame war, nothing else. I will reply to this one, though I will not lower myself to personal attacks.
Why should all music be played live? For example, I might write some orchestral piece and record it on a decent synthesizer because I simply don't have the resources to hire a whole orchestra.
I didn't say that. I merly said that musicians play music. Likewise, composers compose music. Both can make good money if they are good at it. Take a look at who have written most songs that are popular today. Britney Spear, Bon Jovi, etc. It's a small group of composers that right now seem to have a good feel for what "the crowd" wants. And admittedly they are pretty good at it. They make a damn good living selling those songs to the musicians who aren't gifted with that feel.
I don't see why you desire to effectively destroy such music,and I don't see why producing creative work is not valuable in itself.
As I take it that you are not a communist, I do think you realize that the value of something is defined by what other people are prepared to pay for it. What is the value of an mp3 song, you tell me? If you do come up with a figure, compare it what you think a studio single with that same song on it is worth. That's why I think you missed my point. I have no personal ambition to destroy, in my opinion, bad music. I mearly don't listen to it. Rather, it's destroying itself right now. Call it survial of the fittest if you want. And that's good in my opinion. But as merly facts may be proven true,I cannot, ever how hard I wanted to, argue my opinion to be "true".
SOunds like you're trying really hard to come up with a good reason why you should get something for nothing. Nice try.
I wasn't trying anything. I was merly stating facts. I do pay for what I want, and I do not pay for things I have no ambition to get. When I go to a big concert I end up paying about $350 for that experience. That includes hotel, plane tickets and the actual concert ticket. And, obviously, I think it's worth it... My favourite bands are good musicians.
Perhapes I should state the obvious: I don't see the mp3 revolution as a way of getting things for free. Rather it's an evolution that eventually will bring forth (in my opinion again) better music and musicians.
And that's what scaring the major record companies. They know they, right now, have a whole bunch of artists that sells CDs. But they don't have as many good musicians. And that was what I meant when I said that the mp3 movement is sound.
That's so true, most people don't like a band, they like the idea that a whole bunch of other people, that they do look up to, like a band.
But about the whole mp3 issue. I think it's a sound movement. It seems nature had a way of eventually fixing things that are screwed up.
What I mean it this. If you like music, nothing can compare to actually see and hear your favourite band live. And that was music is all about, musicians playing music and a crowd that enjoys their stuff listening. If the musicians can't play, they hardly can be called musicians can they? And of course they should complain about not being able to make a living then.
That would be like a dentist complaing about not beeing able to to earn any money because he can't fix any teeth.
So, let music be free, and let musicians make money playing music . And that means live. Just about any screw up can be made to sound ok in a studio. But only good musicians can make a good live consert.
And that's a pretty decent living too. Remeber what a consert ticket usually costs? And the number of people at a consert with a good band playing.
Why then is bands like Metallica complaining. It's simple, they've been the lazy dentists who could make a whole buch of money without fixing any teeth. Now though, they are afraid they'll have to do "the dirty work" (in their opinion obviously) in order to make money.
Slashdot Mirror
One click to purchase, download and install software on Lindow...
Hmm, almost a bit too much if you ask me.
I once did a similar test but only with mp3-files. My main goal was to determine which encoder I was going to use as some people seemed to belive that anything that was slow were good, and anything fast were bad.
Well, anyway, I came to the conclustion that the decoder was not such a main issue as the DA of the system the tracks were played on. As long as I played the tracks on my computer with its SB64 the performance of the DA, according to my, and my friends ears, worsened with 1/bitrate. And wave files souned the best, of couse.
But when we played the the CD, made of waves from the different encoders, on real CD-player it became apparent that the wave->mp3->wave wasn't an issue as long as the bitrates about 128kbps or higher. (One couldnet tell them apart from the "clean" wave that also was burt on the test CD.
Here a link to a post I made after finishing the test.
Right, but some people have their own ideas... Have a look at this guy.
His quote:
"Now, this theory indicates that "Gravity" is the ultimate cause of God and that brain growth is the direct cause of God. Therefore it also indicates that gravity mediates brain growth. Science does not presently know how this works"
Read and see for yourself. (Sadly, a waste of apparently good intellect if you'd ask me.)
Ok, I stand corrected.
Possibly, the older watches had substances that would case gamma radiaton while the newer ones only make use of alfa or beta radiation.
But I'm not sure if tritium, if it was used in a watch, would be "bad enough" to cause cancer as tritium radies beta particles (electrones). And the enery of those electrones are only about 5.7keV. So unless one doesn't come into direct contact with the substance it shouldn't be dangerous. Something like 10mm air, or 10 micrometer water would make a good shield.
(Also I think I would have been to expensive for the watch makers to use tritium.)
...ST(F)U...
That's ture, but not the point here.
The point it that I still can build a computer with radio tubes if I wanted to.
At lest I think I know how the tv commercials affect my anyway. I watch some program and in the commercial hear about new improved detergent. Later when I go down to the store to buy some stuff, and I need detergent. Say that I see a couble of brands, some of them are unknown to me, but there also is the detergent I have seen commercials about. I most likely would buy the product that I at least had heard about - even though it only was trough some unbiased commerical.
The problem with Internet ads is that somewhere along the way the "interpretation" of the Internet has changed from "a big library" (rember that?) to "a big shopping mall". (At least for the banner makers.)
However, in a real shopping mall, an "on sell" sign might lure me into some speciffic shop to buy someting. This while most users don't interpreat the Internet this way - like most banner people would like to think. To the users the web is still more of a library than a shopping mall.
Have a look at:http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_des.htm #d04
(Figures a bit old, but I think the main point still applies)
The point is that when I go to a shopping mall I went there to buy stuff, much unlike when I surf to my favourite pages. And they wonder why I find thouse blinking banner annoying? They are annoying because, most of the time, I didn't log on to buy anything.
So, to some extent I think that web ads sould be more like the tv commercials - "get this brand into your heard" kind of ad. But, the success of such ads are of course much harder to measure. Even though computer ads supposedly were to be the dream for copy writers et al. (Should be so easy to measure exposure etc etc)
Also, though it has been mentioned above, just clicking a banner on a site that I'd like to support would not help much in the long run. I'd of course have to click and buy.
If you give people what they want with respect to their ability to copy the music in ways that they think is reasonable, they will not ever attempt to circumvent the technology. Only hackers will attempt to circumvent the technology in order to prove that it can be done. We're not designing the technology for them.
So, he can't be talking of mp3s then, since i would think that not only hackers find making mp3 files from thir cds both resasonable and convenient. And how would the copy protection know what thereafter happends to the mp3-files?
But the professional could simply write "the new worm blha bha that only hits MS systems", given that they'd write that every time, I'd guess that most people would simplify it to "MS worm blha blaha".
Given enough time people might actually catch up with the service pack lingo also as well. So instead of simply saying Code Red, Code Red II, Code Blue, Nimda etc, people might say MS Worm 1.0, MS Worm SP1, MS Worm SP2, MS Worm 2.0 :)
http://www.qubit.org/intros/comm/comm.html
(Centre for quantum computation)
Quote by Nostradamus
See:
http://www.ed.brocku.ca/~nmarshal/nostradamus.htm
Scary if you ask me.
For myself I think that some sotware patents are just plain silly. What about the amazon one click buy patent, that is just stupid. (Not really differnt from pressing the coke button on a vending machine.)
I think the problem is that the people that looks trough the patent applications in some cases have no clue on what they are reading. Hence a large number of stupid patents slip trough. Did you hear about that Russian compay that managed to patent the use of a regular bottle?
One idea would be to make all patent applications public availabe, that way anyone could send the patent officials their input if they thought the patent was faulty. Only problem with this approch would be if a patent didn't go trough because of some minor detail, and sombody precived this and send in another application. But that would really be a minor problem in contrast to what's happening right now.
Guess you are looking for a flame war, nothing else. I will reply to this one, though I will not lower myself to personal attacks.
Why should all music be played live? For example, I might write some orchestral piece and record it on a decent synthesizer because I simply don't have the resources to hire a whole orchestra.
I didn't say that. I merly said that musicians play music. Likewise, composers compose music. Both can make good money if they are good at it. Take a look at who have written most songs that are popular today. Britney Spear, Bon Jovi, etc. It's a small group of composers that right now seem to have a good feel for what "the crowd" wants. And admittedly they are pretty good at it. They make a damn good living selling those songs to the musicians who aren't gifted with that feel.
I don't see why you desire to effectively destroy such music,and I don't see why producing creative work is not valuable in itself.
As I take it that you are not a communist, I do think you realize that the value of something is defined by what other people are prepared to pay for it. What is the value of an mp3 song, you tell me? If you do come up with a figure, compare it what you think a studio single with that same song on it is worth. That's why I think you missed my point. I have no personal ambition to destroy, in my opinion, bad music. I mearly don't listen to it. Rather, it's destroying itself right now. Call it survial of the fittest if you want. And that's good in my opinion. But as merly facts may be proven true,I cannot, ever how hard I wanted to, argue my opinion to be "true".
SOunds like you're trying really hard to come up with a good reason why you should get something for nothing. Nice try.
I wasn't trying anything. I was merly stating facts. I do pay for what I want, and I do not pay for things I have no ambition to get. When I go to a big concert I end up paying about $350 for that experience. That includes hotel, plane tickets and the actual concert ticket. And, obviously, I think it's worth it... My favourite bands are good musicians.
Perhapes I should state the obvious: I don't see the mp3 revolution as a way of getting things for free. Rather it's an evolution that eventually will bring forth (in my opinion again) better music and musicians.
And that's what scaring the major record companies. They know they, right now, have a whole bunch of artists that sells CDs. But they don't have as many good musicians. And that was what I meant when I said that the mp3 movement is sound.
But about the whole mp3 issue. I think it's a sound movement. It seems nature had a way of eventually fixing things that are screwed up.
What I mean it this. If you like music, nothing can compare to actually see and hear your favourite band live. And that was music is all about, musicians playing music and a crowd that enjoys their stuff listening. If the musicians can't play, they hardly can be called musicians can they? And of course they should complain about not being able to make a living then.
That would be like a dentist complaing about not beeing able to to earn any money because he can't fix any teeth.
So, let music be free, and let musicians make money playing music . And that means live. Just about any screw up can be made to sound ok in a studio. But only good musicians can make a good live consert.
And that's a pretty decent living too. Remeber what a consert ticket usually costs? And the number of people at a consert with a good band playing.
Why then is bands like Metallica complaining. It's simple, they've been the lazy dentists who could make a whole buch of money without fixing any teeth. Now though, they are afraid they'll have to do "the dirty work" (in their opinion obviously) in order to make money.