I don't know why they just don't give one loudspeaker to one of the ushers in the cinema, and tell them to run up and down the ailes in the dark (hopefully not tripping over) to ques written on a glow-in-the-dark que sheet! Would be much less expensive and more realistic. If you want the horses, though, he just has to drop the loudpseaker and get out thos half coconut shells.
Of course, the 1 limited technology is a cheesy hack and produces bad sound according to all that have heard it. Bouncing sound off a way to create spaciousness is not clever as walls are not good acoustic mirrors.
This new technique sounds like a joke - a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. 400 speakers just to get a little "better" sound for a movie?? I'm sorry, but cinema sound sucks at the moment with it's boomy thud bass and with crappy movies that think wooshing sounds around the cinema is "clever". Subtlety works well for surround sound - movies like the Abyss for instance. I don't see how adding more speakers is going to solve anything. There's no way that any cinema can afford 400 speakers of sufficient quality.
As I said, the picture quality is IDENTICAL, but DVCAM may be more resilient to dropout. Although all DVCAM has locked audio, miniDV cameras can support locked audio without supporting DVCAM. The unlocked audio basically means that the sample rate is not guaranteed to be precisely 48khz, as it is with DVCAM, so historically Canon cameras have had audio-sync issues because they never quite hit 48 precisely enough. In a linear environment this means you never have audio drift in any case, but in a firewire digital environment that captured audio file may be shorter or longer than the video!
DigiBeta is indeed superior in quality. It's 10bit rather than 8bit which makes loads of difference for post production work, but as video is broadcast 8bit, it doesn't help improve the broadcast quality of uncorrected video (but who leaves video uncorrected??) DigiBeta is compressed, but with a very low rate of compression that for all practical purposes is visually lossless.
A DV to DigiBeta dub will preserve all the DV quality visually losslessly, although there will be a slight mathematical loss. A DigiBeta to DV dub will look excellent. However, in going from DV to DigiBeta the chroma resolution gets converted from 4:1:1 to 4:2:2 via a linear interpolation if you use the SDI output on the DVCAM deck. This can be improved in software using clever algorithms which decode extra chroma information from the full resolution luma, but I know of no hardware implementation.
Large TV stations like the BBC do use digiBeta extensively, but smaller sations are usually stuck with BetaSP due to financial constraints, although our local CTV station here upgraded to BetacamSX which is a format specifically designed for news aquisition. Other local stations use DVCPro (same codec as DVCAM and miniDV, different tape format again) and are now upgrading to Panasonic's new P2 memory card based formats for even more efficient ENG. A lot of TV stations don't use DVCAM - not because it isn't good, but because they've bought into the betacam line and don't have the DVCAM gear. DVCAM is at least as good as BetaSP, but even still the safest format to deliver news footage on is BetaSP. The BBC do a lot of production work with DVCAM, especially using the Sony PD-150, but the mastertape output will be digiBeta for broadcast.
DVCam is identical in picture quality to that of MiniDV - same codec, same bitrate - the same. It's stored on tape a little different which might make it more resilient against dropout, but you don't get a better picture with DVCAM.
So why are you disagreeing with me then?? I suggested making sure that copyrights go back to the public domain after a shorter period of time than they do now so that people can build upon them. I also embrace extending fair use to have the rights of backups and the right to non-commercial copying. I put the reasoning behing strengthening fair use and public domain at the fact that all IP is based upon older IP that society and history have allowed us as IP creators to build upon.
Read what I say, not what you think I say. You are part of society, therefore anything you create, being based upon the work of others and combined with your own efforts must be jointly owned by yourself and society - that's why copyright works return to the public domain after a set period of time. This therefore allows you to make some cash off your hard work, and then gives society as a whole the benefit to build upon your work which builds upon their work. It's like a game where each time you pass the IP between society and an individual it just keeps on getting better, more varied or both. Currently, large media corps don't want to give it back to the society it came from, and hence, in the short term they profit, but in the long term, we all get diminished.
Your argument is bogus - you're arguing about IP, and then change to P, which as we know is not the same thing at all - and then your argument makes no sense because we know that when a product is sold in a supermarket everyone gets paid, from the person at the till who takes the cash, the boy who pushes the carts back to entrance of the store, to the farmer and his helpers who grow the food. The chain takes the profits back to the source.
With IP, the idea of public domain and fair use takes the of IP back to where it came from, so that new individuals and groups can come along and innovate on top of them.
Did I say it's worthless?? Nope. Do you know what my job is? R&D. But I'm man enough to realise that anything I create and patent, is not just my work, but the work of society as a whole. If it wasn't for those supporting me, I'd have to spend all my time growing food, building shelter and just the basics of living. I do make my living from IP, but I realise that my IP is based upon the work of others (as is everyone elses IP). Do you not recognise that you are a product of your society, or are you so completely big-headed that you think that you invented your IP all on your own??
So why don't you respond to what I wrote, rather than a straw man?
"Intellectual property" itself is an abuse, and should by your agurment be lost. For all my intellectual creations are based upon the work of others, and those of society that pave our roads and feed our bellies are those that allow me to have the free time to be creative. Creativity is not an island, and all of us that create stand on the shoulders of giants. There has not been one invention, innovation or creation that stands alone as the work of one person without the support of society and history behind them.
Your argument is false because intellectual property is theft from the public society that allowed it to be created in the first place. While patents allow monopolies of thought, and copyright lasting virtually forever, there is a land grab going on for IP, where the only winners will be the RIAA MPAA "robber barrons" who declare it's fine for them to base their movie on a classic novel, but it's not ok for me to base my movie on an old classic of theirs.
Copyright must be a balance between the individual (or group of individuals - not corporations) who do the hard work of creating, and of society that by feeding and clothing them, and supporting their creative efforts, allows them the time and energy to be creative. Limits on the term of copyright is one way to balance this. Copyright must have a short, limited lifespan, and must remain in the hands of those that create it. Sure, they should be able to licence their efforts to others for limited times, but they should always own their own IP and especially moral rights, which should never be removed or waived. Fair use is another balance - the fair use to parody, quote, review, question. The fair use to copy for non-commercial use. The fair use to back up what has been purchased to protect against damage. The fair use that your own IP is as protected as much as those of the big corporations.
If you take a digital camera picture, it may be accurate in that you've not fiddled with the settings, but it might not look that good. You can distort it in photoshop to enhance some of the colours and make it look more like how you remember the scene.
Tube amps are like sunglasses that make music sound better - less accurate, but better.
No doubt recordings can be improved, but you won't get very far going down the "accuracy" route, especially when both mics and loudspeakers are the weak links in the chain.
Who needs power when my large horn loaded loudspeakers will give you a very clean 103db off one watt? I barely use 1/10watt with them form normal listening.
There is no perfect recording. Almost all the original sound quality of the event is lost in the microphone and subsequent recording process.
Distortion can take two forms:
1) Distortion that makes the sound you listen to sound less like the live event
2) Distortion that makes the sound you listen to sound more like the live event
Given that transistor based amplification is essentially perfect by any reasonable measuring system, and it's distortion is minimal, it may very well be accurately reproducing a highly innacurate recording of that original musical event.
Tube (valve - I'm British) amps most definately distort. They change the sound that is recorded, and on a good tube system will make it sound more like the original event. This is not accurate to the recording, but it is, perversely, more accurate to the event.
Tubes distort euphonically, adding much needed distortions that make music more listenable and less fatiguing. Just as horn loaded loudspeakers bring back some of the original dynamics that were lost in the recording process, tubes add back in what was lost along the way. Yes, it's faked, but yes it sounds much more appealing.
So you can take your accuracy and shove it. I listen to music to enjoy the music, not to enjoy the wankability of having 0.00000001% distortion in my amp.
Unless any hifi equipment lets you enjoy music more, then it's bad, no matter how accurate it is.
Choice is a bit of a red herring if the choice boils down to a limited number of good options. If you want to play games get a PC or a console. There are a few good games on the mac, but if you want to play games then why are you buying a 64bit Unix based computer (OK the next Xbox will be a 64bit Power PC too, but hey....)
Sure you can put umpteen different OS's on your PC, but do you actually do this in practice? I've heard of dual boot, but do you really need lots of linux flavours?
Apples are no geared towards a novice user, but they are easy enough to be used by one. They are for power users - if you can get into the Unix side of things you've got an immensely powerful computer system that's easy to configure - and why should configuring be hard??? I do high end compositing in Shake, edit video in FCP, hack shell scripts, code in C, Obj-C, C++ in a nice (and free) IDE etc.
That's not going to happen, and it's not going to work either. Just think about it....
OS X is a very nice OS, and has some very nice software running on it, and it's got a great API and IDE. As a niche player, it's working great.
Now you make it instalable on any old PC. You're a PC developer and you've got the choice of developing for windows on PC or OS X on PC. Are you going to change your development practises to something new and untested, or are you going to go the safe route with the devil you know and keep on developing for windows PC?
Now, just imaging Apple put something like WINE in with OS X on PC, so that you can run your PC apps as is, but under the new GUI. Now there's no incentive to write specifically for OS X on windows, but without the ability to run existing PC apps, there'd be no sales of OS X for PC.
It would be a disaster for Apple and anyone who bought it, and would only strengthen the Microsoft monopoly. Jobs has more sense than that.
BTW, Macs are not 3x the price. Price up a new G5 and a comparable PC from a decent manufacturer and you'll see that the G5 is really a bargain in the computing world.
What Apple really needs is an affordable entry level machine with no monitor, but can be bought bundled with a lovely flat screen. Fill the hard drive with lots of easy to follow video tutorials and apple will cash in big - especially if they do a "test drive an iMac today" type program.
Come on.... The mac is the ultimate geek machine - BSD unix that's easy to configure, but you can go behind the scenes if you want - a free, high quality IDE, and excellent and easy to use API (Cocoa) and a bucket load of open source apps available for it too. Plus, when you need it, you can run PhotoShop, FCP etc. for when you're not playing around.
Also, patents are meant to describe how the invention works. A lot of patents I've read don't fully do that - they leave out all the subtleties, and as we know, the idea is easy, but getting it working is often hard!
And patents are a first-past-the-post monopoly. If it takes hard work to invent something, and that's what patents are protecting then if you invented something that's already patented and didn't use either their invention or patent to invent yours, you should be at least as protected. None of us invent in a vaccuum - we all have the whole of society and it's history to draw upon to help us create our inventions. There is no "spark of genious" just a lot of hard work basing your invention on what has gone before.
However, if you're a large company then it would be a lot cheaper to licence a patent that invent it yourself. Invention is risky and time consuming. That's where I see patents, if we have them at all, working.
Yes! Education is more important than overall "security". Do you patch on time (still running windows 98??)? Do you have your system configured badly? Do you know not to open attachments that could contain a virus?
Perhaps people who use a computer on a network need to pass an exam first, just like we make sure people who drive on our roads know about road safety??
Statistics don't change the facts that after running Mac OS X since it's inception, I've not had one OS X virus, or any of these exploits used against my machines. And the stats don't take into account not just how quickly a patch is released, but how quickly the users of that OS patch it.
There's a vast amount of music out there that was never mastered at 48khz, so if Apple are indeed making all of the compressed files at that rate we'll be hearing the bad effects of sample rate conversion on top of the aac compression.
But how can you compare SACD to CD when they master the CD version and SACD version differently?? SACD stores 4 times more audio information than CD, but that information is a quater of the quality - net effect zero, and all you've done is moved the sample frequency way out. Or look at it the other way - take a CD player with a 1 bit DAC - and record the output of the 1 bit DAC just before it gets turned into analogue and put that on a disc - that's essentially what SACD is - what a waste. You can't properly dither a 1bit signal, and neither is it easy to mix or edit them as you can do with PCM audio. All you're hearing, if anything, is the effect of a different reconstruction filter on the output.
Finally, after recently attending a recording session, I can quite confidently state that the limiting factor in any hifi system is the microphones that the original recording was made with - and even the world's best microphone is nothing compared to hearing something live! I can see a lot of sense spending money on decent loudspeakers, as next to microphones, they're the next most compromised element, but money on a CD player in hardly ever well spent.
Pixlet is actually a very poor codec. PhotoJPEG at 100% looks better, measures better (less artifacts / noise) compresses faster and uses less processor power. Pixlet is lame.
And how is that different from buying a CD in a store where all the money goes to the store and the RIAA, and the artist doesn't see any of it?
The fact is that if it costs a radio station a small fraction of a cent per listener per song, why does the licence component of a CD that I'm going to listen to $1?? It's one price for the radio (cheap) and another for the consumer(gets screwed)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why they just don't give one loudspeaker to one of the ushers in the cinema, and tell them to run up and down the ailes in the dark (hopefully not tripping over) to ques written on a glow-in-the-dark que sheet! Would be much less expensive and more realistic. If you want the horses, though, he just has to drop the loudpseaker and get out thos half coconut shells.
Of course, the 1 limited technology is a cheesy hack and produces bad sound according to all that have heard it. Bouncing sound off a way to create spaciousness is not clever as walls are not good acoustic mirrors.
This new technique sounds like a joke - a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. 400 speakers just to get a little "better" sound for a movie?? I'm sorry, but cinema sound sucks at the moment with it's boomy thud bass and with crappy movies that think wooshing sounds around the cinema is "clever". Subtlety works well for surround sound - movies like the Abyss for instance. I don't see how adding more speakers is going to solve anything. There's no way that any cinema can afford 400 speakers of sufficient quality.
As I said, the picture quality is IDENTICAL, but DVCAM may be more resilient to dropout. Although all DVCAM has locked audio, miniDV cameras can support locked audio without supporting DVCAM. The unlocked audio basically means that the sample rate is not guaranteed to be precisely 48khz, as it is with DVCAM, so historically Canon cameras have had audio-sync issues because they never quite hit 48 precisely enough. In a linear environment this means you never have audio drift in any case, but in a firewire digital environment that captured audio file may be shorter or longer than the video!
DigiBeta is indeed superior in quality. It's 10bit rather than 8bit which makes loads of difference for post production work, but as video is broadcast 8bit, it doesn't help improve the broadcast quality of uncorrected video (but who leaves video uncorrected??) DigiBeta is compressed, but with a very low rate of compression that for all practical purposes is visually lossless.
A DV to DigiBeta dub will preserve all the DV quality visually losslessly, although there will be a slight mathematical loss. A DigiBeta to DV dub will look excellent. However, in going from DV to DigiBeta the chroma resolution gets converted from 4:1:1 to 4:2:2 via a linear interpolation if you use the SDI output on the DVCAM deck. This can be improved in software using clever algorithms which decode extra chroma information from the full resolution luma, but I know of no hardware implementation.
Large TV stations like the BBC do use digiBeta extensively, but smaller sations are usually stuck with BetaSP due to financial constraints, although our local CTV station here upgraded to BetacamSX which is a format specifically designed for news aquisition. Other local stations use DVCPro (same codec as DVCAM and miniDV, different tape format again) and are now upgrading to Panasonic's new P2 memory card based formats for even more efficient ENG. A lot of TV stations don't use DVCAM - not because it isn't good, but because they've bought into the betacam line and don't have the DVCAM gear. DVCAM is at least as good as BetaSP, but even still the safest format to deliver news footage on is BetaSP. The BBC do a lot of production work with DVCAM, especially using the Sony PD-150, but the mastertape output will be digiBeta for broadcast.
DVCam is identical in picture quality to that of MiniDV - same codec, same bitrate - the same. It's stored on tape a little different which might make it more resilient against dropout, but you don't get a better picture with DVCAM.
But StarShip Troopers did take everything that the book stood for and turned it on it's head! That's why the movie was so bad.
So why are you disagreeing with me then?? I suggested making sure that copyrights go back to the public domain after a shorter period of time than they do now so that people can build upon them. I also embrace extending fair use to have the rights of backups and the right to non-commercial copying. I put the reasoning behing strengthening fair use and public domain at the fact that all IP is based upon older IP that society and history have allowed us as IP creators to build upon.
Read what I say, not what you think I say. You are part of society, therefore anything you create, being based upon the work of others and combined with your own efforts must be jointly owned by yourself and society - that's why copyright works return to the public domain after a set period of time. This therefore allows you to make some cash off your hard work, and then gives society as a whole the benefit to build upon your work which builds upon their work. It's like a game where each time you pass the IP between society and an individual it just keeps on getting better, more varied or both. Currently, large media corps don't want to give it back to the society it came from, and hence, in the short term they profit, but in the long term, we all get diminished.
Your argument is bogus - you're arguing about IP, and then change to P, which as we know is not the same thing at all - and then your argument makes no sense because we know that when a product is sold in a supermarket everyone gets paid, from the person at the till who takes the cash, the boy who pushes the carts back to entrance of the store, to the farmer and his helpers who grow the food. The chain takes the profits back to the source.
With IP, the idea of public domain and fair use takes the of IP back to where it came from, so that new individuals and groups can come along and innovate on top of them.
Did I say it's worthless?? Nope. Do you know what my job is? R&D. But I'm man enough to realise that anything I create and patent, is not just my work, but the work of society as a whole. If it wasn't for those supporting me, I'd have to spend all my time growing food, building shelter and just the basics of living. I do make my living from IP, but I realise that my IP is based upon the work of others (as is everyone elses IP). Do you not recognise that you are a product of your society, or are you so completely big-headed that you think that you invented your IP all on your own??
So why don't you respond to what I wrote, rather than a straw man?
"Intellectual property" itself is an abuse, and should by your agurment be lost. For all my intellectual creations are based upon the work of others, and those of society that pave our roads and feed our bellies are those that allow me to have the free time to be creative. Creativity is not an island, and all of us that create stand on the shoulders of giants. There has not been one invention, innovation or creation that stands alone as the work of one person without the support of society and history behind them.
Your argument is false because intellectual property is theft from the public society that allowed it to be created in the first place. While patents allow monopolies of thought, and copyright lasting virtually forever, there is a land grab going on for IP, where the only winners will be the RIAA MPAA "robber barrons" who declare it's fine for them to base their movie on a classic novel, but it's not ok for me to base my movie on an old classic of theirs.
Copyright must be a balance between the individual (or group of individuals - not corporations) who do the hard work of creating, and of society that by feeding and clothing them, and supporting their creative efforts, allows them the time and energy to be creative. Limits on the term of copyright is one way to balance this. Copyright must have a short, limited lifespan, and must remain in the hands of those that create it. Sure, they should be able to licence their efforts to others for limited times, but they should always own their own IP and especially moral rights, which should never be removed or waived. Fair use is another balance - the fair use to parody, quote, review, question. The fair use to copy for non-commercial use. The fair use to back up what has been purchased to protect against damage. The fair use that your own IP is as protected as much as those of the big corporations.
If you take a digital camera picture, it may be accurate in that you've not fiddled with the settings, but it might not look that good. You can distort it in photoshop to enhance some of the colours and make it look more like how you remember the scene.
Tube amps are like sunglasses that make music sound better - less accurate, but better.
No doubt recordings can be improved, but you won't get very far going down the "accuracy" route, especially when both mics and loudspeakers are the weak links in the chain.
Who needs power when my large horn loaded loudspeakers will give you a very clean 103db off one watt? I barely use 1/10watt with them form normal listening.
There is no perfect recording. Almost all the original sound quality of the event is lost in the microphone and subsequent recording process.
Distortion can take two forms:
1) Distortion that makes the sound you listen to sound less like the live event
2) Distortion that makes the sound you listen to sound more like the live event
Given that transistor based amplification is essentially perfect by any reasonable measuring system, and it's distortion is minimal, it may very well be accurately reproducing a highly innacurate recording of that original musical event.
Tube (valve - I'm British) amps most definately distort. They change the sound that is recorded, and on a good tube system will make it sound more like the original event. This is not accurate to the recording, but it is, perversely, more accurate to the event.
Tubes distort euphonically, adding much needed distortions that make music more listenable and less fatiguing. Just as horn loaded loudspeakers bring back some of the original dynamics that were lost in the recording process, tubes add back in what was lost along the way. Yes, it's faked, but yes it sounds much more appealing.
So you can take your accuracy and shove it. I listen to music to enjoy the music, not to enjoy the wankability of having 0.00000001% distortion in my amp.
Unless any hifi equipment lets you enjoy music more, then it's bad, no matter how accurate it is.
Choice is a bit of a red herring if the choice boils down to a limited number of good options. If you want to play games get a PC or a console. There are a few good games on the mac, but if you want to play games then why are you buying a 64bit Unix based computer (OK the next Xbox will be a 64bit Power PC too, but hey....)
Sure you can put umpteen different OS's on your PC, but do you actually do this in practice? I've heard of dual boot, but do you really need lots of linux flavours?
Apples are no geared towards a novice user, but they are easy enough to be used by one. They are for power users - if you can get into the Unix side of things you've got an immensely powerful computer system that's easy to configure - and why should configuring be hard??? I do high end compositing in Shake, edit video in FCP, hack shell scripts, code in C, Obj-C, C++ in a nice (and free) IDE etc.
XI - that would make it another odd numbered star trek movie. I hold no hope for it....
That's not going to happen, and it's not going to work either. Just think about it....
OS X is a very nice OS, and has some very nice software running on it, and it's got a great API and IDE. As a niche player, it's working great.
Now you make it instalable on any old PC. You're a PC developer and you've got the choice of developing for windows on PC or OS X on PC. Are you going to change your development practises to something new and untested, or are you going to go the safe route with the devil you know and keep on developing for windows PC?
Now, just imaging Apple put something like WINE in with OS X on PC, so that you can run your PC apps as is, but under the new GUI. Now there's no incentive to write specifically for OS X on windows, but without the ability to run existing PC apps, there'd be no sales of OS X for PC.
It would be a disaster for Apple and anyone who bought it, and would only strengthen the Microsoft monopoly. Jobs has more sense than that.
BTW, Macs are not 3x the price. Price up a new G5 and a comparable PC from a decent manufacturer and you'll see that the G5 is really a bargain in the computing world.
What Apple really needs is an affordable entry level machine with no monitor, but can be bought bundled with a lovely flat screen. Fill the hard drive with lots of easy to follow video tutorials and apple will cash in big - especially if they do a "test drive an iMac today" type program.
Come on.... The mac is the ultimate geek machine - BSD unix that's easy to configure, but you can go behind the scenes if you want - a free, high quality IDE, and excellent and easy to use API (Cocoa) and a bucket load of open source apps available for it too. Plus, when you need it, you can run PhotoShop, FCP etc. for when you're not playing around.
Also, patents are meant to describe how the invention works. A lot of patents I've read don't fully do that - they leave out all the subtleties, and as we know, the idea is easy, but getting it working is often hard!
And patents are a first-past-the-post monopoly. If it takes hard work to invent something, and that's what patents are protecting then if you invented something that's already patented and didn't use either their invention or patent to invent yours, you should be at least as protected. None of us invent in a vaccuum - we all have the whole of society and it's history to draw upon to help us create our inventions. There is no "spark of genious" just a lot of hard work basing your invention on what has gone before.
However, if you're a large company then it would be a lot cheaper to licence a patent that invent it yourself. Invention is risky and time consuming. That's where I see patents, if we have them at all, working.
Yes! Education is more important than overall "security". Do you patch on time (still running windows 98??)? Do you have your system configured badly? Do you know not to open attachments that could contain a virus?
Perhaps people who use a computer on a network need to pass an exam first, just like we make sure people who drive on our roads know about road safety??
Statistics don't change the facts that after running Mac OS X since it's inception, I've not had one OS X virus, or any of these exploits used against my machines. And the stats don't take into account not just how quickly a patch is released, but how quickly the users of that OS patch it.
There's a vast amount of music out there that was never mastered at 48khz, so if Apple are indeed making all of the compressed files at that rate we'll be hearing the bad effects of sample rate conversion on top of the aac compression.
But how can you compare SACD to CD when they master the CD version and SACD version differently?? SACD stores 4 times more audio information than CD, but that information is a quater of the quality - net effect zero, and all you've done is moved the sample frequency way out. Or look at it the other way - take a CD player with a 1 bit DAC - and record the output of the 1 bit DAC just before it gets turned into analogue and put that on a disc - that's essentially what SACD is - what a waste. You can't properly dither a 1bit signal, and neither is it easy to mix or edit them as you can do with PCM audio. All you're hearing, if anything, is the effect of a different reconstruction filter on the output.
Finally, after recently attending a recording session, I can quite confidently state that the limiting factor in any hifi system is the microphones that the original recording was made with - and even the world's best microphone is nothing compared to hearing something live! I can see a lot of sense spending money on decent loudspeakers, as next to microphones, they're the next most compromised element, but money on a CD player in hardly ever well spent.
Pixlet is actually a very poor codec. PhotoJPEG at 100% looks better, measures better (less artifacts / noise) compresses faster and uses less processor power. Pixlet is lame.
10 PRINT "Sex Invaders is Loading"
20 PRINT "Please Wait"
30 RANOMISE USR 1234
And how is that different from buying a CD in a store where all the money goes to the store and the RIAA, and the artist doesn't see any of it?
The fact is that if it costs a radio station a small fraction of a cent per listener per song, why does the licence component of a CD that I'm going to listen to $1?? It's one price for the radio (cheap) and another for the consumer(gets screwed)
The stabilisation filter built into FCP isn't too good. Try lyric.com for much improved stabilisation and tracking filters - cheap too!