As far as I know, FreeBSD is UNIX certified, which means that FreeBSD has been allowed to describe their OS as a "True UNIX operating system". I dont really know for sure, because I cant find any place on The Open Group's website where they list certified OS's.
I say this, because I know for sure, that Linux is not UNIX certified - and it never will be, which is one of my main reasons for not using it.
I will email The Open Group to ask, and post the result as a reply to this post.
So, let me get this straight. The record labels ARE the bad guys, and the band themselves probably didnt have a say when their record label decided that the CD should have copy protection, right? The artists did realize that by putting copyright-protection on their CD, the piracy of their CD would increase, and not decrease - like the record company propagates - because everyone wants to listen to their music not just on their CD player, but also on their mp3 player, car stereo, and whatnot, right?
I really salute these guys for doing that they did, by putting out these instructions. It doesnt even matter to me that this smells a bit like a PR stunt - The thing that matters is that maybe more artists will follow this example, and soon "UNPROTECTED AUDIO-CD" will be a treat, just like "Limited Edition" is today.
On that note, I think it's about time that I update to my WinRAR to 3.50. And, oh, why hasnt slashdot posted news about WinRAR 3.50? They didnt pay enough?
... At which point the car will send an automatic electronic message with it's coordinates, and the identity of the window-smashing thief. A complete lockdown of the holding place will occur, and the police quietly escorts the thief to his very own special "holding place".
I don't think anything is interpolated... maybe you meant something else? - My english sucks. I ment to say "The result of the two encoders diffirent encoding techniques, possibly amplifying the bad side-effects of each other"
Well, now there is nothing to argue:)
One final note, though. I am ok with 48/96 kbps most of the time! not even 128kbps! - I believe that you can convert to ogg safely without hearing any significant change in quality. Only thing I'm wondering is, why you'd want to do that.
Before I begin, I have to admit that I didnt understand half of your post.
Being an audiophile with experience in mp3 encoding since 2001, having a media library of 32,4GB and 5,510 music files, I'll try to back up all my statements with sufficient evidence, or sufficiently rational train of thought.
And who says CD's are high quality - When I said "High-Quality CD", I was referring to the average music CD, of which you have an original, which is without any scratches, to give the ogg Vorbis encoder a fair chance of providing a realistic transparent result, so you could decide wether you liked the encoder or not.
The LAME encoder can only do wav to MP3 - Wrong. The LAME encoder can also decode mp3's, as it has a built-in decoder. Your arguement stands undefeated, though - Yes, to decode an mp3, you'd need an mp3 decoder.
MP3 being lossy, and removing certain characteristics I hoped by uncompressing it to a wav, if visualised it would have similar to the rings and highlights of wavelet compression (not the same, but similar, in a hypothetical visualisation) I hoped ogg would not alias on these, and still produce a comparative sound. - When you encode an original lossless source, into mp3, you lose some of the original information. Wether you can percieve this loss or not, is irrelevant to the fact that loss does occur. If you decode any given mp3 file, and save it as a.wav file, the filesize will be bigger - but the waveform of the mp3 and wav file will be the same. So if you do a mp3->wav->ogg conversion, you will have:
The loss from the mp3 encoding
The loss from the ogg encoding
The loss from the interpolation of mp3 and ogg encoding
If you transcode your mp3 file into ogg, the result will always be lower quality than the source. Wether you percieve this loss or not, is irrelevant. I never stated that you had perfect hearing, nor did I ever state that you (Or anyone else) could percieve this loss.
People say if you resave a jpeg multiple times you degrade it. Technically wrong. The pattern is symmetric, you can decode, and re-encode without any problems as long as you do not change the data in between. - As you said, for the jpg not to decrease in quality, you'd have to not change data in between. This means that the jpeg would not get re-encoded after each save. With music encoding, change DOES occur, and loss DOES happen.
When you say should be obvious, are you saying is should have been obvious, but apparently wasn't? - I've seen people argue that if you decode a 64kbps mp3 into wav, you'd get an increase in sound quality. As you believed that a conversion from mp3 to ogg would benefit you in terms of sound quality, I decided to point out this fact to you.
Yet again, I suggest that you read up on hydrogenaudio, and especially the General mp3 forum The LAME developers are active participants on HA, and many audiophiles post lots and loads of usefull information about audio-related topics there.
That's a very, very, very, very bad idea. Let me explain why.
First. Let me get some definitions straight: mp3: Lossy format. Converting to mp3 means encoding your music. The best encoder is LAME (As proof, I suggest you check out hydrogenaudio)
ogg Vorbis: Lossy format. Converting to ogg means encoding your music. The best encoder is (offcourse) the original ogg Vorbis encoder.
mpc/Musepack: Yet an other lossy format. Converting to mpc means encoding your music. The best encoder is (offcourse) the original Musepack encoder.
flac: Lossless format. Converting to flac means compressing your music, as in: "I just compressed a text file, and did not lose any bytes in the file during compression". The best compressor for FLAC is offcourse the original FLAC Compressor.
Compressing: Making filesize smaller, without loss of data.
Encoding with lossy format: Making filesize smaller, at the cost of audio information.
Second. To transcode your.mp3 files into.ogg, you'd need to first convert all of your.mp3 files into ogg. This would require the use of the LAME encoder (To convert the mp3's to wav), and then the ogg Vorbis encoder would have to convert all those wavs into.ogg format. You will lose all your id3 tag information. Anyone who comes up with a simpler/faster solution (ie. "You dont need to convert to wav first!"), has very little to no insight into how digital audio encoding works, and what happens in the process of a transcoding/encoding/decoding.
Third. If you convert from a lossy format to a lossy format, you will lose significant amounts of quality. DO NOT CONVERT FROM LOSSY TO LOSSY! It does not matter if you convert a 320kbps mp3 into super-high-quality ogg - You still get huge amounts of loss due to the fact that the original material is lossy.
Fourth. If you want to test out ogg Vorbis, then encode any of your legally bought hi-quality cd's to ogg, and listen to wether you like the result.
Fifth. This should be obvious, but I'll tell you anyway: If you convert from lossy to lossless (ie wav or flac), quality will NOT increase.
I dont get it. Why is it so amazing that computers beat human beings in chess? Isnt chess all about logic and calculation? Arent computers all about logic and calculation? If both are true, then how come it is so amazing that a computer beat a human being in chess?
Wouldnt it be more amazing if a human being beat a chess computer?
Piracy isnt theft at all. If I download a piece of software made by NoWares Corp. on eMule, does the NoWares Corp. immediatly feel that they are missing one copy of their software product? No matter how you put it - Software piracy is not theft. Even if there are pirated 100.000.000 copies of any give software, the "offended" company can still sell a billion copies to anyone. Software Piracy is just what it is. When will people get that apples != oranges, and that piracy != theft? Piracy == piracy != theft
Also, who'd think that the only people who pirate stuff, are people who wouldnt/couldnt/etc pay for the software at all? Look at the open-source world. Piracy isnt a problem there, and they make heaps of money even though they give away freely their products.
Oh, so you are criticizing the OSS style of business?
Honestly, I thought that open-source was about giving out the free product, and then earn the cash on helping the clueless corporations who think it's cool to be open-source. (Please dont give me a lecture on free beer.)
And now that kind of business is a BAD thing? Or are you of some other opinion?
Slashdot Mirror
Gmail is a new approach to email, not a Personal Data Assistant.
When I think of it, you need a PDA.
This list makes no mention of FreeBSD.
As far as I know, FreeBSD is UNIX certified, which means that FreeBSD has been allowed to describe their OS as a "True UNIX operating system".
I dont really know for sure, because I cant find any place on The Open Group's website where they list certified OS's.
I say this, because I know for sure, that Linux is not UNIX certified - and it never will be, which is one of my main reasons for not using it.
I will email The Open Group to ask, and post the result as a reply to this post.
So, let me get this straight.
The record labels ARE the bad guys, and the band themselves probably didnt have a say when their record label decided that the CD should have copy protection, right?
The artists did realize that by putting copyright-protection on their CD, the piracy of their CD would increase, and not decrease - like the record company propagates - because everyone wants to listen to their music not just on their CD player, but also on their mp3 player, car stereo, and whatnot, right?
I really salute these guys for doing that they did, by putting out these instructions. It doesnt even matter to me that this smells a bit like a PR stunt - The thing that matters is that maybe more artists will follow this example, and soon "UNPROTECTED AUDIO-CD" will be a treat, just like "Limited Edition" is today.
I cant decide wether I believe you should be modded +1, Funny or +1, Insightfull....
On that note, I think it's about time that I update to my WinRAR to 3.50.
And, oh, why hasnt slashdot posted news about WinRAR 3.50? They didnt pay enough?
We'll get some genetically engineered mice to take care of the genetically modified dogs. Problem solved.
... At which point the car will send an automatic electronic message with it's coordinates, and the identity of the window-smashing thief. A complete lockdown of the holding place will occur, and the police quietly escorts the thief to his very own special "holding place".
I don't think anything is interpolated... maybe you meant something else?
:)
- My english sucks. I ment to say "The result of the two encoders diffirent encoding techniques, possibly amplifying the bad side-effects of each other"
Well, now there is nothing to argue
One final note, though.
I am ok with 48/96 kbps most of the time! not even 128kbps!
- I believe that you can convert to ogg safely without hearing any significant change in quality. Only thing I'm wondering is, why you'd want to do that.
Being an audiophile with experience in mp3 encoding since 2001, having a media library of 32,4GB and 5,510 music files, I'll try to back up all my statements with sufficient evidence, or sufficiently rational train of thought.
And who says CD's are high quality
- When I said "High-Quality CD", I was referring to the average music CD, of which you have an original, which is without any scratches, to give the ogg Vorbis encoder a fair chance of providing a realistic transparent result, so you could decide wether you liked the encoder or not.
The LAME encoder can only do wav to MP3
- Wrong. The LAME encoder can also decode mp3's, as it has a built-in decoder. Your arguement stands undefeated, though - Yes, to decode an mp3, you'd need an mp3 decoder.
MP3 being lossy, and removing certain characteristics I hoped by uncompressing it to a wav, if visualised it would have similar to the rings and highlights of wavelet compression (not the same, but similar, in a hypothetical visualisation) I hoped ogg would not alias on these, and still produce a comparative sound.
- When you encode an original lossless source, into mp3, you lose some of the original information. Wether you can percieve this loss or not, is irrelevant to the fact that loss does occur.
If you decode any given mp3 file, and save it as a
If you transcode your mp3 file into ogg, the result will always be lower quality than the source. Wether you percieve this loss or not, is irrelevant. I never stated that you had perfect hearing, nor did I ever state that you (Or anyone else) could percieve this loss.
People say if you resave a jpeg multiple times you degrade it. Technically wrong. The pattern is symmetric, you can decode, and re-encode without any problems as long as you do not change the data in between.
- As you said, for the jpg not to decrease in quality, you'd have to not change data in between. This means that the jpeg would not get re-encoded after each save. With music encoding, change DOES occur, and loss DOES happen.
When you say should be obvious, are you saying is should have been obvious, but apparently wasn't?
- I've seen people argue that if you decode a 64kbps mp3 into wav, you'd get an increase in sound quality. As you believed that a conversion from mp3 to ogg would benefit you in terms of sound quality, I decided to point out this fact to you.
Yet again, I suggest that you read up on hydrogenaudio, and especially the General mp3 forum
The LAME developers are active participants on HA, and many audiophiles post lots and loads of usefull information about audio-related topics there.
That's a very, very, very, very bad idea. Let me explain why.
.mp3 files into .ogg, you'd need to first convert all of your .mp3 files into ogg. This would require the use of the LAME encoder (To convert the mp3's to wav), and then the ogg Vorbis encoder would have to convert all those wavs into .ogg format. You will lose all your id3 tag information.
First.
Let me get some definitions straight:
mp3: Lossy format. Converting to mp3 means encoding your music. The best encoder is LAME (As proof, I suggest you check out hydrogenaudio)
ogg Vorbis: Lossy format. Converting to ogg means encoding your music. The best encoder is (offcourse) the original ogg Vorbis encoder.
mpc/Musepack: Yet an other lossy format. Converting to mpc means encoding your music. The best encoder is (offcourse) the original Musepack encoder.
flac: Lossless format. Converting to flac means compressing your music, as in: "I just compressed a text file, and did not lose any bytes in the file during compression". The best compressor for FLAC is offcourse the original FLAC Compressor.
Compressing: Making filesize smaller, without loss of data.
Encoding with lossy format: Making filesize smaller, at the cost of audio information.
Second.
To transcode your
Anyone who comes up with a simpler/faster solution (ie. "You dont need to convert to wav first!"), has very little to no insight into how digital audio encoding works, and what happens in the process of a transcoding/encoding/decoding.
Third.
If you convert from a lossy format to a lossy format, you will lose significant amounts of quality. DO NOT CONVERT FROM LOSSY TO LOSSY!
It does not matter if you convert a 320kbps mp3 into super-high-quality ogg - You still get huge amounts of loss due to the fact that the original material is lossy.
Fourth.
If you want to test out ogg Vorbis, then encode any of your legally bought hi-quality cd's to ogg, and listen to wether you like the result.
Fifth.
This should be obvious, but I'll tell you anyway: If you convert from lossy to lossless (ie wav or flac), quality will NOT increase.
Hope I could be of some informative value to you.
This is easily counter-measured by "banning" sources which are unable to send me a valid chunk in X attempts.
I think that there could be an easy counter-measure for every measure that the anti-pirate industry takes.
Every thing they do is just an other inconvenience for the downloader, themselves, the legit downloaders, and Everybody Else (tm).
I dont get it. Why is it so amazing that computers beat human beings in chess? Isnt chess all about logic and calculation? Arent computers all about logic and calculation?
If both are true, then how come it is so amazing that a computer beat a human being in chess?
Wouldnt it be more amazing if a human being beat a chess computer?
Piracy isnt theft at all.
If I download a piece of software made by NoWares Corp. on eMule, does the NoWares Corp. immediatly feel that they are missing one copy of their software product?
No matter how you put it - Software piracy is not theft. Even if there are pirated 100.000.000 copies of any give software, the "offended" company can still sell a billion copies to anyone.
Software Piracy is just what it is. When will people get that apples != oranges, and that piracy != theft?
Piracy == piracy != theft
Also, who'd think that the only people who pirate stuff, are people who wouldnt/couldnt/etc pay for the software at all?
Look at the open-source world. Piracy isnt a problem there, and they make heaps of money even though they give away freely their products.
Oh, so you are criticizing the OSS style of business?
Honestly, I thought that open-source was about giving out the free product, and then earn the cash on helping the clueless corporations who think it's cool to be open-source.
(Please dont give me a lecture on free beer.)
And now that kind of business is a BAD thing? Or are you of some other opinion?