Page 1 of 1

lossless?

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:14 pm
by mantis217
hey all. im sorta new to the forum here and i think its great. one thing i'm a little confused about though. it seems like everything that gets released anymore is in some sort of lossy format (mp3s and such). now im not trying to be a music snob, and im by no means talking about the audio thats been put up for free on the fiverliter site. thats a great idea. it gives people a chance to sample certain things (like the tribute album) to see if they want to pay full price for a better quality copy. i think its fantastic that there's a place where people can find these things, because let's face it, otherwise, they probably wouldnt be able to. what i'm wondering is about (mainly) the David Reilly solo stuff thats been coming out lately. for example, when the 'inside' ep came out, i waited to try and buy it because i had heard alot of bad things about the (only) site you can buy it from. recently i decided to take a chance and order it (before i read the posts on this forum), and never received it. we all know the story, they took my money, i never got the cd, and they refuse to return my emails. roughtly $20 down the drain. i get that. what i dont understand is why the only way to get it now is via itunes or the amazon store. this i suppose is where i get a little annoying. i listen to alot of music. for years before i knew the difference i was downloading mp3s from napster just like everyone else. as time went on and i learned about the quality difference, its a big difference. the difference between the quality of a lossy mp3 to that of a lossless, lets say, flac file is as noticable as the diference between VHS and bluray. this isnt so much about owning physical copies of the album, although that would be great. this is more about not compromising the quality of a band/artist that we all apparently respect and admire. seeing as though albums like "how humans rx" will never see a retail release the way GLU albums did this seems to be the only way to obtain it. while im ultimately thankful for all the hard work and effort put into the release of "how humans rx", its a shame that the only way to get it now is by getting a lossy copy. i would be completely happy of receiving a master copy on a cdr and paying the same that i would for cd that actually had artwork. like i said before, im not trying to come off as a music snob, i just think preserving the quality of the intended work is essential to preserving the emotion and time and hard work put into it.

Re: lossless?

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:56 pm
by gluhead85
how difficult it
is
to preserve such
things tend
whither
and fade
in
time
i dont see
this happening
sad
but
...

Re: lossless?

Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:46 am
by bobnugget
i believe there might be a miss-understanding
the "master" copys from witch the cds & downloads
are based are a good percent lossy them self.
To re-encode them them in lossless format would (at least to me)
be a rather huge waste of space for say 1 out of every 5 songs
to sound slightly better then the rest.
my 2c

Re: lossless?

Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:53 am
by mantis217
thats what im saying. if you burn a cd for someone from mp3s and they go home and rip it into lossless, its still not cd quality. all that does is not lessen the quality any more. i guess my question is, why is the quality not preserved as best as possible to begin with.