Are we still stuck with mp3?

lykwydchykyn

lykwydchykyn

New member
I've been revamping my website and decided to host my mp3's on my own site rather than to keep mucking around with these mp3 hosts that keep going defunct, ask for my listener's life story, or just plain stop working. So as I'm preparing my audio for the web, I'm wondering: is mp3 still the only feasible option? There are at least a couple formats out there with superior quality vs. compression ratios, like wma and ogg. But is playback support for these formats to where we can expect listeners to be able to hear them?

I know winamp plays ogg, but windows media player doesn't. What's the mac support for .wma like? Anyone hosting .ogg files exclusively? They sound so much better than mp3's to me...
 
Ogg is lossless compression I believe - should sound as good as the CD.

Why not put the songs up in two or three formats?

Just my $.02

NL5
 
i dont think macs come wma ready....people will need to download a plug in or something. mp3 is still the widely acceptable option... now you can try to trailblaze a path and put ogg up there and make people get players that can play it....macromedia did it with flash player, quick time did it too...and who can forget java lol.
 
Doesn't winamp play ogg, ape, mp3, and wma? I don't use winamp, but it is one of the most popular.
 
Winamp plays ogg, yes; ogg is lossy compression, NL5. You might be thinking of .ape. Monkey's audio is lossless.
The problem is, there is still a huge base of users who use built-in media players, like windows media player or whatever crap came with their soundcard.
I thought about multiple formats, but that defeats the purpose of finding an efficient format. I guess I could do multiple formats and just tell people to use ogg if they can because it sounds better.
 
You should be able to hit up WMA just fine. But I wouldn't switch over to anything else and MP3 really is your best option.

So what if it doesn't sound as good as something else? All these folks on their computers are using little 4" speakers anyway so it's not like your mix is going to come through the way it should.
 
Point taken playit, but my problem with mp3 is the high end, which is about all you actually can hear through 4" speakers! :)
I decided to go for the ogg files. My new site is up now at http://www.alandmoore.com/lc .
I'm not all that concerned about people checking out my music anyway...
 
The one other reason you should have mp3s, is there are 'devices' widely available that carry and play mp3s, and there are car cd decks that play mp3 cds etc... I think you would be hardpressed to see a dramatic difference in mp3s ripped at 192, and ogg files, and let's be serious for a second, your listeners, not to insult them, WILL NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

The people who care are the same people who know CDs sound like sh*t, so... offer a dvd-a product on your site alongside your cd.

Besides, you were thinking about 30 second clips... I think an argument can be made that if the fidelity of your mp3s is less than the potential of your music, much more ground will be made through that point, then limiting the clips to 30 seconds.

Also, with mp3s, a LOT depends on what you're using to rip them.

Just my thoughts. (and I'm all about OGG)

cheers
 
The one other reason you should have mp3s, is there are 'devices' widely available that carry and play mp3s, and there are car cd decks that play mp3 cds etc... I think you would be hardpressed to see a dramatic difference in mp3s ripped at 192, and ogg files, and let's be serious for a second, your listeners, not to insult them, WILL NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

The people who care are the same people who know CDs sound like sh*t, so... offer a dvd-a product on your site alongside your cd.

Besides, you were thinking about 30 second clips... I think an argument can be made that if the fidelity of your mp3s is less than the potential of your music, much more ground will be made through that point, then limiting the clips to 30 seconds.

Also, with mp3s, a LOT depends on what you're using to rip them.

Just my thoughts. (and I'm all about OGG)

cheers
 
I decided to go with ogg in the end, because at 64kbps, even dialup users can enjoy relatively high quality music.

I may lose a few listeners, but I didn't have that many to begin with... unless you count the search engine bots.
 
lykwydchykyn said:
Winamp plays ogg, yes; ogg is lossy compression, NL5. You might be thinking of .ape. Monkey's audio is lossless.
The problem is, there is still a huge base of users who use built-in media players, like windows media player or whatever crap came with their soundcard.
I thought about multiple formats, but that defeats the purpose of finding an efficient format. I guess I could do multiple formats and just tell people to use ogg if they can because it sounds better.
Click to expand...


Sorry, you are right. I was thinking of FLAC. I thought Ogg Vorbis was lossless too. But it is Lossy - but much better than regular MP3.

Can't you put a link or button to winamp on your site? Like I said, it is supposed to be one of the more popular playeres out there. I use MMJB, and I believe it plays ogg as well, haven't tried yet. I have my entire CD collection ripped into a HTPC Jukebox at 192 mp3. Now, it doesn't sound quite as good as a CD, but it's close enough for what I am doing with it. The convenience makes up for the SQ.

NL5

ps - post a link when your all done!
 
NL5 said:
Now, it doesn't sound quite as good as a CD, but it's close enough for what I am doing with it. The convenience makes up for the SQ.

NL5

!
Click to expand...
And is'nt that what digital is all about in the first place. Convienience making up for sound quality.
 
Be Loveless said:
And is'nt that what digital is all about in the first place. Convienience making up for sound quality.
Click to expand...


Yes and No. To me, CD quality is on par with the best analog, only much cheaper for the end user. Everything above CD quality - to me - is superior. I could go into detail but in short here is why I say that -

Analog is warmer sounding, CD is a little harsh.

Analog (without really high end gear) has a lot of "noise", CD has almost none.

Good analog equipment tends to be more expensive, while any decent cd player is going to sound pretty good (especially with Digital out into a good amp)

DVD level audio (in it's various flavors) - to me - has the best of both above. Quite full and rich sounding - even more so than analog - and No noise.

Now, that being said, I believe analog has a definite place in recording. All I want out of my DVD player is a "faithfull" reproduction of what was recorded.
Fairly accurate players and amps are pretty cheap (speakers are another story all together). All the "warm" analog can be recorded onto the "accurate" dvd.
 
Be Loveless said:
And is'nt that what digital is all about in the first place. Convienience making up for sound quality.
Click to expand...

I suppose I could replace the downloadable audio with a request form for 1/2" reels of the songs... :p:D

Seriously, though, that's why I went with ogg. Not as convenient, but sounds better than mp3. You gotta find the right balance.

Now, let's stop talking about analog before this discussion falls into a tired old debate with no end in site.
 
NL5:

my reading of what your saying is... cd quality is on par with analogue, because its more convenient... which is the point that digital is convenience in place of quality... for example:

"only much cheaper for the end user." - cheaper = more convenient to buy
"Analog is warmer sounding, CD is a little harsh." - ie, cd doesn't sound as good as analogue (not getting into this one, I'll wrap it up, and show you why this is not starting the A vs. D flame war again...)
"Analog (without really high end gear) has a lot of "noise", CD has almost none." which means consistency in reproduction, ie, you don't have the inconvenience of going out to spend several thousand dollars on the best analogue playback equipment... this is convenience over quality again...

"DVD level audio (in it's various flavors) - to me - has the best of both above. Quite full and rich sounding - even more so than analog - and No noise." Don't get me wrong, I am a huge digital proponent, and a surround mix bitch, I think dvd-a or something similar is the way of the future, and as more cars get dvd surround systems installed because of the car tv monitors, more people are going to excpect their audio like this... BUT... A DVD that sounds better than the original analogue master is just indicating to me some mastering genious, or mistreatment of the analogue master. No matter how good it sounds, analogue means "same as or like the original" or a wavform is captured as it is heard, rather than converted to something other than a waveform, like for example, a bitstream.

That being said, very few people will ever hear this, and we are getting to a point of diminishing returns, BECAUSE of the convenience, the fact that there is no distribution method for multichannel audio in the analogue domain, and because DSD pretty much puts the "tape heads" to bed, by essentially incorporating the analogue process into the digital domain.

Anyhow, like I said, I'm not flaming here, I love digital, I rarely stand up for the naysayers holding up their reels and crying the end of music as we know it... but right now, digital cannot sound "better" than analogue, but I do think it sounds close enough to the same to warrant abandoning analogue for time and eternity :)

Anyhow, just had to jump in.

l8r.
 
hmmmm...

It seems you are saying what I am saying. To me convienence means ease of use, not less expensive, but basically that is what I said - It's much less expensive for the same quality in digital.

And as far as surround DVD - no effin way. I have not yet heard a 5.1 audio mix that was worth a sh!t. DVD-A in its various flavours is altogether a different story in my opinion. That is what I was reffereing to.

Anyway, I am not trying to start a A vs D argument. Especially when i basically agree with both sides.(if that's possible). Just give me a bunch of true tube gear recorded at 24/96 on good equipment through a decent sound system, and I am just in bliss.

NL5

btw - What would you consider high end analog HOME audio gear? What format - LP/Cassette/Can you even get stuff on good reel to reel stock. Just curious, I have never had a good home analog system.
 
yup, we do ultimately agree, it was just that dvd quality sounding superior thing... really the only a vs d thing would be listening to the tape masters in a studio environment at this point, yeah, that's pretty much the best situation, but as far as home gear I don't know, I've got a decent 1/4" reel to reel, and have been impressed by some of the ageing reels I got from my aging uncle, which speaks a lot for the format, and have heard an audiophile recordplayer on a 150,000 system that essentially converted me on the argument, but the trick there, with all phono, its essentially a lie, because the LF isn't ever captured on a record, the size of a bass waveform is simply too big to fit on vinyl, hence why we have a 'phono' output... so, I probably couldn't put that up as a contender. Like I said, digital is really my bag, but I had to cede the point to the "a"holes a long time ago ;)

5.1 for music is a tricky mistress, and its something that I'm knee deep in a couple of projects on... truth is I haven't heard any great ones, although, if I can remember to dig it up, there was a drum demo done for one of the big studio monitor manufacturers (krk I think) that was a 5.1 music mix of a bunch of heavy hitting drummers which blew my mind, and one of the projects I'm hoping to have done soon is a 5.1 drumset composition duo, which will hopefully the first you hear worth a sh!t, I have every intention of doing a big, come check out how I ruined music post here when I have a master to put up online as an ac3... (wrote an article about ac3's as the 5.1mp3 on my site if you're ever uber bored.)

Anyhow, glad we're not starting a flamewar, I fear for the true analogue militant who sticks his head into this thread.

later.
 
These guys are correct-- mp3 is the most widely used and that means it's the format you should use. Keep in mind that the people here are musicians and you guys know the ins and outs of this stuff, but most folks won't know the difference when it comes to sound quality.

If you guys are interesting in trying Weed (the file sharing format), email joetaylor@spinme.com because he is starting a new site called TryTunes.com and will get you hooked up for free.
 
David Hooper said:
Keep in mind that the people here are musicians and you guys know the ins and outs of this stuff, but most folks won't know the difference when it comes to sound quality.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this mentality. Maybe the teenagers downloading Jessica Simpson tunes don't care about sound quality, but if I had a demographic to speak of I would tend to think they would care about sound quality. Just because the average person doesn't know engineering jargon and can't accurately articulate what they're hearing doesn't mean they can't tell you when something sounds like crap and when it doesn't. Sure, they may not know when we're talking 48 kHz recording vs 96 kHz recording, or DVDa vs CD, but at 64 kbps, there is a very big difference in quality between ogg and mp3.

And of course, like I said, I don't really care that much about promoting my music; or more to the point, I'm realistic about how many people are really interested in hearing it. I guess if I was really trying to push (like if I ever release a CD), I would offer mp3 as well. That much has been established.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top