Why SHN, MP3 is so much better....

[Snowdog]

I was just wondering why in the world does everyone want to use SHN format. Its horrible I mean all it is, is a WAV format. It doesnt even compress it that much if at all.

Ok here is my example of why I ask this....Listener support track number 8 - Jimi Thing - length of song is 13:13 (long song).

WAV format = 133MB
MP3 format = 12.1MB

example #2

Blue man group and Dave matthews - Sing Along - song length 3:25 (pretty short and basic length)

WAV format = 34.6MB
MP3 format = 4.70MB

I think you can see where I am going with this. Here is an other example of a whole show in WAV and MP3 format.

Ok lets take the Folsom Field Live CD set for example.

the whole show has 21 songs on it.
WAV format = 1.48GB (unzipped)
MP3 format = 138MB (unzipped)

WAV format = 1.44GB (zipped)
MP3 format = 137MB (zipped)

(zipped WinZip)

I dont know about everyone hear but I would much rather be DL shows in MP3 format. They are much much smaller files and wont take nearly as long to DL. And as far as Sound quality goes MP3 quality is just as good as WAV so that shouldnt even be an issue. And MP3 are completly Burnable to CDR disks and can be played in any CD player just as WAV files.

And if the Antsdownloader did you MP3 format instead of DL all the songs one by one they could just be zipped and we could DL one file and that is it.

Let me know what everyone thinks abobut this. This not a Knock on this Site I actually Love this site since I have joined up. I just dont understand this whole SHN format. It just doesnt make sense to use it if we could use MP3 which would cut DL time by like 75%.

Thanks all.

[jeff1818]

mp3 compression is "lossy", meaning some music is lost in the conversion.

shn compression does not lose any music, therefore is better. the size is larger of course, but you are getting a perfect copy.

people who deal with mp3s are idiots (for the most part) and will re-rip the damn things into oblivion and then you'll be left with a 96kpbs song that sounds like mush.

that jimi thing song you mentioned. by the time i got it, it would no longer be 13:13, some moron would chop out the crowd or whatever they do and the song would be lik 11:03.

DL shn's. you'll always get the best copy possible.

[Snowdog]

OK, I can understand that some people would chop the hell out of it. But that is another argument cause why would chop it thats just dumb MP3 is a perfect copy unless it is chopped and chopped and converted to wav and then back again.

I just feel that you if people would start using MP3 it wouldnt be a problem cause, now a days you dont need to convert it to WAV to burn it and listen to it on a CD player like you use to a few years ago.

If your worried about people chopping it up to peices, well you really cant do anything about that but you also really cant do anything about people screwing with the WAV formats either.

But I do understand about wanting the best copy and not having a 96k bit rate song. But if it isnt fooled with you would get a good copy of it. Say if it was on a server and that was the only place you got it from unless it was a burned copy of a disk or a burn of the orginal file.

Very unerstandable though, was just wondering. Me personaly I never convert any MP3 to wav and with WAV if thats the way I get them thats the way they stay cause liek you said it is dumb to chop the songs up.

[Mark]

hahahaahahahaaha

you don't want much compression. if you compress it too much, you lose the quality

[XeroMav]

--aps and --ape using LAME is probably the best of the MP3 encoding available now. And yes, they'd sound great. BUT, run a spectrum analysis on the MP3 both before and after it's compressed. Then you can see what is cutout of the MP3 file. Any type of compression leads to that AWFUL compressed audio sound (the wishy-washy type thing...listen carefully to cymbals to hear what I'm talking about).

MP3 is NOT a perfect copy, either. At the end of every MP3 file, there is a small gap...I think it's dead space to hold the ID3v1 tag. Sure it can be deleted once converted to WAV, but there's a good chance that the 2 sequential tracks will NOT line up correctly, and a little skip will occur in between.

It seems like a size issue mostly...if you can't download them, trade for them.

[dmbamsouth]

ive never said anything negative on these boards before, but whoever started this post is an idiot. Go find a MP3 sourced show and then grab the same show in shn from the same source and listen to both. If you thing that MP3 is better, then you are just a plain idiot. Not to mention that the shn files are untarnished and have never lost their original quality. This along with the fact that no matter how many times you convert your shns to wav they still dont lose any quality. Know facts before you put up such a stupid post.

Brad

[mmazz72]

Originally posted by Snowdog
and can be played in any CD player just as WAV files.

they can? i don't have any cd player (except my dvd player) that can play mp3's. i know they're out there, and a lot of people have them, but i wouldn't say they're exactly the "norm" yet.

[dmband_fan1]

http://db.etree.org/faq/read.php?faq_key=431 - read that

hopefully that helps answer your ?s

[Mark]

this guy is a troll. just trying to get a rise out of people

[ecarlson8]

whoever started this thread is a dumbass

[gsisak]

when i first read this thread i thought it was someone just dicking around trying to piss everyone off. now it appears he's just a complete moron.

[rhuss]

:lol ... whatever man.

[jmay87]

good luck on convincing people to believe that

[mojo1210]

why eat shit when you can have filet mignon

[jmay87]

Originally posted by mojo1210
why eat shit when you can have filet mignon


good analogy

[Mike]

Originally posted by mojo1210
why eat shit when you can have filet mignon

VERY GOOD analogy

[Erich]

Originally posted by mojo1210
why eat shit when you can have filet mignon

because its just a waste to drop filet mignon on a naked 7 year olds back.

[rhuss]

Originally posted by Erich
because its just a waste to drop filet mignon on a naked 7 year olds back.

:confused:

[XeroMav]

Wow, that's disturbing.

[mdmt619]

Originally posted by Snowdog
And as far as Sound quality goes MP3 quality is just as good as WAV so that shouldnt even be an issue.
:lol

[Snowdog]

Wow, I never thought this was such a touch subject for everyone. As for being a dumbass, an idot, moron, or whatever you can come up with, I was just stating that MP3 are a better form to be DL. It take about 75% less HD space to hold them as you can see in the first post on this thread. And if you read all my posts you will also see that I agreed that people chop up songs in MP3 format which causes the loss of quality.

I mean jeez excuse me for not being a taper and not knowing about the SHN scene, guess I'm just not cool enough for you SHN freaks out there. I read all about SHN and just doesnt make sense to me, I mean why even use SHN why not just use WAV then its not like you can play SHN you have to decode it to play it. Its not like the WAV file is compressed all that much.

And who ever put not matter how many times you encode a WAV to a WAV you wont lose anything, well if your encoding a WAV to WAV I guess your just about as dumb as I am.

[Joe M.]

Hey Snowdog.

Let me give you some reasons why SHN's are used (and some reasons why mp3s are not.)

But before that I have to correct you on something in your post before I forget.


I mean why even use SHN why not just use WAV then its not like you can play SHN you have to decode it to play it.


Actually you can play SHN's without decoding. You just have to download a small plugin for winamp (or plugin for windows media player).

Also you say "Its not like the WAV file is compressed all that much". Actually it is, it compresses wav files 1/2 to 1/3 of their original size, maintaining perfect sound quality (unlike mp3).

Aside from that taping has evolved with technology and continues to do so. Orginially shows were regorded on DATs and put to cassette tapes. From there they would copied down the line and it was very important to list the generation of the copy because as a copy was made from a copy and then another copy was made from that copy, the quality would degrade (greatly).

Since then the digital wave came to play and we were able to retain the COMPLETE wav without loosing anything no matter how many copies were made from the shns.

Why is this good? Well now the music will not degrade. People will be able to enjoy this music 100 generations from now and if they still have the shns then it will be the EXACT as the day it was recorded and converted.

With MP3's you loose a portion of the song. It's gone you can't get it back.

Ok. There are so much more but I don't want to type any more. I'm going to search to see if I can find Rob's long explaination he did awhile ago when there was a big question about all of this.

Hope this helped.

[Joe M.]

Originally posted by Joe M.
Ok. There are so much more but I don't want to type any more. I'm going to search to see if I can find Rob's long explaination he did awhile ago when there was a big question about all of this.

Saddly it is gone. I will have to see if he has it. :(

[rhuss]

i'm pretty sure there is a reason almost all dmb tapers put something like:

*************************************************
**PLEASE DO NOT ENCODE THIS SHOW INTO MP3 FORMAT***
*************************************************

[XeroMav]

Originally posted by Snowdog
Wow, I never thought this was such a touch subject for everyone. As for being a dumbass, an idot, moron, or whatever you can come up with, I was just stating that MP3 are a better form to be DL. It take about 75% less HD space to hold them as you can see in the first post on this thread. And if you read all my posts you will also see that I agreed that people chop up songs in MP3 format which causes the loss of quality.

I mean jeez excuse me for not being a taper and not knowing about the SHN scene, guess I'm just not cool enough for you SHN freaks out there. I read all about SHN and just doesnt make sense to me, I mean why even use SHN why not just use WAV then its not like you can play SHN you have to decode it to play it. Its not like the WAV file is compressed all that much.

And who ever put not matter how many times you encode a WAV to a WAV you wont lose anything, well if your encoding a WAV to WAV I guess your just about as dumb as I am.
Ya know what they say about opinions...

Anyhoo, WAV isn't compressed as far as I know. And SHN is smaller. The 75% less space...has it ever occured to you that saved space would be the result of a very HEAVILY compressed file?

About chopping up MP3s...I could just as easily chop up SHN files and reconvert them and seed them. It's not hard to do that, but people here just don't do that. It'd be useless. If yer gonna chop up a file, keep it to yerself.

I didn't see anyone say anything about converting WAV to WAV...I saw something like SHN to WAV to SHN. As long as the WAV isn't editied, it can be converted back and forth to and from SHN and it'll create the same MD5 value.

Oh, and are you on dialup or not? Small HD?

[Snowdog]

What are you crazy......Dialup......is that even still around? (lol)

Small hardrive......I didnt know they made small ones.....


To answer you question no I have Cable modem and an 80gb Harddrive.

It was never a matter of HD space or my connection....it was a simple question about why they were used when MP3's could be DL so much quicker.

Seeing as I have never used SHN before I didnt know about them, I usually just got my shows through B&P, and never Downloaded a show before.

Here is another Question: What program do you use to decode the SHN back to WAV????

[greppson]

mkwact.

[XeroMav]

Well, ya might as well stick with B&P if yer not an SHN fan.

And mkwACT works best, and it can be found somewhere on etree.org. Drag and drop decoding = \m/.

[bill_kate]

Originally posted by Snowdog


Here is another Question: What program do you use to decode the SHN back to WAV????

you can find a bunch of different options here:

http://research.umbc.edu/~hamilton/shnfaq.html

as well as some more info.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Snowdog
It was never a matter of HD space or my connection....it was a simple question about why they were used when MP3's could be DL so much quicker.


there is more to life than download speeds.

[gbs3769]

Originally posted by mark_s
there is more to life than download speeds.

Yeah, like conserving hard drive space. :evil

- Matt

[XeroMav]

Originally posted by mark_s
there is more to life than download speeds.

WTF? There IS?!? I dunno what yer talking about. Life is ALL about download speeds. If I drop under 50k/s, this PC will explode. :(

[seantrantham]

Originally posted by Snowdog


I just feel that you if people would start using MP3 it wouldnt be a problem cause, now a days you dont need to convert it to WAV to burn it and listen to it on a CD player like you use to a few years ago.



Ummm...wrong. If you are using Nero or Adaptec and you decide to make a Music CD (that you would play on a standard CD player that does not play mp3s), and you add mp3 files to the disc, the program is converting it for you. Standard CD players are only programmed to decode .cda and .wav (which are basically the same thing) to audio. They cannot read anything else (again, a standard CD player).

If you really want to know why mp3s suck, as compared to .wav files, read this http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/mp3.htm
It explains how much data\sound quality is removed. A standard .wav file samples a sound wave at 44,100 times a second, as opposed to the 128 times a second that a regular mp3 is. That's a whole lot of data loss and sound quality loss. MP3s are more conveinent to download, but are you in it for the quality or the conveinence?

[scott brown]

>>MP3 is a perfect copy<<

if your definition of "perfect copy" means taking the original and throwing out 90% of the data, then sure

MP3 throws out a hell of a lot of information. I can hear a difference between the original and mp3 "copy"

[GURTz]

Originally posted by scott brown
I can hear a difference between the original and mp3 "copy" me too.
im so tired of people telling me its all in my head. they obviously have lazy ears or shitty speakers where they can't tell the difference. im tired of being in people cars blaring shitty mp3 mix cds with swishy cymbals.
i think it ruins my hearing to be honest.

[FPrefect61]

I had pretty lousy speakers on my old computer. All my mp3s sounded fine. I upgrade to 4.1 surround sound, with a better sound card, and I can barely listen to some of these mp3s, they're so awful sounding

[buzzy]

These kinds of threads bring out the worst in people. There is so much stuff in here that's off base, or just a wasted or purely obnoxious post. A few things:

- The real issues are tradeability and collectibility. When you get a lossless shn/flac, you really do have that show - not an altered version like mp3 encoded with a technology that will become obsolete shortly. mp3 is good for some uses, and for some people - it's sort of disposable, and if you're just sampling a track or listening to a show a few times, it works. But it's not tradeable, and you're not building a collection. In a year there will be another format that fits that need better. mp3 is the bane of the collector and trader, who's trying to get the best possible, definitive version of a show.

- The real problem lies in the fact that once people get an show in mp3, they start spreading it around burned as CD audio. Some do this without knowing better, some do know better and just don't care about other fans. So the other practical reality is that if you want to avoid getting lots of mp3-sourced shows, wasting time trading, and chucking a lot of what you get in the trash - having a hard line on mp3s helps.

Also note that most people can't do a good rip of CD audio discs without introducing errors, which is why even by mail, trading shn/flac vs CD Audio makes sense.

- Don't waste your time arguing about sound quality, you can't win that argument and from what's posted here none of you are equipped to make that argument. Objectively speaking and for what most people need, a modern, well made mp3 sounds close enough to the original. (Though there are lots of poorly made mp3s out there.) And frankly, there are lots of people who don't have the time, bandwidth, drive space, etc. to get lossless. Access to mp3 versions of shows would be a real service to a lot of good people. Unfortunately, lots of not so good people will screw other fans with their carelessness. So having a clear line about mp3s does actually end up helping the overall community, even though that's not obvious.

(Side note: I have yet to meet a shn nazi who knows enough about mp3 to have an informed opinion, and lots of the posts in this thread prove that - everyone who called the original poster an idiot or stupid seems to fall in that category. For example: looking at a frequency or spectral analysis tells you almost nothing about how it sounds to a human being; and looking at the relative file sizes / bits per second also doesn't tell you anything meaningful about sound quality. Rather than making bombastic and harsh statements, try some understanding and persuasion. That usually works much better in convincing people. )

Also, remember that the post office has amazing bandwidth ... if you don't have a fast connection, there are alternatives.

[scott brown]

>> Don't waste your time arguing about sound quality, you can't win that argument and from what's posted here none of you are equipped to make that argument.<<

I like to think that I can hold my own in this argument


>>(Side note: I have yet to meet a shn nazi who knows enough about mp3 to have an informed opinion,<<


again, I like to think I can hold my own in this argument

[buzzy]

give it a go, then, if you have time to waste and want to jump into one of the ugliest threads I've seen at am.org.

but you're already off on the wrong path if you think it's worth debating. and it seems you missed the point of my post, if you do think it's worth the time.

[Erich]

Originally posted by buzzy
but you're already off on the wrong path if you think it's worth debating. and it seems you missed the point of my post, if you do think it's worth the time.

the irony of your huge previous post amuses me then.

[buzzy]

glad to be of service in amusing you, Erich, it seems not to be too hard. but c'mon, can you at least read the thread before posting? you completely missed the point, since we were talking about why not to waste time debating the sound quality issue.

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there's about one decent comment in this thread (Joe's). the rest are laughably off the mark, or just a waste. no doubt the people that have posted know a lot about a lot of things. and there's no reason why you should understand lossy compression, it's not your thing. but turn down the harsh attitude, it is not at all cool.

also, Erich, since my oh-so-huge post was mostly about trying to explain why discouraging mp3 makes sense for the larger community, funny thing - turns out there's no irony at all. ba-dump-bump.

seriously, just resist the urge to click on reply if you're only interested in making an obnoxious, smartass or uninformed comment. it's just no help at all.

take 2, then:

- it was completely uncalled for to spew at the original poster. better to explain the issues to somebody, and think about why somebody might actually think another approach is better for them. (take a look at Joe M's post if you need an example of how to try to help.) way better than thinking that calling somebody stupid or an idiot makes you some kind of hot shot.

- the reason you can't win the argument about mp3 sound quality is that it can go on forever, as the endless mp3 threads prove. one person claims they can hear a difference. lots of people claim it's not enough to matter to them, and not worth the time, disk space, etc. that can go on forever.

and, if that's all there was to it you shouldn't care. it's the fact that it gets back into circulation and screws other fans, that should be able to persuade people that it's best for everyone not to circulate stuff in mp3.

so if you want to actually read the posts and try to be helpful, or have some kind of useful discussion, go ahead and comment. if you want to make a smartass comment without knowing your shiznit or reading the thread, save us all the trouble.

[buzzy]

Originally posted by scott brown
>> Don't waste your time arguing about sound quality, you can't win that argument and from what's posted here none of you are equipped to make that argument.<<

I like to think that I can hold my own in this argument

>>(Side note: I have yet to meet a shn nazi who knows enough about mp3 to have an informed opinion,<<

again, I like to think I can hold my own in this argument stick to taping, from your post above lossy compression is definitely not your area of expertise

[mmazz72]

Originally posted by buzzy
it's the fact that it gets back into circulation and screws other fans, that should be able to persuade people that it's best for everyone not to circulate stuff in mp3.

that would be wonderful in a perfect world...but this isn't a perfect world. simply explaining to someone why it's bad to circulate mp3 is not going to stop it from happening. if you could make people stop doing bad things just by explaining to them why it's bad...this world would be a much better place.

the only way to guarantee that people will not trade shows in mp3 is to not make them available in mp3. i know that sucks for some people who don't have the speed or hd space, but unfortunately, when you're not sure who can be trusted to do the right thing, it's easier to just assume that no one can.

[mmazz72]

Originally posted by buzzy
stick to taping, from your post above lossy compression is definitely not your area of expertise

hmmm...i thought you made some good points in your original post, but now you just seem to be copping the same type of attitude you complained about everyone else having.

show us your expertise. educate us, oh wise one. :rolleyes:

[buzzy]

that would be wonderful in a perfect world...but this isn't a perfect world. simply explaining to someone why it's bad to circulate mp3 is not going to stop it from happening. if you could make people stop doing bad things just by explaining to them why it's bad...this world would be a much better place.

the only way to guarantee that people will not trade shows in mp3 is to not make them available in mp3. i know that sucks for some people who don't have the speed or hd space, but unfortunately, when you're not sure who can be trusted to do the right thing, it's easier to just assume that no one can. yes, exactly. that's what i posted - it's because you can't control what happens to the mp3s down the line, that you need to have a hard line about mp3s.

or in other words, it's the fans who aren't careful about how the music gets passed along, and don't care about other fans down the line, who are really ruining it for everyone.

Originally posted by mmazz72
hmmm...i thought you made some good points in your original post, but now you just seem to be copping the same type of attitude you complained about everyone else having.

show us your expertise. educate us, oh wise one. :rolleyes: dude, read the thread. he said he'd like to think he can hold his own. unfortunately, his earlier post, above, is just screamingly off the mark. again, there's no reason why someone who never really used lossy should understand it. but there's no reason to be obnoxious to people asking quesitons, either.

and this, after a thread full of total nonsense spewed at someone who asked a question - a question that lots of people have, because it keeps coming up. rather than tossing 6th-grade insults and ridiculously wrong info - try to understand the viewpoint of the original poster and explain and persuade.

[Erich]

Originally posted by buzzy
glad to be of service in amusing you, Erich, it seems not to be too hard. but c'mon, can you at least read the thread before posting? you completely missed the point, since we were talking about why not to waste time debating the sound quality issue.

I wasnt attacking you in that post. Ive been in the front lines on this debate 100 times as someone that wishes to educate others instead of ripping them a new one for MP3ing stuff. so this is a funny thing to tell me since im doing exactly what you suggested before and not getting involved. as for your other comment, if you think what i said was obnoxious, then me telling you to shut your pompous fucking face shouldnt come as a surprise. ba-dum-ching.

[scott brown]

>> unfortunately, his earlier post, above, is just screamingly off the mark. again, there's no reason why someone who never really used lossy should understand it.<<


how am I "screamingly off the mark?" I said that a shitload of data is thrown out and that I can hear a difference. that's true


I never got technical, so don't go telling me my technical explanations are off and that I have no idea what I'm talking about. if you want to get technical, i can go round for round....

[The_Wizard]

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/x/bxg178/MP3freq/mp3wavcomp.html

http://wso.williams.edu/~jmaster/shnmp3/

I in no way support the url's above. I simply wanted to read what others have put together on the subject.

Bill

[The Archer]

Originally posted by Erich
because its just a waste to drop filet mignon on a naked 7 year olds back.

That is really disturbing!!!!:(

[briansmccabe]

I think the original poster, despite haivng not done nearly enough research on the matter, has some valid points. Overall, however, I disagree with him.

Any format will have pros and cons. An enormous pro to mp3 downloads are indeed their file size. To the common music listener/casual live music downloader (myself included) mp3 would be perfectly acceptable. But there are collectors who take the issue sound quality to a somewhat extreme point - and I don't mean that in a bad way. It is indeed 100% undeniable that SHN files are of superior quality to mp3. A simple way of testing this is to decode a shn to wav, and then back to shn. You'll see that the file size of the original SHN and the newly created SHN are identical. Do the same thing with an mp3, and the file sizes will be different - the newer mp3 will have a smaller file size. This means that data was lost in the decode/encode process. Data loss = lower quality.

On the other hand, I don't get why some people post ISO a show, and then add that they only want SHN - no mp3 is acceptable. Well, if the only known copy in circulation is in mp3, wouldn't you want it anyway? Also, based on this logic, the person ISO a show would prefer a lousy-sounding-yet-lossless SHN copy of a show over a superior pull that has subsequently been encoded to mp3. My bottom line is the sound quality of the show - if two tapers do the same show, and one of them has a shitty rig, I'll go for a copy from the better rig - regardless of format. But with tapers taking their shows directly to SHN pretty much at all times nowadays, this is becoming less and less of an issue.

[Mark]

you won't see any DMB show released now in MP3. it is SHN or FLAC all the way.

[Erich]

and shows that are unfortunatly MP3 source (Ritchmond Symph was one i think) have been archived as SHN to prevent further loss, and im sure its made clear in the notes.

Bottom line, importance of lossless takes precidence over the recording qulity. You dont want to shit in an overflowing toilet.

[Bienstein]

My dog can tell the difference between .shn and .mp3...he told me so...

[gweeps]

Originally posted by Snowdog
What are you crazy......Dialup......is that even still around? (lol)

Small hardrive......I didnt know they made small ones.....


To answer you question no I have Cable modem and an 80gb Harddrive.



Actually, your drive is more likely 76.7 because they're never exact.

[buzzy]

-- The latest posts to this thread are a good example of why understanding the real issues matters:To the common music listener/casual live music downloader (myself included) mp3 would be perfectly acceptable. But there are collectors who take the issue sound quality to a somewhat extreme point - and I don't mean that in a bad way.That's the common perspective of typical music fans - that lossless audio is somehow an extreme position. But explaining the real problems - what circulating lossy versions does to the trading pool, and how re-encoding degrades the sound - often makes the light go on. (If it doesn't, when they get their first mp3-sourced shows in a trade and end up tossing them in the trash and replacing them with a tradeable, collectible version - then the light goes on.)

-- We all listen to compressed/altered audio all the time - a well-encoded mp3 has generally comparable quality to FM; TV, video and DVDs; mini-disc; etc. Further, 90% of people here will admit to listening to mp3s, and the other 10% will lie about it. Given that, it's hard to buy the argument that audio that's undergone lossy compression is somehow not good enough to listen to.

-- No need to get too technical if you want to generally understand lossy compression: taking the original and throwing out 90% of the data - As shn and flac show, 20-50% or more of the data is purely redundant - cd quality audio wasn't designed to be space-efficient but rather to require minimal processing for players.
- Psychoacoustics mean that there's a lot of additional data that humans can't hear. (That, by the way, is the main reason that frequency analysis and spectral analysis graphs are useful to try to identify sources, but not very useful as a way of judging the sound quality of a recording. Those graphs don't have much to do with what humans hear. See the footnote below.)
- And then the compression algorithm makes some carefully considered cuts and compromises to get the file size down to about 15-20% of the original.

So mathematically far less of the real data is removed than you'd think. But the mathematics aren't even particularly relevant.

More importantly, as perceived by a listener a well encoded mp3 gives them, for all practical purposes, close enough to all of the sound. That's why it's not worth arguing. If someone says they'd be more than happy to have a LAME VBR of shows, given the time, space, bandwidth etc considerations - you can hardly say they're wrong, since it's a personal decision given their own situation. And frankly, a careful blind test against a good encode on a typical studio recording (not to mention a live show) will generally support that. So that argument can go on forever.

The real problem, again, is that once a show is circulated in mp3, it ends up getting into the trading pool and screwing other fans.

-- The strangely common attitude that using lossless is a license to be a jerk to other music fans is something we definitely don't need. Most of the posts on this thread are really not what DMB, am.org or sharing music is about.

- - - - - - - - - -
Footnote - Regarding the examples in the post on the last page:
- The first site (http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/x/bxg178/MP3freq/mp3wavcomp.html) is a good example of that mistake, a very common one.

For a very basic intro to psychoacoustics, see this Intel page (http://www.intel.com/english/home/maximize/article/mp3/how/psychoaccoustics.htm).

- The other site (http://wso.williams.edu/~jmaster/shnmp3/) is clueless, from start to finish.

[scott brown]

http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/reports/ajr/TR156/


>> it's hard to buy the argument that audio that's undergone lossy compression is somehow not good enough to listen to.<<

when there's a non-lossy version, why listen to the lossy one? i have a nice stereo system. the reason i have the system I have over a small bose wave radio is because it sounds better. why would i choose to listen to something that doesn't sound as good as the original?


>>More importantly, as perceived by a listener a well encoded mp3 gives them, for all practical purposes, close enough to all of the sound.<<

but some of us don't want "close enough." see above


>>The real problem, again, is that once a show is circulated in mp3, it ends up getting into the trading pool and screwing other fans.<<

you're saying it's screwing other fans, yet you're saying there's nothing wrong with mp3. can't have it both ways

if i wanted to listen to compressed audio all the time I'd tape to minidisc or straight to MP3. why do I record to dat (or computer at up to 24/96)? It sounds better

[matth1jd]

Doesn't matter what anyone says the technical facts are that MP3 is a lossy compression scheme. So you may think it sounds perfect, but it's technically not. You give me well encoded MP3 and yeah I might download it, but only if it's the only thing available. If an SHN or FLAC is available you better believe I'm taking that. Why? Simply because when it gets to me it'll be the best possibly quality. I honestly can't tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and an SHN, but as many people have said before that's not the point ;)

[buzzy]

Not sure what those are responding to. Re-read the posts above to see what this thread is about. To recap:

- People can have good reasons for asking about mp3s. The quality / space / time / bandwidth tradeoffs can make sense for them. (This isn't about whether it makes sense for you, which is what the last couple posts are about.)

- If you want someone like that to understand why it makes sense for a trading community to use lossless, it's got to be an answer that understands where they are coming from and makes sense to them. Posting the same old responses isn't the answer - they aren't convincing, and wouldn't be even if they were well-informed. For starters, a lot of it is subjective or a matter of personal preference.

- Tearing someone a new one when they mention mp3s is also not the answer. The posts in this thread were totally uncalled for.

- What will make sense to people new to lossless is explaining that only lossless is tradeable or collectible; and that once lossy starts circulating it ends up hurting other fans.

[Scotty Love]

A little off the main topic, but has anyone noticed the original poster's signature? Has Dave ever sung "I smoke too much" in Too Much?
Or did this guy simply misunderstand Dave because of all the lousy MP3 recordings he has?

Just a thought.

[Erich]

Originally posted by Scotty Love
A little off the main topic, but has anyone noticed the original poster's signature? Has Dave ever sung "I smoke too much" in Too Much?
Or did this guy simply misunderstand Dave because of all the lousy MP3 recordings he has?

Just a thought.

as much as i think the oriinal post is misguided and inane, if you cant hear what dave is saying its not cause of MP3s. its either cause the recording and / or crowd sucks, or youre deaf.

[Scotty Love]

Originally posted by Erich
as much as i think the oriinal post is misguided and inane, if you cant hear what dave is saying its not cause of MP3s. its either cause the recording and / or crowd sucks, or youre deaf.

Brother Erich, I was just using a little sarcasm. But thanks for playing. :p

[Erich]

ah, my bad, apologies :)