Music Piracy: the bands fight back

[NoSleep]

Somebody I spoke with to week (DJ Grazzhoppa), who generally plays WAVs said he got sent an exclusive track from an artist, but it was mp3 and the dip in sound quality was marked (from "BOOM, BOOM" to "chiff, chiff"). See, mp3 don't have "trouser-flapping" bottom end to them and a club is where this will notice particularly, unlike your hifi, computer speakers or your earpieces in an iPod.

[Cagey Joe]

Right, that data has to disappear somewhere.

I've played with 320 mp3s at home without noticing so substantial a difference in SQ but the main reason I've never played them out is because they seem too unpredictable and irregular with timecoding. There are other factors, vinyl rips and plenty more, but I just found it frustrating, especially when I'm getting into something, to have one track go haywire. I never had that problem with lossless files. There could be more to it but I just never took the risk, sounds like a good thing.

[thugler]

Somebody I spoke with to week (DJ Grazzhoppa), who generally plays WAVs said he got sent an exclusive track from an artist, but it was mp3 and the dip in sound quality was marked (from "BOOM, BOOM" to "chiff, chiff"). See, mp3 don't have "trouser-flapping" bottom end to them and a club is where this will notice particularly, unlike your hifi, computer speakers or your earpieces in an iPod.

Not all mp3's are equal. Well encoded high bitrate ones are virtually impossible to tell the difference to lossless. How do I know this? Double blind tests have been done with professionals involved, listening on headphones and on high end equipment. This was probably a badly encoded or low bitrate mp3, or even a dodgy source for the file.

I find it ridiculous that a club would be good enough sound quality for the audience to immediately notice. If they noticed there was likely a big drop in volume/bass or something, this just wouldn't happen with a well encoded file.

[NoSleep]

Sure, whatever. Try it in a club. One with a decent sound system (you know, with some bottom). You'll never bother again.

[NoSleep]

I find it ridiculous that a club would be good enough sound quality for the audience to immediately notice.

You find it ridiculous that this is the experience witnessed by people that have tried it? Well, well.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

My trousers are tuned to a reference 'nightclub pitch' of 28hz and won't flap at any other frequency. And they openly mock all sub 500kbps bitrates.

[Cagey Joe]

Double blind tests have been done with professionals involved, listening on headphones and on high end equipment. This was probably a badly encoded or low bitrate mp3, or even a dodgy source for the file.

Likewise, my mate doesn't think there's any difference between Blu-Ray and DVD or between 4MP and 8MP cameras.

:rolleyes:

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Not sure if this has been raised, as I have only scanned the thread, but surely data storage is getting to a point where .wavs are becoming feasible, especially to people who would use their kit solely for music performance purposes.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Likewise, my mate doesn't think there's any difference between Blu-Ray and DVD or between 4MP and 8MP cameras.

:rolleyes:

Or at least, doesn't think the difference matters for most practical day-to-day scenarios.

[Cagey Joe]

I agree with that but it's not what he means. He's adamant that it's pure snake oil, like the claim about mp3s and lossless files above.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Maybe they were booing cos it was a rubbish song. *runs away*

[Cagey Joe]

Maybe they were saying Boo-urns?

[NoSleep]

Not sure if this has been raised, as I have only scanned the thread, but surely data storage is getting to a point where .wavs are becoming feasible, especially to people who would use their kit solely for music performance purposes.

Didn't the mp3 became popular because of the bandwidth limitations of dial-up?

I just ran some white noise in Logic and compared the same file lossless and (LAME mp3) encoded for 128kbps & 320kbps. The first thing I noticed was that both mp3 files had been "turned up" in volume to compensate for the different spectral curves they yielded. Obviously, there is a sharp drop (like a cliff edge) above a certain frequency on both mp3s (happening at a lower frequency for the 128kbps). Less obvious is the drop in bass which is more of a gradual curve.

For those interested, there are "blind tests" available on Gearslutz forum, set up by some posters. They should appear quite high in a google search for "mp3 versus lossless gearslutz".

[thugler]

Sure, whatever. Try it in a club. One with a decent sound system (you know, with some bottom). You'll never bother again.

Nonsense.

People can't even tell consistently on headphones or on high end equiPment.


There is a difference, but it's almost always imperceptible in most practical functions.

I'm sure there's technically a difference between loads of different tiny elements which go into listening to some music, but many of them are practically the same in reality.

Go look at the studies.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

Where? As a very minor league occasional HiFi bluff I've ne'er heard folks claiming 320kbpsmp3s to be the audible equal of lossless.

In fact, I've lost count of the amount of times (I've long since stopped checking) I've thought 'that's not sounding too tough' and checked the (lossless) rate only to discover it's sub 600kbps. Likewise, I've thought 'this is sounding criss', checked and it's 1000kbps+.

Maybe on a sparse solo piano piece it might matter less? Dunno.

[thugler]

Where? As a very minor league occasional HiFi bluff I've ne'er heard folks claiming 320kbpsmp3s to be the audible equal of lossless.

In fact, I've lost count of the amount of times (I've long since stopped checking) I've thought 'that's not sounding too tough' and checked the (lossless) rate only to discover it's sub 600kbps. Likewise, I've thought 'this is sounding criss', checked and it's 1000kbps+.

Maybe on a sparse solo piano piece it might matter less? Dunno.

Hi fi loons are the worst people to ask since they are convinced they hear a difference when there isn't one easily detectable in double blind tests.

I've seen these people argue that double blind tests aren't a good way of testing whether something sounds better or not. And say the same kind of things about miracle power cables and the like.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

Well yes. But there is an objectivist camp too.

[thugler]

Well yes. But there is an objectivist camp too.

Whichever camp says 'it immediately sounds obviously different and worse' is just plain wrong

[Famous Mortimer]

Website that actually bothered to do the research as opposed to blaming a young girl for the death of musicians counters some of Lowery's claims:

http://evolver.fm/2012/06/21/david-lowery-might-be-right-about-some-things-but-hes-wrong-about-streaming-money-and-artists/

[Cagey Joe]

Go look at the studies.

Jesus H. Christ, son. I can hear the difference.

I don't know why it bothers you but I won't even speculate on your reasoning.

[NoSleep]

He can't hear it so nobody can. Simple.

I really don't understand his denying the obvious effect in clubs, though. Even he would hear it. And feel it, at that volume. Ridiculous. Disses hifi buffs then declares a difference in quality between club systems and hifi as a reason for it not to be discernable. Go figure.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

Whichever camp says 'it immediately sounds obviously different and worse' is just plain wrong

Sorry, far be it from me to join a pack, but...

The objectivist camp don't say anything as such, besides, 'look at these measurements, graphs, charts, the collective knowledge about human hearing' etc.

[thugler]

He can't hear it so nobody can. Simple.

I really don't understand his denying the obvious effect in clubs, though. Even he would hear it. And feel it, at that volume. Ridiculous. Disses hifi buffs then declares a difference in quality between club systems and hifi as a reason for it not to be discernable. Go figure.

Ive never been in a club where clarity was particularly great, bass and volume certainly.

If it is almost imperceptible most of the time in double blind tests of experts who claim they can tell the difference. Then it's not going to be immediately obvious in a club unless its a poor encode, or low bitrate mp3.

[thugler]

Sorry, far be it from me to join a pack, but...

The objectivist camp don't say anything as such, besides, 'look at these measurements, graphs, charts, the collective knowledge about human hearing' etc.

I've never denied that there is a difference, graphs etc will show this. But in practical terms it's far From being obvious and pretty close to being irrelevant.

[NoSleep]

Ive never been in a club where clarity was particularly great, bass and volume certainly.

If it is almost imperceptible most of the time in double blind tests of experts who claim they can tell the difference. Then it's not going to be immediately obvious in a club unless its a poor encode, or low bitrate mp3.

Double blah-blah. "Experts," etc. Links or it didn't happen.

I have cited actual cases where people have played an mp3 and it has been noticeably thin on bottom end to the point that the audience noticed. This was from mp3 that were sent to the individual as perfectly reasonable sounding versions of their songs, so far as they thought. The club sound system showed otherwise. It is the most significant difference between an mp3 and a lossless file; that it will sound wrong on a large system. Not really interested in hearing you repeat yourself; give us links.

[NoSleep]

I've never denied that there is a difference, graphs etc will show this. But in practical terms it's far From being obvious and pretty close to being irrelevant.

You may not have the hearing or the education to listen properly. Not all ears are equal. I had to train mine for my job. Likewise there are ear training courses. I'm not suggesting you go on one, but don't judge others by your own inability.

[Crabwalk]

Website that actually bothered to do the research as opposed to blaming a young girl for the death of musicians counters some of Lowery's claims:

http://evolver.fm/2012/06/21/david-lowery-might-be-right-about-some-things-but-hes-wrong-about-streaming-money-and-artists/

Or rather 'website agrees with most of his points but argues that Spotify is, in fact, the solution'.

And come on; to claim that he blamed Emily Whats-her-face for Chesnutt and Linkous' deaths is ridiculous. He was pointing out that there have been a string of musicians with decent reputations and followings who have struggled to afford healthcare recently as their income has fallen off a cliff.

[Famous Mortimer]

That's why I said "counters some".

I think there's a very heavy implication in that article that people who don't buy records are to blame for the deaths of those men; and as the article was addressed to one person only...

I present these two stories to you not because I'm pointing fingers or want to shame you. I just want to illustrate that "small" personal decisions have very real consequences, particularly when millions of people make the decision not to compensate artists they supposedly "love".

You can choose to read that however you like, but if he wasn't trying to shame her then he wouldn't have mentioned them. I would think that a much greater cause of their deaths was the complete lack of affordable medical care in the USA; otherwise, British or Canadian musicians in similar financial straits would also be dropping dead left, right and centre. To say that falling album sales was a significant contributor to the death of those men is the ridiculous point. He also claims that Chesnutt and Linkous were more popular than ever before, with zero evidence to back it up - as someone who remembers both when they were still alive, I find that difficult to accept.

Like I said before, when Lowery himself was faced with reduced sales of his records, did he hole up somewhere and kill himself? No, he got another job. I work for the Post Office, and our business is slowly dying, in huge part due to emails and online bill payments. Given that I may lose my livelihood soon, should I go out and shout at the tide, expecting it to turn back, as Lowery is doing here?

Why is iTunes great but Megaupload awful? Both make exactly the same contribution to producing the music they distribute (none at all) and, as the Too Much Joy article I previously linked to shows, it's not like legit music sales places always reimburse their artists.

There are a ton of logical fallacies and bullshit in that article too - the idea that one download = one lost sale is the most egregious one, but there's also the bunch of figures quoted with no link to a source of any kind ("Only the very top tier of musicians make ANY money on the road. And only the 1% of the 1% makes significant money on the road"). The lack of acknowledgement of second-hand sales - if I buy a record off my local market on Sunday am I also contributing to the impoverishment of some musician somewhere?

[thepuffpastryhangman]

To be fair there's a lot of musicians going around saying "Fuck the Post Office." And naturally, any Post Office worker that tries to defend his job is "shouting at the tide". As are all public sector employees, anyone claiming benefits, anyone and everyone that doesn't wholeheartedly embrace 'progress' that sees them utterly fucked over is just a silly Canute.

Doesn't iTunes give money to artists? If you do a job and get paid for it, you'll possibly continue working in that sphere. If you don't get paid, you're less likely to continue working. (Excuse the stating of the fucking obvious there)

I bought a CD today. I nearly went for the £2.42 second hand option (+£1.26 postage = £3.68) but bit the bullet and forked out a full £4.93 (inc. delivery) for the new un. I actually wanted to give the artists a few pence, weird eh.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Music isn't work, music is art.

Even if you disagree with the above- since it became easy to record music and distribute it freely, there has been more music, not less music.

I'm sorry that real life contradicts your view.