Would you pay more for better quality music?

[Orang Utan]

ooh yeah, the persussion isn't as crisp on an MP3

 

[Orang Utan]

I'm a tight bastard though, so I'll still go with mp3s

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I might pay a little bit more for CD quality on the basis of some vague idea that I might want to have a higher quality version at some point, but to be honest I'd never notice the difference.

 

[belboid]

I wouldn't pay for an mp3, if it's good enough, I'll get it on CD, if it's not, well, that's life innit?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

it's more like seeing a really good reproduction rather than a cheap one. the actual painting would be hearing the music live.

I dunno, a studio track is very different to a live one, once you've added all the various production tricks...

Is there really that much difference?

God yeah. The difference is huge

What would you play the studio master quality version with, anyway? Would you not need special playback equipment?

Well, something like Audacity could play back the files, so it wouldn't be difficult for someone to write a dedicated bit of software for playback. You'd need a decent soundcard and speakers to get the benefit though.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

ooh yeah, the persussion isn't as crisp on an MP3

Try something with a lot of bass, that tends to show the differences pretty well.

 

[newme]

Nope, mainly cos I cant get hold of it in the first place on cd anyway, free and on mp3 appears to be the only option, its not a bad compromise. CD's are irritating, they get broken, lost and scratched.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

i realise you meant in terms of sound file quality but i'd pay more not to have the whole manufactured pop industry and improve the quality of the music in an instant!

 

[teuchter]

I dunno, a studio track is very different to a live one, once you've added all the various production tricks...




God yeah. The difference is huge



Well, something like Audacity could play back the files, so it wouldn't be difficult for someone to write a dedicated bit of software for playback. You'd need a decent soundcard and speakers to get the benefit though.

So is there somewhere on the net something recorded at the quality you're talking about, that I could download and play back through audacity, to see what it sounds like?

 

[Riklet]

I can tell the difference between VBR mp3 224-320 ripped at highest quality and CD, but tbh the difference is quite negligible. MP3 does me fine for general listening, although I would much rather have a CD if i'm paying money... mp3 albums I only pay for if it's like 50p-£1 for an album, and i'd rather just nab it free. If I like it, buying the CD seems a lot more appealing generally, or at least buying something off the artists website to fill up the coffers a bit.

I think music is going to move to the direction of artists selling it through their websites or smaller record label websites, and you'll get a greater choice of what you download and how much you pay for it. I know Nine Inch Nails did that at some point; you could choose between the studio files, .WAV and high quality .mp3, and you paid in relation to this. Good idea IMO, everyone's fed up with the artist-fucking, overpriced, technology-fearing record labels...

 

[purplex]

I wouldnt want to pay more I think a variety of encoding rates should be offered, or at least a high quality option.