[Meteo Xavier]

Dude, you're griping about nothing. Artifacts are part of the history of the community. Sometimes people disappear and a quality remix with only 128kbs is all we have of it. It doesn't usually happen all the same. That's life and that's the policy of the higher ups for the website and community. MP3s are fine.

[Neblix]

Originally Posted by soulflay

Which parts?

(Before anyone jumps on me, I’ve heard even a 256 kbps mp3s sounding like this – I’ve just used a low quality version to make the point.)

Right so it's perfectly fine to HIDE potential counter examples and using extreme cases (128kbps) to support his point.

Sometimes. This depends so heavily on the material, the encoder and the codec – you simply can’t make blanket assumptions.

Right, so if you simply can't make blanket assumptions then why are you writing an entire article based on blanket assumptions?

Also, the introduction of the article is like a childish 6th grader trying to write a persuasive essay, hasn't even learned to keep "I" out of articles that are meant to inform. When you start your writing with "I hate mp3" it kinda shows how overblown and opinionated the rest of the article is going to be.

He used nothing but convenient evidence (openly admitting that he's not including other evidence but has "disproved" it himself). Ex: " I’ve heard even a 256 kbps mp3s sounding like this " (link plz? how about you let the readers judge?)

Also

Because people keep saying mp3 sounds great, or “indistinguishable from CD” and it’s just not true.

Uh-huh. Well you see, throughout the entire article he provided no proof for the bolded statement there. Why? He conveniently avoided citing any 320 kbps mp3 files. Oh sure, he said they don't sound good. I should just take his word for it then, huh?


This is what happens when you have a weak argument with only extreme cases as evidence to support your "blanket assumption". You have to try and avoid talking about things that are counter examples. When you do that, it just shows how weak your argument really is. Especially if you actually do talk about counter examples but dismiss them without directly citing them. Making a point isn't as simple as giving out the tid bits of examples that agree with you. Again: " I’ve heard even a 256 kbps mp3s sounding like this "

No, I'm not trying to be that guy. I'm just answering your question.

[Anorax]

A teacher of mine who died young a few years back due to a brain tumor (reeallly young - about 26 I'd say) used to say:

Life Sucks Then You Die

... That's it.
Life sucks. You die.

enjoy the mp3s while they are here. I still don't understand why you are advocating us to STOP using mp3s.

Also, Neblix, you do a very good "that guy" impersonation.

[SonicThHedgog]

This thread is dead, stop fuckin bumpin it. Damn we get the point, its just fucking sound files, its just music.

sheesh.

[Metal Man]

Free audio format... why the fuck bother for a "free" audio format... ?
Mp3 is free to me. VBR powa

[Neblix]

Originally Posted by SonicThHedgog

This thread is dead, stop fuckin bumpin it.

Oh, the irony.

[BONKERS]

Originally Posted by Neblix

Because you get file sizes that are substantially smaller for almost no tradeoff in quality (only audiophiles can hear the difference).

Also, lol at counting opinionated article written by one guy riddled with contradictions as consensus.

I agree.

320Kbs Mp3 is much smaller in size than say a FLAC file.

320kbs MP3's aren't even really that large. Size should only be a problem if you are using a cheap low storage MP3 player or are using MP3 players from years ago that only have small amount of storage.


Next to VBR (and OGG)320Kbs MP3's is the best way to go imho for audio quality/Storage tradeoffs. Sure it's a known fact that down at the basic level 320Kbs is not lossless and there IS information loss. But, audible? I don't hear it.
But If you can tell me now, that you can hear an significant audible difference between this.


A Lossless .Wav of one of my songs recorded @24-bit downsampled to 16-bit for the .Wav
http://kiwi6.com/file/3r60o4j5rq
And this
320Kbs MP3
http://kiwi6.com/file/g67g2jk657
Then you are full of shit

Originally Posted by Metal Man

Free audio format... why the fuck bother for a "free" audio format... ?
Mp3 is free to me. VBR powa

I think the OP's intent was merely as he said "This, in order to support the campaign and to have a free and high quality audio format in which we can rely on, with no patent issues or particular owners."

With MP3 when you use it commercially you have to pay licensing fees depending on several factors.

THIS, is why you RIP the Music/audio from MANY modern PC games. You will find .OGG format music files.



Still, there really isn't much point for a place like OCR to use .OGG anyways because OCR is not selling music commercially. Or anything remotely like it.

[Metal Man]

Originally Posted by Neblix

Oh, the irony.

Just brought it back so you could talk

BONKERS thanks for the info, I didn't know you had to pay fees (selling on iTunes comes to mind). But to who ?

[zircon]

The licensing fees with MP3 only come into play for commercial applications, not individual artists distributing their stuff. In theory, anything that does MP3 decoding and encoding requires a license fee. Also, I thought iTunes didn't use MP3, but it's own format (AAC) to avoid this (and other) issue(s).

[soulflay]

Originally Posted by zircon

The licensing fees with MP3 only come into play for commercial applications, not individual artists distributing their stuff. In theory, anything that does MP3 decoding and encoding requires a license fee. Also, I thought iTunes didn't use MP3, but it's own format (AAC) to avoid this (and other) issue(s).

itunes will encode to aac by default but it can play mp3, at least last time I tried. It's a terrible program.

I'd just like to say one more thing. You could insist people use lame and encode with the tags -h (higher quality) and insist on -V 1 (I say this because I see you are now accepting VBR 1)