I'd imagine bands like only selling 15 songs at a time. 100 songs on an sd card would be expensive not only for the card, but for the songs themselves. I know I wouldn't be willing to buy that for a couple hundred bucks. But then again I've never bought a cd in my life so I wouldn't be a good model for that one.
__________________ Motivation. If a pretty poster and a cute saying are all it takes to motivate you, you probably have a very easy job. The kind robots wil be doing soon.
...MP3 is still a lossy format. Even at 320Kb/s there is loss, it's just a question of whether the loss is perceptible or not.
Technically, even CDA is lossy. Personally, I would not happily pay for a song in a format that is lossy in comparison, but plenty of people do, over itunes and napster, etc.
Originally Posted by Howard2k
Surely could. Or Apple Lossless ;) (but really...)
I've never tried to zip a FLAC file but I imagine there would be virtually no compression. I could be wrong though.
FLAC is tailored to pack audio data, zip uses LZQ compression, a relatively simple scheme, very good for general data, less so for audio in comparison. You might make the file slightly larger by zipping a FLAC, since it is already compressed more than zip. FLAC would probably be favored over Apple ALAC, since some ".mp3" players already support the open .ogg format (FLAC is an .ogg codec).
Technically, even CDA is lossy. Personally, I would not happily pay for a song in a format that is lossy in comparison, but plenty of people do, over itunes and napster, etc.
That's the number one thing that holds me back from places like iTMS or some other online music sties. As much as I come across as an Apple junkie I don't like not being able to choose the bitrate of the songs. 128Kb/s or nothing. What if I want 192Kb/s? Admittedly a large amount of their material is actually encoded from the digital master, not from CD, but still. If I like the music I'd still rather buy on CD and rip. Even if it costs a couple of dollars more.
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
Location: Papenburg, the height of gynecological excellence.
Posts: 8,778
Thanked 163 Times in 142 Posts
What a great read.
It's always nice to see what people thought would happen in the future.
Personally, I don't own a single CD but have an inordinate amount of music and Audio on SD. Whereas Mrs Box still prefers her Tapes and Vinyl. Strangely our ages wouldn't naturally suggest that.
I would much rather purchase the CD not just for the sound quality but are the art work on the cover. Also all the little tid-bits of info in the book on the band.
with all due respect to SonyBMG* the idea was nuts in 2005 and isn't any better now. Flash memory formats keep changing. SD cards are now on the decline as miniSD, microSD, Femto-nano-omg i can't see it without an electron microscopeSD are on the increase. So anyone will end up with a pile of flash cards that they can't use in their new device.
Some of the music companies floated the idea in 2006 and 2007 and we all remember what a great success that was!
CDs are still much cheaper to produce... so people who buy music based on price won't buy sd cards.
CDs usable by the slice of the music playing public that doesn't listen to music mainly on mp3 players. SD is useless to this slice of people.
People who use mp3 players for most of their music tend to get their music as files, either from itunes/amazon/7music/somewhere else on the net.
Ipods make up the biggest single brand on mp3 player and they can't cope with SD cards directly, so any advantage that an sd card may have is useless to them..
So who in their right mind would ever buy one of these things???
*if you know what that means
__________________
You'd have thought that someone would have put a sig here To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
