Re: DRM at 23 kbps

On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:03:58 +0000, Richard Evans wrote:

seani wrote:
On 23 May, 15:20, Richard Evans <R.P.Evans.NoS...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sean Inglis wrote:
The code is displayed on the download page next to the box where you type
it.
Thanks.
Got it now :)

Or bearing in mind the way it actually sounds, should that be
Got it now :(

If that is what he calls good quality, I wouldn't like to hear something
he considers bad.



It's all subjective though, and dependent on context. I'd happily
listen to that in the garden or doing a bit of wallpapering, or
whatever.
Well I find that hard to believe.

Meaning what? That you don't believe it's my genuine opinion, and I'm
saying it to be contrary?

I suppose you could say that different people hear different things, but
I still find it hard to believe that people could enjoy something that
sounds that bad.

If I was doing wallpapering etc. with something like that in the back
ground, I would probably find it very detracting and it would just bug
me to the point where I can not concentrate on what I'm doing unless I
shut it off.

People happily listen to audio quality that may be considered dire by
someone else. They listen "happily" because it provokes an emotional or
intellectual response in some way, and this reaction transcends the
limitations of the format. My immediate genuine reaction when
hearing "Kaleigh" on the first example was "ooh, I haven't heard this in a
long time" not "that sound a bit watery".

You only have to listen to the
cheap, knackered, tinny radios used in the majority of cases
to realise this is what happens. Dissecting quality in this way just isn't
something that enters the heads of the majority of people. Compared to the
emotional side of the equation, it just *doesn't matter*.


I'd probably steer clear if I wanted to sit and appreciate a favourite
piece of music. Horses for courses, and it isn't a simple case to
decide which use of the resource is more worthy.

What I *did* find eye-watering is the price of the current DRM
receivers. I quite fancy that Morphy Richards job, but I'm not paying
anywhere near £150 for it.

For me, I couldn't consider DRM to be anything more than a toy to
experiment with, and I wouldn't pay £150 for a toy.

Sorry but I find that recording sounded absolutely dire.


You know that particular final sentence is structured in an irritating,
affected and regrettably familiar way. It doesn't work for him, and it
doesn't work for you.

I'm not having a pop particularly, it's just a shame this "infection"
seems to have taken hold.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AM stereo
    ... It has DRM! ... it manages to sound even ... >>> worse than DAB. ... That is shite audio quality. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Windows Vista - worst OS yet?
    ... quality A/V content copying and theft, ... of high quality A/V content. ... Smart pirates will filter such identification ... While newer DRM encryption schemes will refuse to play back on ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: (possibly OT) DRM (opin ion from the NY Times)
    ... low quality compressed files being billed as equal to CD sound quality, ... sound quality, but I pay for someone else to still have control over what ... DRM scheme. ... or any other DRM based subscription service. ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)
  • Re: Damn you, FEDEX! or Nikon D40 lost in Springfield, MO blackhole.
    ... the 2 mp Mavica he had been using with a Nikon D40. ... After shopping around, he got me to order one for him. ... The shipper had it insured, but from what I have read it could take weeks to sort this crap out. ... You may get your insurance from FedEx and a couple weeks later they find it and deliver it. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: OT: Musical Devices
    ... >MP3, but that will reduce quality and is an extra step. ... recording sofware to record the sound card buffer. ... EXACT binary copy of the sample that has no DRM. ...
    (alt.mountain-bike)
Loading