|
Post by Chuck on Aug 19, 2007 14:24:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Krista on Aug 19, 2007 20:39:18 GMT -5
Wooooooooooooooooooo!
I thought they were younger than that, where have I been? Oh right, I was borin in 1989.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Aug 19, 2007 20:59:24 GMT -5
For me, the portability of cds makes them my every day choice, even if vinyl sounds better.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Beaumont on Aug 20, 2007 15:24:14 GMT -5
Yeah, vinyl is only for those who want to sit in their house and listen to the music. For those on the move, the CD is a big help. Can't say I use them much anymore, though. Digital is just heaps more convenient, even if the naughty, evil compression makes it impure. As long as it's listenable, I'll take it.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Aug 20, 2007 17:19:45 GMT -5
I'm one of the few who hasn't really switched to digital. I can play my songs on my cell phone, but I don't even have a real mp3 player. I use cds in my car, and I've only downloaded ~5 songs that I don't have on cd. I just don't trust my all-digital music to stay around.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Beaumont on Aug 20, 2007 21:59:49 GMT -5
I never buy music in digital form.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Aug 21, 2007 17:36:01 GMT -5
I'm one of the few who hasn't really switched to digital. I can play my songs on my cell phone, but I don't even have a real mp3 player. I use cds in my car, and I've only downloaded ~5 songs that I don't have on cd. I just don't trust my all-digital music to stay around. Uh, CDs are digital.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Aug 21, 2007 17:39:37 GMT -5
I was thinking about that earlier, awhile after I posted. What I was trying to distinguish was music in a hard copy (i.e., a cd) vs. music that I purchase online. I thought that Hugh Beaumont was changing the subject to downloadable music specifically.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Aug 21, 2007 17:58:21 GMT -5
I think some of you are not distinguishing digital from compressed, lossy formats. CDs are digital. If you want non-digital (analog), then stick with vinyl and tape. I'd love to be a crusty old analog dog but digital is here to stay. However I do have little to do with lossy formats like mp3. Many people think it is just as good as WAV or CDs but it isn't. And for those of you who can't hear the difference that doesn't mean it isn't there, because it is. It's a fact.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Beaumont on Aug 21, 2007 18:31:34 GMT -5
I was thinking about that earlier, awhile after I posted. What I was trying to distinguish was music in a hard copy (i.e., a cd) vs. music that I purchase online. I thought that Hugh Beaumont was changing the subject to downloadable music specifically. Well, I was using the modern, common meaning of "digital music," as in mp3 and aac and wxyz and all those file-types. I couldn't think of another general term for it. And I have no doubt that mp3s are of lower quality than CDs. Not that it really matters, these days. The way they produce records anymore, the levels all sound like poopie anyway. As I said, though, as long as it's of listenable quality and it's convenient, I'll take any format. I'm more concerned about the quality of the musical work itself.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on Aug 21, 2007 19:48:52 GMT -5
Well, I was using the modern, common meaning of "digital music," as in mp3 and aac and wxyz and all those file-types. I couldn't think of another general term for it. The term you're looking for is "lossy", because that's what they are. And yes, it is a technical term.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Beaumont on Aug 21, 2007 21:27:00 GMT -5
I know the term, but that's not what I was looking for. A negative aspect of the medium isn't really a name for the medium. "Digital music," or "digital downloads" (which is kind of redundant), are the proper terms, now that I think about it. Anyway, that's all semantics. We're in agreement, for the most part.
|
|