[forkimified]

Mp3s generally sound like garbage. I use them to test out music before i buy the CD (or vinyl [for some reason, I like vinyl for things like Earth, Sunn O))), Sleep, etc...]).

But that's prob. just because I've gotten used to having good-quality headphones and stereos around.

[debradarko]

thanks, i downloaded switch and converted them

[atari 2600]

You deserved some flak, but got nary any. Glad you're all sorted now. I'm sure that somewhere, Josh Coalson and Bram Cohen are proud.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

You deserved some flak, but got nary any. Glad you're all sorted now. I'm sure that somewhere, Josh Coalson and Bram Cohen are proud.

Hey, when did you get a sense of humour???!!!

Welcome to the club.

[atari 2600]

Dionne Warwick's Psychic Friends Network club?

I hear Roberta Flack is a member.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

Dionne Warwick's Psychic Friends Network club?

I hear Roberta Flack is a member.

You're cooking on gas now.

I could kiss you.

[sobriquet]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

that or more likely the continuing cheapening of both storage & bandwidth, which will make file size irrelevant, just like one doesn't think of the file size of word documents these days.

When that does happen people will end up with big lossy files or big lossless files. Personally I would choose the latter, being that the result would be closer to PCM, providing that these bandwidth/storage increases don't scrub out the need for such lossy/lossless codecs totally of course.Personally I don't see that happening for a long time.It's cheaper and more efficient to deliver via compression. For the likes of TV for example where bandwidth is more of an issue, then codecs will probably always be needed.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by sobriquet

When that does happen people will end up with big lossy files or big lossless files. Personally I would choose the latter, being that the result would be closer to PCM, providing that these bandwidth/storage increases don't scrub out the need for codecs.Personally I don't see that happening for a long time.It's cheaper and more efficient to deliver via compression. For the likes of TV for example where bandwidth is more of an issue, then codecs will probably always be needed.

ha ha ah ha.

do you remember the days of the 2400 modem?? (probably not-- it was around, oh, 1991?) anyway, now i get 6mbps downloads for peanuts. usb2 killed usb1. 2GB jump drives? and now we have 64GB solid state hard drives, how long until they are so cheap you can have one on your keychain?

sure bandwidth with always be an issue, but a lot less of an issue as technology evolves-- detail-rich virtual environments are going to be the next "online thing"-- im not talking star trek shit, just-- where does the 3D movie with 7.1 audio go next?

uncompressed 1080i HD video is about 600GB/hour. what travels through satellite/cable/blueray is very compressed. but technology catches up with those things.

re: audio-- i'm waiting for 24-bit audio to become widespread... SACD is sort of an esoteric format, and not a lot of titles are available. i want the digital equivalent of vinyl-- no, better even-- the digital equivalent of live music. oh yummy. instead we have crap sound for tin ears. where did we go wrong? fuckers...

[ZEROpumpkins]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

uncompressed 1080i HD video is about 600GB/hour. what travels through satellite/cable/blueray is very compressed. but technology catches up with those things.

Holy crap!!!

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by ZEROpumpkins

Holy crap!!!

ok, more accurately

http://www.digitalservicestation.com/tips_tricks.html

notice 4:4:4 reaches 840GB/h

and that doesn't include 1080p which is int he works and ultra-high-definition is being researched.

and digital cinema 2K/4K-- the bandwidth for that alone is something around 1.2GB/s i think

o yea.

[ZEROpumpkins]

MORE Holy Crap