[Rempert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nautikal /img/forum/go_quote.gif Terrible analogy. Digital music files are intangible and thus record companies do not experience explicit costs when music is pirated. They do, however, experience implied costs, but these are far less than if someone were to actually steal a physical album.

I don't see your point. The real cost of an album is in the costs of hiring the talent, producing the music, and promoting it. The expense of a blank cd, a small piece of glossy paper, and a plastic jewel case is hardly even relevant. If you choose not to pay for the music, you aren't entitled to listen to it. If everyone in the world pirated music in the name of stopping the loudness war, the industry would blame the lost sales on piracy, not any fault in their own processes. And why wouldn't they, when people are still listening to the music?

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nautikal /img/forum/go_quote.gif Terrible analogy. Digital music files are intangible and thus record companies do not experience explicit costs when music is pirated. They do, however, experience implied costs, but these are far less than if someone were to actually steal a physical album.

It's a very sound analogy. You've really confused the issue (pirates always do some form of mental contortion in order to justify something they know is wrong) by splitting hairs over the physicality of the medium. Whether it's a file or something you can put in your hand, the record companies (or artists themselves) have put a lot of money into making it happen. One of the ways they recoup that money is from selling it to consumers. Some sell files, some sell CDs and LPs. When you steal their music, that is one less album they sell, so there is absolutely an explicit cost, as you would otherwise be paying them money for their music.

I really despise music thieves. At least a car thief will admit he's doing something wrong; music thieves think the whole world was created for their well-being.

 

[null_pointer_us]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are no standards and cannot be any standards with dynamic range. Different genres of music and films have different dynamic ranges. A drama is not going to have the same dynamic range as say a war film and a string quartet is not going to have the same dynamic range as a full symphony orchestra. There is a movement within TV to try and standardise the loudness between programs but it's not easy as percieved loudness is not just a function of amplitude, as I mentioned previously. Film sound is designed for cinema sound systems, rather than for home use. Some films are re-mixed for DVD and may employ less dynamic range but not all films have the budget for a separate DVD mix. Digital audio formats for music already provides many orders of magnitude more dynamic range than is required for playback of even the most dynamic music but with many genres it is neccesary to compress the dynamic range so that consumers can hear both the quite passages and the loud passages without having to dive for their volume control. Remember, the industry's focus on loudness as a cash cow was originally created by consumers! G

Actually, when I said "standards," I was thinking more along the lines of some common levels of dynamic ranges (between content producers and device manufacturers) they could shoot for, where the quality would be at least be acceptable, for those of us who expect to find a nice "sweet spot" for the volume knob throughout the movie. In some movies I have to turn the volume up to hear something spoken quietly/whispered, which then makes a sudden scene change where a cannon blast sounds so loud that it's only by luck that my sofa wasn't literally mutilated by the sound waves. Though maybe that's just lousy production? (e.g. lack of needed compression for the sake of lack of compression?) I gather from your 24-bit vs. 16-bit thread there's such a thing as too much dynamic range.

 

[LFF]

I always try to avoid bad mastering.

I usually try to find the best alternative (usually vinyl) and just remaster it myself. Thanks to this, I now have most of my favorite music sounding the way I like.

Compare these (not a Hi-Fi album to begin with):

CD
Vinyl

The CD is brickwalled and just sounds like crap. For a more Hi-Fi comparison, listen to these two:

CD
Vinyl

Here, the CD is mastered much better than most releases today but it has a tape glitch. Not so with the vinyl.

And how about the pitiful condition of some catalogs? Compare these:

CD
Vinyl

That's supposed to be the best CD version too!!

'Nuff said. So, after all that I have learned, I simply don't buy stuff that's poorly mastered. How do I know if it's mastered properly? Well, I look for engineers that I trust like Steve Hoffman, Kevin Gray, Alan Yoshida, Joe Tarantino, Doug Sax, Ron McMaster, Barry Diament, Vic Anesini and up to a point, Bernie Grundman and Bob Ludwig. If the name isn't visible, then I'll research it or simply buy a nice vinyl slab and do it myself.

I haven't purchased a "new" CD in months. All my music money is spent either getting used "vintage" CD pressings or getting vinyl.

 

[nautikal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's a very sound analogy. You've really confused the issue (pirates always do some form of mental contortion in order to justify something they know is wrong) by splitting hairs over the physicality of the medium. Whether it's a file or something you can put in your hand, the record companies (or artists themselves) have put a lot of money into making it happen. One of the ways they recoup that money is from selling it to consumers. Some sell files, some sell CDs and LPs. When you steal their music, that is one less album they sell, so there is absolutely an explicit cost, as you would otherwise be paying them money for their music. I really despise music thieves. At least a car thief will admit he's doing something wrong; music thieves think the whole world was created for their well-being.

No, it is totally different because as I have stated, stealing a physical copy of an album will be recognized as an explicit cost by the record company and/or music store. It will show up on their balance sheet at the end of the accounting period when inventory is taken. When a digital copy of an album is stolen, the costs are implied. The record company has no way of knowing whether someone stole the album and thus it does not directly affect them. The costs are implied and will not appear on the balance sheet. Furthermore, the implied cost of a stolen album is not equal to its retail cost because just because someone pirates an album does not mean they would have purchased it had that been their only option (they may decide to only buy select songs from the album or not buy it at all). This is just basic economics here... explicit vs. implied costs and the effect of prices on demand.

I have no compassion for record companies and would love to see them go bankrupt. They do not care about music as an art as it just a product to them. They have no problem with destroying the artistic values of music as long as they make more money. It is capitalism in its worst light. Their current position of declining sales is their own fault. If the record companies had joined together to make a service such as iTunes they would be enjoying record profits. Instead, they tried to block the internet as a medium of music distribution. Now they are being reduced to nothing more than an extraneous middle man as services such as iTunes have become the main medium of music sales. So no, I don't feel bad when I pirate music instead of lining the pockets of record companies, because that is all you do when you buy an album. Artists make little money from album sales, and I would much rather support them by buying their merchandise, spreading their music, and attending concerts.

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nautikal /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, it is totally different because as I have stated, stealing a physical copy of an album will be recognized as an explicit cost by the record company and/or music store. It will show up on their balance sheet at the end of the accounting period when inventory is taken. When a digital copy of an album is stolen, the costs are implied. The record company has no way of knowing whether someone stole the album and thus it does not directly affect them. The costs are implied and will not appear on the balance sheet. Furthermore, the implied cost of a stolen album is not equal to its retail cost because just because someone pirates an album does not mean they would have purchased it had that been their only option (they may decide to only buy select songs from the album or not buy it at all). This is just basic economics here... explicit vs. implied costs and the effect of prices on demand. I have no compassion for record companies and would love to see them go bankrupt. They do not care about music as an art as it just a product to them. They have no problem with destroying the artistic values of music as long as they make more money. It is capitalism in its worst light. Their current position of declining sales is their own fault. If the record companies had joined together to make a service such as iTunes they would be enjoying record profits. Instead, they tried to block the internet as a medium of music distribution. Now they are being reduced to nothing more than an extraneous middle man as services such as iTunes have become the main medium of music sales. So no, I don't feel bad when I pirate music instead of lining the pockets of record companies, because that is all you do when you buy an album. Artists make little money from album sales, and I would much rather support them by buying their merchandise, spreading their music, and attending concerts.

Yeah, as a musician, nothing makes me happier than people not buying my albums. Way to stick it to the man!

Quit trying to hide behind artistic integrity; it's about as genuine as the stripper who says she's only doing it to put herself through college. This is about your immediate gratification.

 

[haloxt]

All the good music has already been made, who cares about new recordings and the loudness war. As for filesharing, I wouldn't be surprised if someday there's a lawsuit filed by the record industry suing everyone who has ever downloaded music online. I do it because I have no respect for modern musicians, the only music I like are from dead people and they don't need my money where they are (talk about mental contortions, sorry I just had to one-up someone else in this thread).

Seriously speaking now, uncontrollable economic factors have ruined music and other arts, like painting:

with usura
seeth no man Gonzaga his heirs and his concubines
no picture is made to endure nor to live with
but it is made to sell and sell quickly

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Quit trying to hide behind artistic integrity; it's about as genuine as the stripper who says she's only doing it to put herself through college.

I dated a girl who did just that and through her, met others who were doing just that. Perhaps it's more genuine than you think.

 

[haloxt]

Yea, that was mean to say about strippers, and completely untrue if you know anything about strippers. I think earwicker7 and nautikal are both wrong. What we should do is bankrupt record companies AND musicians. The way economy works is like a petridish for the survival of the roachiest. The loudness wars is just one of many spokes in the wheel of greed that continues to destroy music. Averaged out, each independent band selling cd's on cdbaby.com has earned $400. It doesn't seem fair to me that some people are allowed to survive while so many others drown, therefore everyone should drown.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nautikal /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have no compassion for record companies and would love to see them go bankrupt. They do not care about music as an art as it just a product to them. They have no problem with destroying the artistic values of music as long as they make more money. It is capitalism in its worst light. Their current position of declining sales is their own fault. If the record companies had joined together to make a service such as iTunes they would be enjoying record profits. Instead, they tried to block the internet as a medium of music distribution. Now they are being reduced to nothing more than an extraneous middle man as services such as iTunes have become the main medium of music sales. So no, I don't feel bad when I pirate music instead of lining the pockets of record companies, because that is all you do when you buy an album. Artists make little money from album sales, and I would much rather support them by buying their merchandise, spreading their music, and attending concerts.

Oh dear, you really don't have a clue do you. Regardless of what you think of the record companies they do an invaluable job. They finance the making of recordings and albums. It's true that many musicians do not make much money directly from the sales of recordings but indirectly they do, as the recordings help to build awareness and reputation.

It's a simple equation; less income for the labels = less investment in products. Less investment means fewer products and lower quality. If the companies went bust, it is going to have a massive impact on musicians, the recording studios and the professionals who work in them. The audiophiles on this site are going to find just a handful of high quality releases per year, it would be devistating to the whole industry. The ultimate conclusion would be no industry, no professionals, no professional recordings and little point in web sites like this one.

So, your argument is counter productive, illogical, immoral, illegal and a poor, invalid excuse for common theft!

Quote:

Originally Posted by null_pointer_us /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, when I said "standards," I was thinking more along the lines of some common levels of dynamic ranges (between content producers and device manufacturers) they could shoot for, where the quality would be at least be acceptable, for those of us who expect to find a nice "sweet spot" for the volume knob throughout the movie. In some movies I have to turn the volume up to hear something spoken quietly/whispered, which then makes a sudden scene change where a cannon blast sounds so loud that it's only by luck that my sofa wasn't literally mutilated by the sound waves. Though maybe that's just lousy production? (e.g. lack of needed compression for the sake of lack of compression?) I gather from your 24-bit vs. 16-bit thread there's such a thing as too much dynamic range.

What is interesting is that the 16bit standard already has people reaching for their volume control, while others are pushing for 24bit which has a dynamic range several hundred times larger than 16bit!?

The problem with your argument is what you consider to be the "sweet spot". Even as an individual, the sweet spot changes during our lives as our ear drums become less able to adjust to large dynamic ranges. Also, the bigger the listening environment and how it is acoustically treated, will also have a large impact on SQ and dynamic range. Often, the environment has more impact than the speakers and playback equipment installed in the environment. The THX specification attempts to create an acoustical standard between the dubbing stage and the cinema but trying to include home environments is going to be impossible.

I understand what you are asking for and why you are asking for it but it is simply not practically possible at this time and maybe at any time in the future.

G

 

[nautikal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh dear, you really don't have a clue do you. Regardless of what you think of the record companies they do an invaluable job. They finance the making of recordings and albums. It's true that many musicians do not make much money directly from the sales of recordings but indirectly they do, as the recordings help to build awareness and reputation. It's a simple equation; less income for the labels = less investment in products. Less investment means fewer products and lower quality. If the companies went bust, it is going to have a massive impact on musicians, the recording studios and the professionals who work in them. The audiophiles on this site are going to find just a handful of high quality releases per year, it would be devistating to the whole industry. The ultimate conclusion would be no industry, no professionals, no professional recordings and little point in web sites like this one. So, your argument is counter productive, illogical, immoral, illegal and a poor, invalid excuse for common theft!

I started typing out an argument, but then I realized I couldn't explain it any better than this article.

As for my argument in my previous post, how exactly is it illegal? Should I be worried that the FBI is going to come arrest me?

And as I have said many times, piracy is not common theft. In common theft costs are explicit whereas in piracy the costs are implied. Again... just basic economics.

 

[El_Doug]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nautikal /img/forum/go_quote.gif I started typing out an argument, but then I realized how exactly is it illegal? Should I be worried that the FBI is going to come arrest me? And as I have said many times, piracy is not common theft. In common theft costs are explicit whereas in piracy the costs are implied. Again... just basic economics.

Theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's consent. Perhaps youre not familiar with intellectual property?

it's VERY illegal to steal

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Please don't derail this thread by discussing the ethics of p2p music downloads. That's not an appropriate subject for head-fi.

Sticking it to the record companies by downloading the music instead of buying it is ineffective and misguided anyways. No record company is going to look at p2p download figures for their latest release and conclude that some of those numbers are people exercising civil disobedience to protest the Loudness War.

The appropriate action is to not buy the stuff and not to listen to the stuff. Then write the record companies and tell them why you are not buying or listening to their new stuff.

I have yet to actually write a record company or an artist to complain about the loudness war. It's not that I don't care, I'm just lazy. I'll get to it one day soon, I promise. For now I just rant on online forums about it.

 

[nautikal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Doug /img/forum/go_quote.gif Theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's consent. Perhaps youre not familiar with intellectual property? it's VERY illegal to steal

I never said it was legal to pirate music. Yes, I understand it's theft, but its different than actually going in a store and stealing a physical entity. How ****ing difficult is it to understand the difference between implied and explicit costs?

 

[rush340]

I just found out that the loudness war got the better of one of my CDs. I was excited to try out my new sound card, had to mess with the X-Fi settings because it was clipping a little. Got everything sounding great, just had to turn the front l/r volume down a bit and disable the other speakers on the front l/r channel. So all was good... then Icky Thump by the White Stripes came up in the playlist. I noticed some bad clipping in the bass drum; not a smooth distortion, but harsh digital clipping. I immediately went to the sound card control panel. The visualization in the X-Fi control panel was showing output levels in the green; shouldn't be clipping. Maybe something went wrong when I ripped it? I checked my 'sources' and found someone else's rip to check against it. Same thing...

I pulled up a quick google search for "Icky Thump clipping" and there it was on the Wikipedia page. Apparently it's a known problem with that album. They really put it out like this? I have an Auzentech Forte and Grado SR80s, which I would expect to be nothing compared to the monitors/cans they would be using in a professional studio... They would have to be deaf not to hear this. Luckily, I found out that someone with ears mixed it for vinyl, and I was able to find a rip of that. Sounds soooo much better. I literally could not listen to the CD version for more than a few seconds. I guess I never noticed it before through my old super cheap stereo, but with just my new card and my grados, the clipping was painfully clear.

I've heard of the compression and loss of dynamics due to the loudness war, but not to the point of obvious clipping by exceeding the limitations of the format.