[dazzerfong]

  I agree on the requirement  that all versions are from the same master .
 
I agree on the bandwidth - in that light, MP3s can be the costliest way to buy music.
 
From your response regarding the "price" of musicians is clear that you do not have a clue how that goes. Whenever a live microphone is on stage, "wages" of musicians go up by at least 30 % - by their contract, union rules - you name it. And one way of recuperating the costs of recording, and I mean NEW recording, is by selling it in various qualities. Sorry, DSD128 and MP3 can not cost the same - despite the fact that additional work is required for converting the DSD128 to anything else.
 
This consumerism has made the price of the musicianship almost invisible. At least with re-releases of re-releases. It is one hell less expensive to re-release some famous recording from the past every sparrow knows is "good, reference playing" - than releasing a new recording of a local band playing the music of living composers. Not to mention famous musicians playing the music of living composers - do you have any idea how much these rights cost ? Short answer - enough for the most to avoid recording new music - at all. It was so for Bolero from Ravel - not before 75 years have passed from the composer's death ... (if you could not afford the performing rights). 
 
Technical side - whatever it is - costs the least. Or USED to cost the least - prior to hirez. If you really want hirez, it means the change of - almost everything. Faster microphones, faster electronics, faster recorders - which have to be bought new, they can not be  part of "heritage" that was "amortized" long ago. In short, it costs dearly. And has to be reflected in price of the recordings to the public.
 
Yet, it is the only tangible differentiation by which a"front row" and "back seat" "tickets" can be sold. It is the only leverage that can be used to recoup the costs of recording - and new recordings will always be pricier than the older ones. Despite if being on MP3...

Of course recording takes up a large majority of a musician's income. Hell, it's worse in Europe, where they subside off recordings even more than normal (if you believe Naxos, that is, and I do). Problem is, I highly doubt each album takes approximately the same amount of money to produce, yet most albums, when new, are priced the same (niche and exclusives notwithstanding). Who pockets this money? If you say the musicians, I'm calling your BS, because you and I both know the producers take the rest.
 
MP3 should be the cheapest, not the most expensive, considering if it's going up against hi-res formats, it's the smallest, and if it's up against CD's, there's no physical medium.
 
Now, back to claims on CD mats and all of it. You're not getting away that easily.

 

[analogsurviver]

 
Of course recording takes up a large majority of a musician's income. Hell, it's worse in Europe, where they subside off recordings even more than normal (if you believe Naxos, that is, and I do). Problem is, I highly doubt each album takes approximately the same amount of money to produce, yet most albums, when new, are priced the same (niche and exclusives notwithstanding). Who pockets this money? If you say the musicians, I'm calling your BS, because you and I both know the producers take the rest.
 
MP3 should be the cheapest, not the most expensive, considering if it's going up against hi-res formats, it's the smallest, and if it's up against CD's, there's no physical medium.
 
Now, back to claims on CD mats and all of it. You're not getting away that easily.

Of course producers also have to be paid. As much as I hate to say it, but without them, almost nothing would get recorded and released. And they know it ...
 
Correction - I meant MP3s can be the most expensive per amount of data - not in the actual amount of money.
 
No problems, I am selecting the CDs to be ripped for you all to listen/compare/whatever - and I will get in the evening the CD of choice from my friend to listen to 10 rips of it, 5 with and five without the mat. I have absolutely no intention to get away with it - on the contrary !

 

[dazzerfong]

  Of course producers also have to be paid. As much as I hate to say it, but without them, almost nothing would get recorded and released. And they know it ...
 
Correction - I meant MP3s can be the most expensive per amount of data - not in the actual amount of money.
 
No problems, I am selecting the CDs to be ripped for you all to listen/compare/whatever - and I will get in the evening the CD of choice from my friend to listen to 10 rips of it, 5 with and five without the mat. I have absolutely no intention to get away with it - on the contrary !

I gotta admire your tenacity, mate, despite our differences. Stick to what you believe is right.
 
Also, producers: can't live with them, can't live without them.

 

[analogsurviver]

  I gotta admire your tenacity, mate, despite our differences. Stick to what you believe is right.
 
Also, producers: can't live with them, can't live without them.

If I were not sticking to what I believe in, I would still be selling (ever worse recorded by others...) CDs ...
 
I agree regarding the producers - and Sunny side of the Alps IS - in the Europe.

 

[davidsh]

[@=/u/335227/analogsurviver]@analogsurviver[/@]I'd love to see ABX results comparing 44.1/16 and 192/24

Why not ? 

Would comparing 192/24 and 44.1/16, both converted from the DSD128 with the use of the Audiogate 3, be good for you ? 

Sure it would, would make your claims more believable

 

[Opportunist]

This tread has turned into a "dialogue" between analogsurviver and various people who mistakenly believe that answering his posts will bring matters forward. By this point, I for one have had more than enough.

 

[James-uk]

This tread has turned into a "dialogue" between analogsurviver and various people who mistakenly believe that answering his posts will bring matters forward. By this point, I for one have had more than enough.

I agree. It's exhausting ! His posting is beyond any form of logic or rationality . I Think he needs help.

 

[MacacoDoSom]

I agree. It's exhausting ! His posting is beyond any form of logic or rationality . I Think he needs help.

 

 

[MacacoDoSom]

Hi ANALOGUESURVIVER this is a good one for you...
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/702404/philips-golden-ears-challenge

 

[StanD]

  This tread has turned into a "dialogue" between analogsurviver and various people who mistakenly believe that answering his posts will bring matters forward. By this point, I for one have had more than enough.

I was hoping his hands would develop a cramp and he'd stop.

 

[bufferoverflow]

   
  Sure the hires version takes up a bit more space on their server, and a bit more bandwidth for the user to download but today is not 15 years ago and that's not much of an issue.  Bandcamp will let you buy and download any album in any format you want (MP3v0, MP3 320kbps CBR, FLAC, ALAC, or Vorbis) for the same price and that price can be as low as $1.  I've bought several albums from there and download FLAC files which surprisingly turned out to be 24/44 and they don't even tell beforehand, let alone brag.

4x the filesize, and therefore 4x more bandwidth, is hardly "a bit more", is it ?
And remember, for the outfits selling this, we are talking upstream bandwidth .
Even in the Nordic countries upstream is (a lot) more expensive than downstream bandwidth .
So, if a outfit sells it all for the same price : Lowrez-customers are paying the bandwidth-bill for high-rez customers .
That can hardly be called 'fair pricing', can it ?
 
(Yet another clear-cut example of how unfounded audioholic nonsense is harmful IMHO)

 

[lamode]

  4x the filesize, and therefore 4x more bandwidth, is hardly "a bit more", is it ?
And remember, for the outfits selling this, we are talking upstream bandwidth .
Even in the Nordic countries upstream is (a lot) more expensive than downstream bandwidth .
So, if a outfit sells it all for the same price : Lowrez-customers are paying the bandwidth-bill for high-rez customers .
That can hardly be called 'fair pricing', can it ?
 
(Yet another clear-cut example of how unfounded audioholic nonsense is harmful IMHO)

 
Technically true but irrelevant, as the bandwidth costs may be $0.001 for an MP3 and $0.004 for a FLAC (for example). The bandwidth costs is insignificant compared to the product cost.

 

[dprimary]

  There is no way of denying SACD (DSD64) came into being and distribution as a direct consequence of the fact that CDs were and are being illegally copied. On massive scale. I wonder what you would do, in case that the work of your profession could be downloaded illegally free or copied from CDs without any financial compensation - would you endorse it ? Something had to be done - and it did work for a while, at least what it did was to stop making of illegal copies for a while.
 
I did get to see how sales of CDs plummeted the minute CD recorders became available - and even more when it was possible to do it with computers. I was working in CD retail at the time - and you would not believe how many "customers" were returning or at least trying to return the "defective" CD the next day after the purchase.  
After being copied, illegally, of course. In how many copies? Enough for the new arrivals that should sell reasonably well to linger on the shelves , sometimes long enough to have to be put on sale after a while. 
 
 

The biggest mistake the industry ever did was destroy Napster, I never discovered more music or bought more then that period. Most of it was encoded at 128 using winamp which was a horrible encoder. But I was able to find large amounts of new things and then I would buy a CD.
I quickly set up a server in our office and put most of our catalog on it. You could tell any our stuff because it was encoded at 160 to 192 depending on what I decided was an acceptable quality loss vs file size and we used professional encoders that did multi pass VBR to give much higher quality, though it took 3-4 hours to encode an album. Soon I was hosting friends' catalogs as well. A completely legal Napster server. 
 
The industry itself has stolen more from me in physical media, then pirated downloads cost me. A lost digital sell is much cheaper to lose then cases of CD's that distribution did not pay for.
How Tower Record ever became so big was always a mystery, every statement I they ever sent me was worry. Often it had albums from a different label.
 
 
Distribution costs would have been close to zero you just needed a seed server. Then release higher quality encodings and charge about $.25 a song which would cover royalties.  Bring the costs down that is not worth your time to steal it. The record industry is about the most inefficient  industry in the world.
 
 
I have designs copied all the time. I can tell when the people copying, can't explain why they have certain feature in the design that was put in for an exact situation that does exist elsewhere. I worry more about running out of time. Unless you want to spent ALL your time suing people you can't protect it. At best you slow it down. It is better just to keep coming up with new ideas.

 

[bufferoverflow]

No it isn't insignificant - Because, as a previous poster stated :
The original master IS already "high-res" so you don't really need to do anything but put in on the server .
Nonetheless, the costs for storage are 4 times as high, as are the bandwidth-costs .
Imagine a top-10 hit that sells in the millions - well, You do the math ...
 
EDIT : But either way, it's STILL a lot cheaper than having to distribute a physical media world-wide ....

 

[maverickronin]

  4x the filesize, and therefore 4x more bandwidth, is hardly "a bit more", is it ?
And remember, for the outfits selling this, we are talking upstream bandwidth .
Even in the Nordic countries upstream is (a lot) more expensive than downstream bandwidth .
So, if a outfit sells it all for the same price : Lowrez-customers are paying the bandwidth-bill for high-rez customers .
That can hardly be called 'fair pricing', can it ?
 
(Yet another clear-cut example of how unfounded audioholic nonsense is harmful IMHO)

 
This kind of nonsense is definitely harmful, but not in that way.  Like lamode said, 4x almost nothing is still almost nothing.
 

  Technically true but irrelevant, as the bandwidth costs may be $0.001 for an MP3 and $0.004 for a FLAC (for example). The bandwidth costs is insignificant compared to the product cost.

 
It's not like these kind of places are being hosted out of someone's basement.  You get server space near a backbone where bandwidth is cheaper and if you're really huge contract out to a CDN.  Selling downloads is pretty much all markup anyway.  The marginal cost of each new download is only the bandwidth cost.  When people you don't know any better are being bilked into paying double or triple for something that doesn't sound any different to human ears a few extra pennies for people who buy standard definition downloads is the least of my worries.