Re: MP3s etc

["ggull" <ggull>]

> 20 cents per track seems about right for MP3s, since they contain +/- 10% 
> of the information contained on a CD, which in turn still has artificial 
> limits that make it inferior to analogue. That's two steps backward now 
> from the music industry, all in the name of convenience. Has anyone on 
> this list ever compared an MP3 file to a CD (wav file) on a decent stereo? 
> The difference is pretty obvious.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only relict who feels that a buck (USD) to 
download a song is really pushing the price point.  Just can't see myself 
doing it.  Now at $0.20 a pop, I might devote a sawback every now and then 
to getting some dls, hot and trendy or classic cuts, because I know I want 
'em or just to check out.  A buck just to find out the latest buzz is crap 
is over my comfort level.  .

My objection (other than cheapness;-) isn't so much the relative # of bits, 
or quality, relative to a CD, it's the almost cost free distribution model. 
In return for cutting out a lot of middlemen, not producing a mountain of 
physical CDs, packaging, etc, not wasting gas transporting the product all 
over the place, etc, it seems the consumer should get a bit of a break.

A question:  what fidelity (kbps) of mp3's do find obviously 
different/inferior to a standard wave file?  I'm not even sure what's 
standard for a commercial download, but over at archive.org they're 
available in hi and lo fidelity.