DRM-free Pumpkins and FLAC Radiohead

[greedo]

I just noticed that the Zune marketplace is selling DRM-free Pumpkins MP3. Cool if you don't mind lossy music...MP3 is more universal than the iTunes Plus AAC.

Also, that British site that is selling American Gothic has an ad for Radiohead's In Rainbows in FLAC format ('deluxe' I think they are calling it). It's more expensive than the 320kbps MP3, but it looks like a positive step towards places offering lossless digital downloads, which is a good thing.

I'd still rather buy the CD and rip it to lossless WMA though.

If iTunes started offering FLAC (they'd probably use their own lossless format though - Apple Lossless) it would be interesting to see how many people would buy it.

[redbull]

Originally Posted by greedo

lossless WMA

[TheMilstead]

Originally Posted by greedo

I'd still rather buy the CD and rip it to lossless WMA though.

Guys, I can't tell if he's joking.

[Future Boy]

mp3 debate

[greedo]

Originally Posted by TheMilstead

Guys, I can't tell if he's joking.

Why would I be joking?

WMA lossless is the only lossless format my MP3 player can play (Zune) and lossless WMA also plays nicer with my Windows Vista media center (e.g. FLAC will only work with an added plugin and even then it doesn't let you ffwd, rwnd the songs, and it tends not to pick up changes to tags without rescanning the whole library).

Also, WMA is more efficient, so for every lossless CD or concert I save about 50MB over the FLAC version. Even more if I convert from SHN.

And as far as sound quality goes, lossless is lossless.

[T&T]

i won't support anything less then 24/192
even I can hear the difference between a Flac and a Silver CD!

[<sp3]

Zunes are stupid pieces of shit

[jm9843]

Originally Posted by greedo

Why would I be joking?

WMA lossless is the only lossless format my MP3 player can play (Zune) and lossless WMA also plays nicer with my Windows Vista media center (e.g. FLAC will only work with an added plugin and even then it doesn't let you ffwd, rwnd the songs, and it tends not to pick up changes to tags without rescanning the whole library).

Also, WMA is more efficient, so for every lossless CD or concert I save about 50MB over the FLAC version. Even more if I convert from SHN.

And as far as sound quality goes, lossless is lossless.

You forgot that WMA lossless also has better tagging support than FLAC.

Agreed overall, WMAL just has a bad rep because it comes from Redmond.

[greedo]

Originally Posted by jm9843

You forgot that WMA lossless also has better tagging support than FLAC.

Agreed overall, WMAL just has a bad rep because it comes from Redmond.

I think FLAC tag support is pretty good - I could usually get it to work well, but I was under the impression the tags are some kind of unofficial extension of the format.

Either way I tend to use Microsoft products so naturally WMA works best for me.

Originally Posted by

Zunes are stupid pieces of shit

In what way? What device is better?

My Zune has a nice, large screen to watch video (mostly podcasts or music vids - I wouldn't want to watch a movie on it).

It supports the three formats all my music is in (WMA lossless, MP3, AAC - I have a few tracks from iTunes Plus).

It has wireless sync ability, which is useful. It also lets me swap songs and podcasts with the two other Zune owners I know (they are not for sale in my country).

I have a Zune card (like Last.FM but with album covers and info about favourites, etc. Can be used in websites or stuff like Facebook as well as the Zune site).

Sound quality is better than any other MP3 player I've owned.

I can sync recorded TV directly from my media centre PC to my Zune.

I like that I can customise the background image on the Zune.

The interface with little album covers is nice to look at and very intuitive.

The Zune software is nice - much better than iTunes, at least on a Windows PC.

Podcast support is really good - separate from music and the zune remembers where I stopped listening to a podcast whether I listened to it on the PC or the Zune and will resume from that place next time I play it.

I also like the brown colour of mine and the overall design. It's understated and robust.

The only issue I have with it is the lack of support for other file formats, but I also like the simplicity of using only a few codecs.

It's also nice that Microsoft upgraded the firmware on the old model to have the same features as the new Zunes - very good customer service.

I assume your opinion on the Zune comes not from actually using one but from some religious-dogmatic dislike for Microsoft.

[Sebastian]

Originally Posted by greedo

Why would I be joking?

WMA lossless is the only lossless format my MP3 player can play (Zune) and lossless WMA also plays nicer with my Windows Vista media center (e.g. FLAC will only work with an added plugin and even then it doesn't let you ffwd, rwnd the songs, and it tends not to pick up changes to tags without rescanning the whole library).

Apparently Vista ist just a big failure. But that's not the FLAC format's fault. Why would you want that DRM-locked-down piece of shit software as a "media center" anyway? Do you like to be controlled by big and evil corporations?

Originally Posted by greedo

I think FLAC tag support is pretty good - I could usually get it to work well, but I was under the impression the tags are some kind of unofficial extension of the format.

Having actually read the FLAC format specification, I can assure you FLAC has native support for ogg vorbis type comments (tags). This is by far better than the ID3 shit the MP3 format uses because you can just add your custom tags if you want.

[cork_soaker]

you can bitch, you can cry, you can moan

[cork_soaker]

but let's rock

[greedo]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

Apparently Vista ist just a big failure. But that's not the FLAC format's fault. Why would you want that DRM-locked-down piece of shit software as a "media center" anyway? Do you like to be controlled by big and evil corporations?

Let's not let facts get in the way!

Vista is the 2nd most used operating system in the world a year after launching. It already has tens of millions more users than Linux or Mac Os and will overtake Windows XP within a couple of years. It is incredibly stable compared to previous Windows versions, and most issues that people have had are the fault of hardware and software vendors not making their products compatible with features that they have known will be implemented since Windows XP. That and the fact that they make more money if they don't update drivers forcing customers to buy the latest hardware.

Vista is only a failure in people's imaginations, and those people are the ones who generally have no intention of ever using it but feel a need to cut down a tall poppy. For an OS that needs to run on limitless hardware and software permutations, it is a wonder that it works at all...even more impressive that it doesn't crash on systems where the hardware manufacturers have written proper drivers and it outperforms its predecessor while having more features (though in some areas Vista is slower than XP by a fraction in some setups, particularly outdated hardware).

Vista has no DRM issues whatsoever. I'm assuming you're refering to that nonsense that was dragged up about a year ago that has since been proven to be nonsense (regarding Blu-Ray, HDMI, etc.), so I won't go into it here. You can read about it on any real tech-related website. Vista has the technical ability to play Blu-Ray and HD-DVD legally - that is all.

DRM on any system is only an issue if you use DRM-protected content. That is up to the individual. I don't use any content with DRM so I don't have any issues with it. But I like that I have the right to use that material legally if I choose. I hope you're not one of those retards that actually believes that Windows Vista prevents you from using non-DRM-protected media by putting some kind of DRM on it. You're not that stupid are you?

I can rip CDs, record TV, burn recorded digital TV to DVD, watch any video format and play any audio format I like with Vista Media Centre, as well as play games, check the weather, read RSS feeds, check email, watch streaming TV from all over the world, as well as countless other things from my couch with a remote control.

Do some research before making retarded blanket statements that reveal your lack of knowledge about the subject.

Having actually read the FLAC format specification, I can assure you FLAC has native support for ogg vorbis type comments (tags). This is by far better than the ID3 shit the MP3 format uses because you can just add your custom tags if you want.

You can add custom tags to ID3 quite easily. But there are already tags in there for anything I could imagine needing. Most of mine have lyrics which can display in time with the song, album art in high resolution, songwriter, notes, etc. I doubt most people would need anything more.

I'm more concerned that the software and hardware I use can read my tags consistently, which is certainly the case with the software and hardware I use. ..except my Internet radio, which doesn't like lossless WMA, but that doesn't support FLAC at all.

FLAC is an OK format, but the only advantage it has over WMA is that it is not proprietary (well, that's the only advantage I've come across, and it is a worthless one to me). WMA offers better compression and works better with Windows (and doesn't require extra codecs or software), which 95% of the world uses.

[Sebastian]

Originally Posted by greedo

Let's not let facts get in the way!

Good idea!

Vista is the 2nd most used operating system in the world a year after launching.

And that means what exactly? Britney Spears has sold more albums than the Pumpkins. Does that mean her music is any better than the Pumpkins'?

It is incredibly stable compared to previous Windows versions

I don't know if I'm doing anything wrong here, but XP is running very stable here. In fact I can't remember when it has last crashed...

and most issues that people have had are the fault of hardware and software vendors not making their products compatible

The same hardware and software vendors that managed to have their products be 100% compatible with XP? I wonder if this is all just their fault. But it must be, because Microsoft is infallible.

if they don't update drivers forcing customers to buy the latest hardware.

That means nobody would have to buy the latest hardware with XP

Vista is only a failure in people's imaginations, and those people are the ones who generally have no intention of ever using it but feel a need to cut down a tall poppy.

I have actually tried Vista myself (the good thing about being an IT student here is the fact that we get all Microsoft software for free via MSDN). But to be honest, I couldn't stand it. It was really slow compared to XP (most likely due to the heavy use of graphical gadgets that I don't need for work) and the UI changes are horrible.

For an OS that needs to run on limitless hardware and software permutations, it is a wonder that it works at all...even more impressive that it doesn't crash on systems where the hardware manufacturers have written proper drivers

Did you really say that you wonder why it works with proper drivers?

Vista has no DRM issues whatsoever. I'm assuming you're refering to that nonsense that was dragged up about a year ago that has since been proven to be nonsense (regarding Blu-Ray, HDMI, etc.), so I won't go into it here. You can read about it on any real tech-related website. Vista has the technical ability to play Blu-Ray and HD-DVD legally - that is all.

I don't know what "nonsense" you've read but here's what the FSF has to say about it. I think this sums it up quite well...

DRM is enforced by technological barriers. You try to do something, and your computer tells you that you can't. To make this effective, your computer has to be constantly monitoring what you are doing. This constant monitoring uses computing power and memory, and is a large part of the reason why Microsoft is telling you that you have to buy new and more powerful hardware in order to run Vista. They want you to buy new hardware not because you need it, but because your computer needs it in order to be more effective at restricting what you do.

DRM on any system is only an issue if you use DRM-protected content. That is up to the individual. I don't use any content with DRM so I don't have any issues with it. But I like that I have the right to use that material legally if I choose. I hope you're not one of those retards that actually believes that Windows Vista prevents you from using non-DRM-protected media by putting some kind of DRM on it. You're not that stupid are you?

Obviously I am a retard because I don't agree with you. But that aside, no, this is not what I am thinking.

I can rip CDs, record TV, burn recorded digital TV to DVD, watch any video format and play any audio format I like with Vista Media Centre, as well as play games, check the weather, read RSS feeds, check email, watch streaming TV from all over the world, as well as countless other things from my couch with a remote control.

I can do the same things with XP, Mac OS and Linux. So what?

Do some research before making retarded blanket statements that reveal your lack of knowledge about the subject.

Actually I think you're the retard here

You can add custom tags to ID3 quite easily.

That is a violation of the ID3 specification.

But there are already tags in there for anything I could imagine needing.

Of course! Just because you don't need any other tags does mean no one else does.

I'm more concerned that the software and hardware I use can read my tags consistently, which is certainly the case with the software and hardware I use. ..except my Internet radio, which doesn't like lossless WMA, but that doesn't support FLAC at all.

But you're still listening to the music, right? I can't imagine the tags to sound any good...

FLAC is an OK format, but the only advantage it has over WMA is that it is not proprietary (well, that's the only advantage I've come across, and it is a worthless one to me).

What would you think if people just endoded their files in some other proprietary format Vista doesn't understand? Would you be happy with not being able to play such files?

http://badvista.fsf.org/logos/BadVista_no_littering.png

[IWishIWasBlank]

I like Sebastian more and more every time he posts... even if he is a music butcher.

[greedo]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

Good idea!



And that means what exactly? Britney Spears has sold more albums than the Pumpkins. Does that mean her music is any better than the Pumpkins'?

It means that she's successful and not a failure (at least in the past tense).

I don't know if I'm doing anything wrong here, but XP is running very stable here. In fact I can't remember when it has last crashed...

XP is very stable. I had occasional crashes with XP. I have had no Vista crashes on my two machines that I can remember (except for when my wifi card's drivers were not updated initially - I was forced to switch to wired briefly).
[/quote]

The same hardware and software vendors that managed to have their products be 100% compatible with XP? I wonder if this is all just their fault. But it must be, because Microsoft is infallible.

These vendors were 'let off' when XP was released. MS postponed certain features because vendors were not programming their code to be secure at the time XP was being released. MS let them know that when the next version would be released there would be certain restrictions on code, etc.

Vendors didn't update their code in the FIVE YEARS between XP and Vista. Not surprisingly, these vendors then rushed to create 'Vista Compatible' versions of their software...which they often sold as new versions.

If you think MS is to blame for that, I have no idea what is going on in your head.

[/quote]

That means nobody would have to buy the latest hardware with XP

True. But software drives hardware, which drives software.

99% of the world could get by on a PII running Win95.

I have actually tried Vista myself (the good thing about being an IT student here is the fact that we get all Microsoft software for free via MSDN). But to be honest, I couldn't stand it. It was really slow compared to XP (most likely due to the heavy use of graphical gadgets that I don't need for work) and the UI changes are horrible.

Did you try it for long? Most people have that reaction to the UI changes. Then after a learning curve most people seem to like the changes as they really do improve things. I use Win2000 and XP at work and I'm constantly frustrated by tiny little things that are just one or two clicks less hassle in Vista.

Did you really say that you wonder why it works with proper drivers?

I meant that it's a wonder that such a complex bit of software can work well on almost any configuration given that PC builders and vendors don't always stick to standards, etc.

I don't know what "nonsense" you've read but here's what the FSF has to say about it. I think this sums it up quite well...
:
DRM is enforced by technological barriers. You try to do something, and your computer tells you that you can't. To make this effective, your computer has to be constantly monitoring what you are doing. This constant monitoring uses computing power and memory, and is a large part of the reason why Microsoft is telling you that you have to buy new and more powerful hardware in order to run Vista. They want you to buy new hardware not because you need it, but because your computer needs it in order to be more effective at restricting what you do.

I believe they call that FUD. This has been refuted by several reputed tech journalists, such as Ed Bott. He has a great article on his blog where he disproves all of those Vista DRM myths.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299

There is no monitoring. If you play a piece of media that requires a certain codec, then your computer will load that codec (proprietary or not) and then go through the steps to play it (including DRM if you were playing content that requires it).

And how much extra power do you think it takes to implement DRM? A fraction of a percent of a modern CPU.
[/quote]

Obviously I am a retard because I don't agree with you. But that aside, no, this is not what I am thinking.

I'm sure the reason for your being a retard is something entirely unique to you

I can do the same things with XP, Mac OS and Linux. So what?

My point was that there is no DRM feature preventing those tasks or slowing them down.

That is a violation of the ID3 specification.


Of course! Just because you don't need any other tags does mean no one else does.


But you're still listening to the music, right? I can't imagine the tags to sound any good...

Valid points.

Though the music experience is better if I can see the relevant info as I am listening.

I can also edit MP3 and WMA tags from file explorer screen in Windows, including mass changes to a whole folder of tags...so the experience of updating, ripping, etc. is certainly improved.

What would you think if people just endoded their files in some other proprietary format Vista doesn't understand? Would you be happy with not being able to play such files?

I can't see why it would bother me. A lossless format can be easily converted to any other lossless format (takes my laptop about 2 minutes to turn a FLAC Pumpkins concert to WMA).

I am only bothered when DRM restricts me from having content. It is impossible to buy DRM-free music anywhere but iTunes here. But I have the choice to buy or not.

http://badvista.fsf.org/logos/BadVista_no_littering.png

[/quote]

I'll give you benefit of the doubt, but you surely realise that that Bad Vista site is a load of nonsense, right? It's fanboy religious anti-MS garbage.

I really get tired of those Linux fanboys thinking that everyone should use the software THEY want to use. I'm happy to pay for an OS that works and is what I'm used to and that has official support from an actual company with a track record for entertaining me and allowing me to get work done.

That said, I use OpenOffice instead of MS Office because it's 95% as good at an infinitely lower price.

Here's a sample from the first link I clicked on from that page:

* They decide which programs you can and can't use on your computer
* They decide which features of your computer or software you can use at any given moment
* They force you to install new programs even when you don't want to (and, of course, pay for the privilege)
* They restrict your access to certain programs and even to your own data files

4 lies out of 4! Amazing.

Since when can Microsoft stop someone creating a Windows-compatible piece of software? Can they stop me accessing my own files? No. Force me to install and pay for programs I don't want? No, they don't do that. Decide what features I can use? No.

They are possibly talking about Windows having a licence that must be validated within 30 days of installing (which may restrict the software's usage if not done). Big deal.

And they bring up the same lies about DRM that have been disproven. Can't these arse clowns just use whatever software they want and shut up about other brands? I don't like Linux, but I would be very sad if I set up a website to try to convince people it was evil.

[Sebastian]

Originally Posted by IWishIWasBlank

I like Sebastian more and more every time he posts... even if he is a music butcher.

That's not me, the guy in my avatar is the guy who mastered Zeitgeist

[Sebastian]

Oh, an I will not comment on that Vista thing again. I just don't have the time for useless flame wars like these. I guess it's just my personal choice that I want my CPU to be working on the jobs I give it rather than the DRM shit. But I guess that's just my own $0.02.

[greedo]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

Oh, an I will not comment on that Vista thing again. I just don't have the time for useless flame wars like these. I guess it's just my personal choice that I want my CPU to be working on the jobs I give it rather than the DRM shit. But I guess that's just my own $0.02.

Good for you.

But getting technical info about Windows from a site called 'Bad Vista' is like getting science information from a Creationist website.

Read the Ed Bott link I posted if you have a minute. It doesn't say Vista is the second coming, it just points out the truth about DRM and Vista with the facts to back it up.

[T&T]

my 2 cents:
everyone bitched about XP when it came out... but come SP2 (SP3 is in beta for those interested) XP has been super stable

give vista some time and all the drivers will get written & all the bugs will get sorted
as much as I hate the "process" and waiting period It'll be worth it.
vista was a bitch at only 2gb of ram... but at 4gb it runs great
(remember when people ran XP with 256megs of ram? boy was that a slow system)
I'm glad to have the potential to use even more ram...


so no one is gonna challenge my FLAC vs Silver CDs ears?

[The Melty Man]

dude we all know that SP2 is just windows xp with two different band members...

[werideatdusk]

am I the only pumpkins fan who's neither a guitar geek or a hardcore anti-mp3 audiophile?

[T&T]

Originally Posted by werideatdusk

am I the only pumpkins fan who's neither a guitar geek or a hardcore anti-mp3 audiophile?

hardly.

[greedo]

Originally Posted by T&T

my 2 cents:
everyone bitched about XP when it came out... but come SP2 (SP3 is in beta for those interested) XP has been super stable

give vista some time and all the drivers will get written & all the bugs will get sorted
as much as I hate the "process" and waiting period It'll be worth it.
vista was a bitch at only 2gb of ram... but at 4gb it runs great
(remember when people ran XP with 256megs of ram? boy was that a slow system)
I'm glad to have the potential to use even more ram...


so no one is gonna challenge my FLAC vs Silver CDs ears?

My main PC is a laptop with 1GB RAM and was mid-range 18 months ago when I bought it. It runs Vista very well. About the same performance as it had with the preinstalled XP (but more stable and prettier). My other 2GB machine runs VERY fast and also has a pretty low-spec CPU.

I agree with everything you said...then add to that the irrational hatred many people have for Microsoft and you get a lot of anti-Vista sentiment...but I've seen enough people pleasantly surprised by Vista (after hearing it was garbage) that I have no doubt it's a winner.

[IWishIWasBlank]

A kid in my college class was saying he was buying a new 128mb video card.

Mine's still a 16 meg on a Pentium 650.

I have no intention of switching to Vista any time soon. In fact, I think I'll switch back to Win3.11 for Networks.

Edit: I'm not one bit impressed by Vista. Fancy GUI's are meant for video games, not operating systems and programs to get work done.

[yoshinobu's revenge]

i did not read the whole thread but

1. zunes suck and their business model was basically based on apples, except 2 steps behind and facing the wrong way. you have to convert to wma lossless to have lossless? fark.

2. vista sucks almost as bad. if you're MS and you spend this many years and $$ on a new OS to succeed XP and your market penetration is so low and based only on new PC sales, YOU FAILED. it's like... imagine if apple spent 5 years developing a new ipod. they already have a huge market and accessories and market share. at the end of the 5 years you can't buy the older model ipod from the vendors, only the new one. they roll out their whole usual marketing spiel (cos you know they invented thin notebooks in 2008). 1 year later, 75% of people still have the old one. that is failure. your consumers are telling you it is not worth upgrading unless forced to cos it sucks.

PS. i dislike apple. I'm not a MS basher. they just fucked up bigtime with those 2.

[yoshinobu's revenge]

Originally Posted by T&T

so no one is gonna challenge my FLAC vs Silver CDs ears?

are you listening on the same equipment? i assume so cos clearly if you have your CD on a nice CD player straight to a hi-fi setup and FLACs on some built-in motherboard soundcard it's not really a fair comparison. wouldn't you have to have your FLACs played directly by some sort of hardware FLAC player to compare directly?

I thought the point of FLAC is that you can make that silver CD from the FLACs if you want (or shitty m4as for an ipod, or whatever).

[greedo]

Originally Posted by yoshinobu's revenge

i did not read the whole thread but

1. zunes suck and their business model was basically based on apples, except 2 steps behind and facing the wrong way. you have to convert to wma lossless to have lossless? fark.

2. vista sucks almost as bad. if you're MS and you spend this many years and $$ on a new OS to succeed XP and your market penetration is so low and based only on new PC sales, YOU FAILED. it's like... imagine if apple spent 5 years developing a new ipod. they already have a huge market and accessories and market share. at the end of the 5 years you can't buy the older model ipod from the vendors, only the new one. they roll out their whole usual marketing spiel (cos you know they invented thin notebooks in 2008). 1 year later, 75% of people still have the old one. that is failure. your consumers are telling you it is not worth upgrading unless forced to cos it sucks.

PS. i dislike apple. I'm not a MS basher. they just fucked up bigtime with those 2.

You don't present any actual reasons/facts for backing up your dislike for these products.

The Zune is by far the best MP3 player I have ever owned, used or seen. Some of the things I like about it are listed in a previous post in this thread.

Windows Vista is the most stable and usable operating system I have ever used. It's also very good to look at and has some nice extra features (media centre alone is far better than the XP version or the 3rd party ones I have tried and worth the upgrade for my media centre PC).

Despite what you read, nobody is being forced to upgrade anything. An old XP licence will still work on a new PC. XP will not perform as well as Vista on a new PC though. I've not seen a person get a new PC with Vista who didn't end up prefering Vista after a month or so of getting used to the changes.

Vista is only a failure in the minds of Linux and Mac fanboys who are frustrated at their comparatively redundant level of compatibility with 3rd party software and (to a lesser extent) hardware and want the cut down a tall poppy. It really is amazing how many negative reports there are about Vista that are written by people who have obviously not even used it - they are just repeating something their 'l33t haxxor' friend told them.