Jump to content

DCI CD's no longer available?


Recommended Posts

Thanks! I know, I just hate that Apple has spear headed it.... I have an iPhone and an Android. Both of them use AAC, but .mp3 seems like a more pure format, as I haven't come across a DRMed mp3 file, but I HAVE come across a DRM AAC file... Apple likes to embed personal information into their DRM-free AAC files... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/05/apples-drm-free-aac-files-contain-more-just-names-and-email-addresses

So, yea, I'll take the more open and generic format every day! tongue.gif

Every flavor of ACC is of a higher quality than every flavor of mp3. ACC is a lossless codec, mp3 isn't. So, no, mp3 is by no means a "pure" format.

Also, the Apple-bashers seem to be trying to revise history. ACCs in iTunes only had DRM originally because the record companies insisted on it. Steve Jobs and Apple fought hard (and eventually won out) to see that DRM went the way of the dodo.

Finally, anyone who thinks CDs don't degrade over time is crazy. i'm glad DCI isn't dumping more money into the CD money pit. If the Luddites don't want to move on, it certainly is no fault of DCI. if anything, I wish DCI would drop exclusivity on the Fan Netowrk and put the audio archive on iTunes. I guarantee you they'd more than make up for the profit loss per item with a big spike in volume sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks! I know, I just hate that Apple has spear headed it.... I have an iPhone and an Android. Both of them use AAC, but .mp3 seems like a more pure format, as I haven't come across a DRMed mp3 file, but I HAVE come across a DRM AAC file... Apple likes to embed personal information into their DRM-free AAC files... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/05/apples-drm-free-aac-files-contain-more-just-names-and-email-addresses

So, yea, I'll take the more open and generic format every day! tongue.gif

AAC files can't be DRM'ed. Apple used to wrap AAC in a container format that did have DRM. AAC is just as much an open standard as MP3. (And was spearheaded by the same standards group, not Apple) It's also entirely possible to embed identifying info in MP3 metadata, even though it's not commonly done.

Not trying to derail, just correcting misinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of things...

Firstly, I noticed on ebay there are hundreds of old recordings (on CD) for sale featuring corps from a bygone era. Most I've never heard of but I'm sure lots of you will have.

Secondly, reffering to another topic I started about DCI making money from older discontinued products... why don't they make these CDs available for download e.g. the echos CDs?

I'd buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every flavor of ACC is of a higher quality than every flavor of mp3. ACC is a lossless codec, mp3 isn't. So, no, mp3 is by no means a "pure" format.

Also, the Apple-bashers seem to be trying to revise history. ACCs in iTunes only had DRM originally because the record companies insisted on it. Steve Jobs and Apple fought hard (and eventually won out) to see that DRM went the way of the dodo.

Finally, anyone who thinks CDs don't degrade over time is crazy. i'm glad DCI isn't dumping more money into the CD money pit. If the Luddites don't want to move on, it certainly is no fault of DCI. if anything, I wish DCI would drop exclusivity on the Fan Netowrk and put the audio archive on iTunes. I guarantee you they'd more than make up for the profit loss per item with a big spike in volume sales.

AAC is a lossy codec, not a lossless codec. rolleyes.gif You should look that up again...

I was around for all of it, and I listened to those DRM'ed "music" files on iTunes that were eventually done away with... Those AAC files sounded quite a bit inferior to mp3s, at least to my ears; I decided that I didn't want any of that! It didn't and doesn't matter to me what others say - there is a discernible difference in sound quality between a 256 kb/s encoded mp3 file and a 64 kb/s AAC file. I'll sometimes download the free song of the week or day from iTunes. It's still pretty "tin-ny" or "thin" compared to CDs and vinyl. Actually, this topic pretty much parallels the difference between vinyl and CDs and why vinyl is making a niche comeback.

Some people can tell the difference in the different codecs...

Sorry, but lossy audio codecs lose information from somewhere that scientists have determine do not matter to the listener... Each iteration seeks to improve upon the previous by determining what else can be taken out of the sound. So by definition, AAC gets rid of even more information than mp3. You know, since it's the more advanced technology... The sound of much music is suffering because of this... There is something missing from the sound.

Edited by jjeffeory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AAC files can't be DRM'ed. Apple used to wrap AAC in a container format that did have DRM. AAC is just as much an open standard as MP3. (And was spearheaded by the same standards group, not Apple) It's also entirely possible to embed identifying info in MP3 metadata, even though it's not commonly done.

Not trying to derail, just correcting misinformation.

It is good and well that you're "just correcting misinformation", but I don't believe I'm giving misinformation. How technical do we want to get about a couple of audio codecs on a forum about drum and bugle corps? satisfied.gif What I wrote was effectively true. Frankly, Apple would have tried to wrap "whatever codec" in a container format with DRM. They just happened to chose AAC, which is why I criticized it. It's just that Apple touted that they were using a "new" codec ( AAC) at the time that they ALSO began using DRM, so it's all pretty much associated together, imho...

I don't have anything against Apple. I just don't think they're the only option out there. I have some of their products and some of their competition's products. They're all pretty similar...

I don't really have a huge problem with a higher bit rate AAC file either. I don't like some of the low bit rate files that I've heard from Apple and other companies, where they claim that no one can hear the difference between a 56 or 64 kb/s AAC and a 256 or 300 kb/s mp3 file. That's false and crap! I wouldn't want our collective concept of quality produced sound to degrade any further than it already has... But some of the bit rates are too low to produce a quality sounding file...

Of course it's possible to embed identifying information in mp3 metadata. The audacious thing is that Apple had the balls to try that. Like, they're gonna "catch" someone doing something bad and show them... I dunno, I just think that content creator should create the content for the customer and not have a middle man insert data into a file that is neither required nor desired by the customer... tongue.gif

Edited by jjeffeory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AAC is a lossy codec, not a lossless codec. rolleyes.gif You should look that up again...

I was around for all of it, and I listened to DRM'ed "music" on iTunes that were eventually done away with... The AAC files sounded quite a bit inferior to mp3s, at least to my ears; I decided that I didn't want any of that! It didn't and doesn't matter to me what others say - there is a discernible difference in sound quality between a 256 kb/s encoded mp3 file and a 64 kb/s AAC file. I'll sometimes download the free song of the week or day from iTunes. It's still pretty "tin-ny" or "thin" compared to CDs and vinyl. Actually, this topic pretty much parallels the difference between vinyl and CDs and why vinyl is making a niche comeback.

Some people can tell the difference in the different codecs...

Sorry, but lossy audio codecs lose information from somewhere that scientists have determine do not matter to the listener... Each iteration seeks to improve upon the previous by determining what else can be taken out of the sound. So by definition, AAC gets rid of even more information than mp3. You know, since it's the more advanced technology... The sound of much music is suffering because of this... There is something missing from the sound.

That sound difference is due to bitrate, not the codec being used. 64kbps anything is going to sound worse than 256kbps anything regardless of codec. (Not quite true, as AAC retains more information than MP3 as equal bitrates. But not enough of a difference to make 64kbps AAC sound like 256kbps MP3's. But who would expect to get the same sound at a quarter of the bitrate?)

AAC is a better codec than MP3 in all regards. At equal bitrates it produces smaller files, has better data retention, and I believe it's more efficient to encode/decode so it requires less computing power.

The difference between vinyl and CD is an entirely different matter, as thats going from an analog signal to a digital one. CD's are a lossy format as well, they're just encoded at a higher bitrate than we typically get audio files in currently. I think it's silly that CD quality is the standard we still hold audio to, when tech is perfectly capable of recording and playing back MUCH higher quality. (Blu-ray audio is 196khz/24-bit audio compared to CD's 44.1khz/16-bit)

Edited by ScoutMello
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sound difference is due to bitrate, not the codec being used. 64kbps anything is going to sound worse than 256kbps anything regardless of codec. (Not quite true, as AAC retains more information than MP3 as equal bitrates. But not enough of a difference to make 64kbps AAC sound like 256kbps MP3's. But who would expect to get the same sound at a quarter of the bitrate?)

AAC is a better codec than MP3 in all regards. At equal bitrates it produces smaller files, has better data retention, and I believe it's more efficient to encode/decode so it requires less computing power.

The difference between vinyl and CD is an entirely different matter, as thats going from an analog signal to a digital one. CD's are a lossy format as well, they're just encoded at a higher bitrate than we typically get audio files in currently. I think it's silly that CD quality is the standard we still hold audio to, when tech is perfectly capable of recording and playing back MUCH higher quality. (Blu-ray audio is 196khz/24-bit audio compared to CD's 44.1khz/16-bit)

That's good information! thumbup.gif

I don't disagree with anything you've written here. I just want the best sounding recording I can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's good information! thumbup.gif

I don't disagree with anything you've written here. I just want the best sounding recording I can get.

Agreed!

Next time you watch a blu-ray on a decent home theater system, pay attention to the soundtrack and audio. Then wonder why you can't get audio recordings at that quality. :( It's one of the aspects of the DCI Blu-rays I really appreciate. You can't get audio at that quality level on any other format, really. (There are some online services that have higher quality offerings, but they're rare)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed!

Next time you watch a blu-ray on a decent home theater system, pay attention to the soundtrack and audio. Then wonder why you can't get audio recordings at that quality. :( It's one of the aspects of the DCI Blu-rays I really appreciate. You can't get audio at that quality level on any other format, really. (There are some online services that have higher quality offerings, but they're rare)

Yup, I'm pretty familiar with all the formats.

You know, it would be nice for all the corps to use the type of recordings that the Blue Knights use/used a couple of years ago.

I'm sure someone on here knows the specifics, but I heard they were of a superb quality. I'm pretty sure they did this in 1997 and/or 1998, and maybe more recently, but I'm curious about what they did and wonder how it compares with the quality on Blu-ray....

ISOMike is the name I believe.

Here's the link: http://www.drumcorps..._1#entry2404312

Here's the PDF of that... http://www.isomike.c...deDrums0708.pdf

Edited by jjeffeory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love access to non finalist shows. that'd be the thing that got me downloading

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...