Skip to main content
Topic: Could anyone please help? (Read 4538 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Could anyone please help?

Hi,

  The site allofmp3.com offers several bit rates and formats for downloading its tracks. Evidently, all already lossy.
Setting price aside, which format amongst the following would you recommend and is there any way I may confirm your conclusion mechanically/technically?:

I) MP3 LAME CBR 384 Kbps
II) MPC 'BRAINDEAD' level (allegedly, 270 Kbps, eventhough Winamp shows it to be much less. Around 140.) But, assuming it is indeed 270 Kbps. Or, better, please consider both cases in your reply.
III)MP+ 'TRANSCODING' level
IV) OGG VORBIS Q10
V) WMA9

Please do try replying as soon as possible. Any help would be highly appreciated.

Yuval.


Could anyone please help?

Reply #2
IIRC, the MP3 LAME CBR 384kbps is actually the "original" they are encoding the others from.

Could anyone please help?

Reply #3
Quote
IIRC, the MP3 LAME CBR 384kbps is actually the "original" they are encoding the others from.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=298279"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thank you very much for your reply. Their Technical assistance replied the same, that the MP3 LAME CBR 384Kbps is their nearest CD quality audio format.
Can it be really so, knowing that MPC and OGG generally yield much better results? Please comment.
I was also wondering, whether there is any way I may confirm that? Any audio tests I may perform on the files of different format? I have tried using foobar2000, but I cannot get it to play LAME! Any advice?
Is there also the possibility of performing OBJECTIVE tests on those files?
Please try replying as soon as you can. Once again, thank you very much.

Yuval.

Could anyone please help?

Reply #4
Please reread what I said. The 384kbps MP3 is *their original* (not the CD). The others are encoded from it. No format can have better quality than the source.

Could anyone please help?

Reply #5
Quote
Please reread what I said. The 384kbps MP3 is *their original* (not the CD). The others are encoded from it. No format can have better quality than the source.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=298284"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This is true for their 'online encoding' tunes, but 'online encoding exclusive' are derived from lossless files.

Could anyone please help?

Reply #6
Quote
I was also wondering, whether there is any way I may confirm that? Any audio tests I may perform on the files of different format? I have tried using foobar2000, but I cannot get it to play LAME! Any advice?

You bet.  Read this thread.
I'm on a horse.

Could anyone please help?

Reply #7
Quote
Thank you very much for your reply. What I am downloading is indeed
'online encoding exclusive', so, could you please help me? Which format and bit rate should I choose for obtaining the best possible quality?

Please keep it on the forum - so everyone can help.

This is a subjective question.  You need to make up your own mind.  Spend a little more cash with the Russian mafia by downloading a selection of tracks in all available formats.  Then perform a listening test (I know nothing of this subject except the term "ABX" and that there is a Foobar component to aid this practise) and make your decision.

At those bitrates I doubt you'll hear any difference between them.  So roll a dice.

I thought Online Encoding Exclusive allowed you to download in various lossless formats?  Maybe that's just for some albums.

Edit: you could of course rip a few CDs and encode them using allofmp3's encoder settings for your test.  However you won't be sure that you are using the same encoder versions, etc.
I'm on a horse.

Could anyone please help?

Reply #8
If you want absolute quality buy the CD. It appears that they let people to upload for credit. Certainly I cannot imagine that all the stuff they have is their rip. For example they have loads of Hungarian rock from 70s. Unlikely that they would bother with that. Some HA member also admitted that he uploads. Whoever uploads can claim whatever they want. I can take my crappy 128kbit/s mp3-s convert them to FLAC and upload as CD-DA quality. I bet they will not check that. They let the customer to complain and do the quality check for them. They probably after some struggle will refund you, but you do not want to do that frequently do you?

Indeed there are several reports of bad quality CD here in HA and I heard about them in my own circles.

Anyway I think allofmp3 is overrated as a quality service.

Triza

Could anyone please help?

Reply #9
Quote
Anyway I think allofmp3 is overrated as a quality service.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=298307"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I could not agree more ...
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

Could anyone please help?

Reply #10
It's better than everything else out there. Don't bash without a legitimate comparison.

Quote
Russian mafia

Oh, please! There's not an iota of evidence that AllofMP3 is run by the mafia. You may, of course, be speaking in jest, but I've heard this useless statement pronounced more than once on these forums.

Quote
Please reread what I said. The 384kbps MP3 is *their original* (not the CD). The others are encoded from it. No format can have better quality than the source.

Are you certain? Where is your proof? "Nearest CD quality audio format" does not necessarily mean that the 384kbps MP3 is the actual disk image.

Could anyone please help?

Reply #11
Quote
Oh, please! There's not an iota of evidence that AllofMP3 is run by the mafia. You may, of course, be speaking in jest, but I've heard this useless statement pronounced more than once on these forums.


The artists don't get paid. How does that work for ya

Could anyone please help?

Reply #12
I know. But this has nothing to do with the mafia.

Could anyone please help?

Reply #13
Quote
If you want absolute quality buy the CD. It appears that they let people to upload for credit. Certainly I cannot imagine that all the stuff they have is their rip.


Same goes for iTunes et al, I don't see any major provider that is open about their ripping process.

You have to give allofmp3 credit - their *website* is the best out there for ease of use and convenience. I don't see MS or Apple giving me a choice of codec in the near future...

Could anyone please help?

Reply #14
Quote
Quote
Oh, please! There's not an iota of evidence that AllofMP3 is run by the mafia. You may, of course, be speaking in jest, but I've heard this useless statement pronounced more than once on these forums.


The artists don't get paid. How does that work for ya
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=298817"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You're right, they don't.  Mind you, the legal services pay the artists a pittance - the real enemy in my view is the RIAA, not allofmp3.

Could anyone please help?

Reply #15
Since much of the discussion above evolved (as usual) in RIAA/AllOfMp3/russian_mafia/least_favorite_thing bashing, I would try to answer the question on topic:

In AllOfMp3.com you have two kind of source:

1. If you are using just Online Encoding (without Exclusive) the source of the music file you'll be downloading is 384Kbps MP3 file. If what AllOfMp3 clams is true (note that some people above expressed doubts about it), this file is closest to the original source. On theory, transcoding it to another format and/or bitrate (at least) will produce an approximation of the original with lower quality. However, on practice, if you're transcoding to a high-bitrate (e.g. MP3 320kbps) you might be not able to hear the difference. In this thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=32440
ABX tests for transcoding to 128kbps MP3 are performed and the results is that the transcoded files sounded worse than when encoding to 128kbps directly from the original. In particalar MP3 was the worst source for transcoding according to these tests.
So if you're very concerned about the quality just download the 384kbps file (this might be not very cheap however). This is the best option in my opinion if you're planning to use the downloaded files to transcode later to low-quality mp3s for a portable device.

2. If you are using Online Encoding Exclusive, then the source is (at least as AllOfMp3 claims) the original wav-file. Hence, you should get such a quality that is transparent for you. Most of the time, high-bitrate files in all formats are transparent for most people. This does not mean that it will be so for you, so, again, the best thing is to test it yourself. If you plan to transcode for your portable, high bitrates will be better in general, (i.e. transcoding from 192kbps mp3 to 128kbps is likely to be worse than 320kbps mp3 -> 128 kbps, but I don't know whether someone performed such a test) but probably the best thing is to download the file in a loseless format.

And finally, when I download from allofmp3 I go one of the following routes:
1. With ordinary Online encoding, I download the 384kbps file or transcode to 320kbps.

2. With Online Encoding Exclusive I encode to 320kbps MP3. I consider now switching to .mpc in order to save a bit more money. ;-)

Hope this helps

Could anyone please help?

Reply #16
Quote
You're right, they don't.  Mind you, the legal services pay the artists a pittance - the real enemy in my view is the RIAA, not allofmp3.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=298830"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm not so sure about that. In any case, the artists will at least get something 

Since this forum has such a strict policy on not discussing "illegal sites", I wonder why these threads pop up all the time.. Why not allow linking to p2p networks as well (which is legal to use in several countries, compared to allofmp3 which is only legal for russian citizens at best)

Could anyone please help?

Reply #17
Quote
I'm not so sure about that. In any case, the artists will at least get something 


In the long term with the current model they'll get less. I know that in the bittorrent lossless community there is an aversion to allowing torrents from albums that are primarily released by the artist directly on their own website. We should encourage artists to move to a direct open distribution model as, even if they lose sales because of no drm, the massive increase in return per unit (and reduction in costs) easily compensates.

A fair price (to my mind) for a lossless drm free copy of an average album is £4, about $7.80USD. I'd buy a truckload every month. It also would allow me to give the album free to a couple of mates who wouldn't buy it anyway. The artist is still better off, read Steve Albini

What exactly do the major record companies do for an artist these days other than put them under the cosh until they deliver at least 2 hit albums? We are not in the 1920s where we needed a monolithic controller of all our musical culture, even then the record companies were only necessary because someone needed to invest money on paying for moulded lumps of vinyl and delivering them to the world. Where is the value-add nowadays?

edit: clarified a bit (i'm stoned)

Could anyone please help?

Reply #18
Quote
Since this forum has such a strict policy on not discussing "illegal sites", I wonder why these threads pop up all the time.. Why not allow linking to p2p networks as well (which is legal to use in several countries, compared to allofmp3 which is only legal for russian citizens at best)


But where has it been proven that buying music from allofmp3 is illegal here?

Could anyone please help?

Reply #19
Quote
Since this forum has such a strict policy on not discussing "illegal sites", I wonder why these threads pop up all the time.. Why not allow linking to p2p networks as well (which is legal to use in several countries, compared to allofmp3 which is only legal for russian citizens at best)

Simple, because HA is a free discussion board where ideas are discussed freely. There is no "board of old white men in fancy wool suits who loudly thump and flop around claiming to know what's good for you and your children" moderating down the posts.

That said, I think existence of sites like allofmp3 help the artists more than you imagine by not supporting the big recording companies and creating a feasible DRM free rival music delivery system. If ever I were to buy music online these become the most important factors. Otherwise I would like to support the artists via donations. But freedom of communication is far more important than how artists will make money just like internet and individual freedom is far more important than the countries and their (sometimes silly) laws.
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

 

Could anyone please help?

Reply #20
Quote
Quote
Since this forum has such a strict policy on not discussing "illegal sites", I wonder why these threads pop up all the time.. Why not allow linking to p2p networks as well (which is legal to use in several countries, compared to allofmp3 which is only legal for russian citizens at best)

Simple, because HA is a free discussion board where ideas are discussed freely. There is no "board of old white men in fancy wool suits who loudly thump and flop around claiming to know what's good for you and your children" moderating down the posts.


Yeah, so why are discussion with links to p2p sites not allowed?

Let me refresh you on the TOS:
Quote
All members must refrain from posting links to -- or information regarding how to obtain -- copyrighted or illegal material. Discussion containing information of how to obtain such material, how to bypass protection methodologies of such material, or how to otherwise violate laws pertaining to such matters will not be tolerated, and participating members may be subject to administrative action.


Clearly, much of the music on allofmp3 is copyrighted or sold without the artist's consent. If you OK allofmp3, you should do the same with p2p as well, no?

Could anyone please help?

Reply #21
Quote
Quote

Simple, because HA is a free discussion board where ideas are discussed freely. There is no "board of old white men in fancy wool suits who loudly thump and flop around claiming to know what's good for you and your children" moderating down the posts.


Yeah, so why are discussion with links to p2p sites not allowed?

Because posting links to particular files etc. go beyond the discussion of ideas.
Quote
Let me refresh you on the TOS:[snip]
Clearly, much of the music on allofmp3 is copyrighted or sold without the artist's consent. If you OK allofmp3, you should do the same with p2p as well, no?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=298890"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Even though I am not extremely comfortable with the mentioned TOS rule (because it's still a restriction of freedom), I can understand HA's stance for practical reasons. The servers are in US where people sue each other for no reason.
But surely the day will come where there will be serious discussion boards on freenet etc which are not fettered by such laws.
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020