[Top] [All Lists]

Re: MP3 vs CD

Subject: Re: MP3 vs CD
From: "Bernie Krause" bigchirp1
Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:41 pm ((PST))
The best LPs always sounded better to me than the best commercial CD,
The reason we switched to MP3 downloads is because the "industry"
claims that hi-quality MP3s are "CD quality."
Since, as I said, I've always had a hard time with 44.1/16bit CDs,
the MP3s at hi res are certainly not all that different.
We switched because CDs are not bio-degradable, have to be
manufactured along with printing and installing the
requisite inserts (so forests fall for the paper), they have to be
warehoused, handled by personnel for shipping, invoiced, traced,
followed up, etc., etc., etc. Compared to downloads there is a lot of
waste, from our perspective. Also, we no longer want to run a company
with all the attendant personnel , rent, and tax issues.

Given our current thoughts on the matter, MP3 downloads are the way
to go. Folks log onto our web site, get samples of what they might
want to access for themselves, choose, download and pay thru PayPal
directly. We are notified immediately when the money is deposited
directly to our bank account with no more trees falling for billing.
No more stocking product in stores or at our warehouse. No more fuel
expended for shipping. No shipping costs. What could be more lovely
for the artists, the end-users, the environment? When and if there
were other ways to upgrade from the current digital audio MP3 models,
we'll be among the first to do it. Assured.


On Dec 15, 2007, at 11:06 AM, Lou Judson wrote:

> Bernie, the first time I saw you mention the MP3 model for your
> sales, you spoke glowingly about the lack of manufacturing, ordering,
> shipping, stocking and all the hard facts that are absent with online
> delivery. Perhaps you might reiterate it for Robert (and the rest of
> us?)...
> And I'd like to add - not to counter you really - but I have had cats
> all my life and played nature recordings for most of them. The FIRST
> time one of my cats ever looked at the speakers and tried to find the
> birds inside or behind was when I played a CD of nature sounds (1991,
> Gordon Hampton's (sp?) Billabong CD). so CD was at the least better
> than anything before, including Environments on Lps. Yet I share the
> preference for at least 24 bit whenever possible.
> Thanks,
> Lou
> On Dec 15, 2007, at 10:02 AM, Bernie Krause wrote:
> In my opinion, neither are optimal, Robert. I have always hated the
> sound of
> 44.1/16 on CDs. Literally irritates me and I always have a hard time
> listening to music or natural sounds
> in that format. Because the MP3 low quality compression is expected,
> I don't have so much of a problem
> with the delivery because it doesn't promise more and so it's not
> heard with an ear critical to that
> type of formatting. It ain't a myth. The iTune folks have traded
> digital real estate for quality and that, I'm afraid,
> is also where the industry is headed at the moment.
> In the studio, I have converted all my old analog material to
> 44.1/24bit and typically record in the field using that format or
> 96/24, depending on the program material. Sounds lots better.
> Bernie Krause
> On Dec 15, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Robert Heckendorn wrote:
> > I have a stack of Bernie Krause's wonderful CDs. I have visited
> > Bernie's site recently and noticed that the store is filled with
> > 192kbps MP3s. This is the iTune model of delivery.

Wild Sanctuary
POB 536
Glen Ellen, CA 95442

Google Earth zooms:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU