Members Kirumamoru Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 No, seriously. It's not a joke lol. http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=7101 Kiru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members D'Traveler Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 Oh great, now I'll have to buy the White Album again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members keanu reeves Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 Originally posted by D'Traveler Oh great, now I'll have to buy the White Album again. hahaha. beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TDman Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 Spill coffee on it, and yer f**ked... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Deckard Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 Oh great, a new way to kill more trees. But hey, you can always roll it up and smoke your bud in it if you run outta papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jimmyzegg Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 And in many years, when there have been several more mediums of information storage used...we can all talk to the still alive friends about that one time we smoked grass out of the dark side of the moon paper disc... ".....it's almost like you could hear the music when you smoked it!....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fear My Potato Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 This is retarded for a number of reasons: 1) When people complain about CDs, they complain about sound quality, not the amount of music it can hold...I don't see anything about increases in sound quality on that page. 2) People will resist this since it doesn't look like you'll be able to burn CDs anymore, and that's where the industry it headed. 3) Bands already don't fill CDs with their albums. Making them two hours long will just waste even more space. 4) So the only real use that would ever fill these discs with music is compilation albums, which isn't one of the big sellers among teenagers (the largest market for CDs). This looks like just another gay attempt on the part of major music industry company to battle music piracy by striking at the CDs you want to burn it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kirumamoru Posted April 16, 2004 Author Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 I don't think it's really targeted towards music storage. I think it's aimed more at high-density storage of information... so that you might find it in insurance companies and the government, but not in a music store. Besides, paper storage has a lot of problems that make it less practical for general consumer purposes than plastic-based CD and DVD media. Like, oh, get water on it and you're screwed. The fact that it's easy to destroy is good for crooked accountants but bad for the kind of use that people make of CDs. Finally... current optical storage is fricking cool looking. I love compact-disc-style media... it's so shiny and pretty, with rainbows everywhere. Paper is... paper. I like it and all... it's nice to read a book every once in a while (usually Japanese comics for me; see this interesting link for another product by the paper manufacturer involved), but yeah. It lacks a certain... high-tech finish, you know? Kiru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members U&I Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 Fear My Potato I think meant "just another geigh attempt" Sorry but it {censored}s me no end to see the word 'gay' appropriated into the context of feable ,weak ,lame ,emasculated effort etc etc etc.... Otherwise good points. Just had to spout for the faggot camp in here . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -groovatious- Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 In my opinion, most of the CDs being produced today are only good for one thing. This technology would just make this concept a whole lot more viable. **FLUSH** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kirumamoru Posted April 16, 2004 Author Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 Originally posted by -groovatious- In my opinion, most of the CDs being produced today are only good for one thing. This technology would just make this concept a whole lot more viable. **FLUSH** True 'dat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members D'Traveler Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 Originally posted by -groovatious- In my opinion, most of the CDs being produced today are only good for one thing. This technology would just make this concept a whole lot more viable. **FLUSH** That.... Is funny as hell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members noonehere Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 Originally posted by Fear My Potato 1) When people complain about CDs, they complain about sound quality, not the amount of music it can hold...I don't see anything about increases in sound quality on that page. FearMyPotato, I'm a little confused about this statement. How does a CD affect sound quality? A CD is just a digital storage medium. It stores 1s and 0s. If it doesn't do that well enough, it's called data loss. Which means the resultant playback may be unusable, but not diminished quality.On the other hand, the amount of data that can be stored will directly affect quality (think sampling frequency, quantization, resolution, or whatever helps). This is exactly the same reason that "blue laser" technology is getting so much hype. I think the paper (it's only 55%) idea was stupid as well (I want a data storage solution that is as impervious to the elements - air/fire/water - as brass balls). Is there something I missed about CD audio? I'm thinking this is just one of those Music CD vs. Data CD misconceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fear My Potato Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 As for CD sound quality, it's actually a step down from vinyl. Yeah vinyl has crackling, wears out, isn't as practical, gets scratched and destroyed easier, is larger, et cetera but sounds better. It's the old analog vs. digital sound quality argument. LP vinyl records are warmer and fuller and more accurate to the true sound than a digital representation which sounds more sterile. Take an album you enjoy but aren't too familiar with and buy it on CD and vinyl and listen to it in a quiet home environment three times on vinyl then listen to it on CD, I guarantee you'll hear it. A lot of people don't notice a difference because they used to listen to records at home but now listen to CDs in their car...but the two soundsystems are completely different as is the amount of ambient noise so that's not a fair comparison. Sorry for the word "gay" getting used like that, my upbringing comes out when I get upset whether I like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kirumamoru Posted April 16, 2004 Author Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 Originally posted by Fear My Potato As for CD sound quality, it's actually a step down from vinyl. Yeah vinyl has crackling, wears out, isn't as practical, gets scratched and destroyed easier, is larger, et cetera but sounds better. It's the old analog vs. digital sound quality argument. LP vinyl records are warmer and fuller and more accurate to the true sound than a digital representation which sounds more sterile. Ha ha sorry, I call BS. If by ''warmer and fuller'' you mean ''emphasizes the midrange due to limitations of medium'', sure. I grew up listening to records and then then switched to CD's, and the best-mastered record can't touch a well-mastered CD. Your comparison isn't that valid because a lot of LP transfers to CD's just aren't that good. As a counterexample, I say listen to the LP of Switched-On Bach, and then listen to the CD, where they went back to the analog masters and cleaned them up digitally and put them on CD without the severe EQ squashing needed to keep the needle from flying out of the groove on an LP player. There is NO comparison... the digital just creams the analog. Don't believe me?q ''If you hear actual differences, some due to a few gentle EQ tweaks, be happy that the distortions and forced squashing of the master needed to fit onto an LP have been removed. Isn't that wonderful?! The many compromises that were found necessary to keep the cutter from distorting, the stylus from jumping a groove, or the final LP from being unplayable, are all gone (removing maskings and that prior "veiled" quality you may note is missing.)'' http://www.wendycarlos.com/discnotes.html Kiru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sinner6 Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 the amount of storage space directly effects sound quaility. If a 4 minute track at 44.1khz 16-bit quality takes up 'X' amount of space, bumping the resolition up by double, means the same song will take up "x" times 2 amount of space. In a digital format more 1's and 0's equals more quality, so more space for those 1's and 0's means space for increased resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fear My Potato Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 Okay you're right, I'm full of bull{censored}. I like to just come on here and fire off my mouth not actually knowing anything what I'm talking about That must be why a lot of professionals who can afford to use analog gear still do? It sure aint easier. Yeah modern music that has been recorded digitally, tracked digitally, processed digitally, mixed down digitally, and mastered digitally in the days of CD can come near the old vinyl quality. But I haven't heard much stuff that's been done that well to impress me more than some of the classic masters did back in the day. But me, and a lot of people out there still prefer analog over digital. It's that simple. And it's certainly not bull{censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sinner6 Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 I don't think anybody can call your prefence bull {censored}. but statements like: As for CD sound quality, it's actually a step down from vinyl ...sounds as if you are stating your preference as a fact. In which case the discussion is open to other facts which may possibly refute that statement. Are we dealing with facts or opinions here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jimmyzegg Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 I think Sinner nailed it.... Some people simply prefer records because of the "warmth" and I'm sure there are various other terms they would use to describe how it's better. Some people prefer the smooth "clarity" of digital recordings and I'm sure there are various othe rterms they would use to describe how it's better. Personally, I don't think either one is better than the other, it just depends who the engineer is... I've heard great recordings on both and I think it's the user not the medium on which it was recorded/produced. And obviously the system used for playback has a lot to do with the final sound... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fear My Potato Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 Originally posted by Sinner6 I don't think anybody can call your prefence bull {censored}. ...sounds as if you are stating your preference as a fact. In which case the discussion is open to other facts which may possibly refute that statement. Are we dealing with facts or opinions here? It's a mix of facts and opinions because music really is just human preference. It's just most people seem to prefer similar things moreso than other things. As Kiru said, vinyl puts more emphasis on mid-range frequencies, saying CDs have better sound quality because they get highs and lows. But most people's ears get fatigued by very high and very low frequencies. Not many albums put out post-vinyl really take advantage of the benefits of CD format because of that very PREFERENCE. You could say CDs are "flatter" I guess, but not many people want to hear a flatter sound. On top of that, most of the old pre-CD albums that have been converted to CD haven't been remastered as well as they should've. Okay sure "Switched-on-bach" may have turned out alright, congrats on that primo find I'm really thrilled for you but most of the other stuff hasn't been put on CD with the same quality it was put on LP. You can spout statistics to me all day long but this is music we're talking about. Music is preference. All the statistics in the world aren't worth a {censored} if it doesn't translate to application and preference. People in general don't want to hear a perfectly flat mix and people don't want to hear the high frequencies as loud. I apologize for offending Kiru by assuming that in a music forum discussing music media we were talking preferences and applications. I also apologize for being a little offended that Kiru decided to open the reply with the phrase "Ha ha sorry I call BS". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fear My Potato Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 And Sinner, by the way I do appreciate you taking a tactful middle route. It seems some people around here lose track of tact from time to time and unfortunately I get pulled in easier than I should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jimmyzegg Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 Sorry, but I don't find passive aggressive remarks and sarcastic apologies to be very tactful either... *edited for spelling* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sinner6 Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 Now I'm just playing the uninvited devils advocate here. My main genres of choice are Death Metal, Black Metal and Industrial (yes, I think those labels are stupid). Some of that stuff would end up launching your record players needle across the room. Should I then insist that CD's are "better" because the music I prefer is simply not possible to play it on a record? *note- FMP I understand your point and an not really trying to argue with you, just giving another perspective. Like you say there really is no "better" when it comes to music...there is only perception and preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fear My Potato Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 I'm just getting sick of people being assholes around here. The other day I watched a guy coming in here, not even spamming, and a few forumites ripped him to shreds with bad jokes and immaturity in some cases. As I said, if we continue in certain directions this forum will get a reputation as a bunch of bitchy synth nerds. Either that or our lack of tact will degrade us in another open jam or what guitar jam used to be. I came into this thread and looked at the link and said a few things and impressions I had. At one point I was even accidentally offensive to a forumite (it was a slip that I do regret), but I immediately apologized and if it's wanted I'll even go back and change the damned word. But at no point did I say anything directly at Kiru, then out of nowhere I'm getting laughed at and told I'm full of bull{censored}. Yeah you can probably expect me to start being a little less respectful in response. Especially when I'm somewhat familiar with Kiru and have talked in different threads. It just seemed like a really rude reply coming straight out of the blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fear My Potato Posted April 16, 2004 Members Share Posted April 16, 2004 Sinner I see your point and I should've clarified that I was referring to most common applications and most common preferences. I guess I left that avenue open. As for that death metal label thing that you think is unfair, I agree and I think it's a rather interesting situation. I remember just the phrase "death metal" sounded so incredibly cliche that I wouldn't even let it be played around me. Then I actually heard some (not realizing what it was) thought it was pretty good (I'm a sucker for cranked marshalls...) then found out what it was. Approach and context can be everything. I think so many of those bands are selling themselves short by letting the industry throw them into named categories like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.