5 pounds for .MP3?

[Random Tox]

Anyone who cares about quality audio knows that MP3 is a lossy format with audible artifacts. I'd gladly pay even more than £5 for 25 minutes of new Underworld material, but the not in a format where cymbals sound like white-noise. Doesn't Underworld care about giving their loyal fans a quality listening experience? Do they not know about lossless formats like .FLAC and .APE? Are they just trying to keep download times faster for better profit margins? They've got to be saving a bundle by skipping all the expense of a CD release. Can't they afford the bandwidth to let us suck down a better sounding file? This isn't a gift to the loyal fans. We're being milked like suckers.

[dubman]

lol.

white noise.
that was terrible movie.

[DaveCTM]

Originally Posted by Random Tox

We're being milked like suckers.

Seriously mate, get over it.

[dubman]

Originally Posted by Random Tox

Are they just trying to keep download times faster for better profit margins?

the more i read the line the more i giggle.

to myself.
i'm in a library you know.

[viddy]

You know tox, not everyone is an audiophile...

About %90+ of us cannot tell a difference.

Why increase download time/file size for a marginal difference that most of us will never be able to hear?

[stimpee]

I hardly think that 192kbps mp3 is white noise but I appreciate the point youre trying to make.

I too would like an option of FLAC, like the Soma Records store where you can download mp3@192kbps or a FLAC for £1.09. For 12" releases this is great, if a little expensive for albums with many tracks, but I like the choice.

What you have to understand is that right now, we have only had one downloadable release and that its very much at the experimental stage. Who knows if we ask nicely that we may get FLAC in the future, but I'm not exactly criticising the mp3's as they sound ok to me. I remember when they were trying to tell us that mp3@128kbps was "cd quality", so this is a great improvement.

[potatobroth]

i hardly think UW is doing this 'for the money' but rather for the fans. no one is being milked. im not an audiophile. i dont notice the difference nor do i have the equipment to notice the difference.

[big screen satellite]

jesus christ almighty...

when Underworld started out there was one format, Vinyl...

ok so times have moved on, but come on...mp3 quality is good, especially at 192kbps...

people do have various quality equiptment on which these files are played...

i know we are living in a digital age, but calm down a bit...at least we are getting decent quality audio of unreleased stuff at a decent price...

i agree that there should be an option to release stuff in different formats, but most people in the world are only just getting used to mp3's, this is not an excuse just a matter of fact...by offering various other formats it may confuse the issue rather than improve it...

i think that when your ITunes & other big mp3 sites start offering other formats, many will follow, but until then, its mp3 i'm afraid...

and based upon what we had before (vinyl or cassette tape quality) its not THAT bad...

[*_*]

well, i am an audiophile, and these mp3s are teh suxxxies on my f*cking rig. nasty artifacts, metallic highs, flat lows, etc.

typical mp3 complaints. and ones the UW dudes should be well aware of. that's our boy's point, i think.


i say all this while listening to the JAL to Tokyo EP on f*cking repaeat, blood dripping from my ears 'n all.

[holden]

i've posted this before, but it's worth repeating:
http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/gb/

192 kbps mp3 is just fine for most people. Unless you're planning to remix the new tracks, i don't think any of us really require huge over-encoded files, especially as they'd probably get converted back to wav or mp3 for CD burning anyway.

Remember, UW is doing us a favor by offering this new service to get music to the fans quicker! i don't think we should look a gifthorse in the mouth, as the saying goes...