MP3 vs WAV: The Blind Test - Can YOU tell the difference?

[Bunny]

I do not know anything about DRM within MP4 files or how it might retroactively be installed... I do know that DRM comes with an additional cost, in terms of overhead, to the user. DRM'd files are larger and require more resources by your PC, DAP or whathave you for play back, so you pay a higher cost in power spent (battery time on your iPod for instance) and space used.

While no one has followed EMI's steps in the DRM-free distribution through iTunes, I cannot imagine that it will remain that way. For the most part, it is really only the major labels that insist on DRM releases... BIS, Harmonia Mundi, Hanssler and hundreds of other labels distribute much of their catalog without DRM through other download services that compete with iTunes (emusic and eclassical for instance). It may take some time for Sony, Warner, Universal, etc. to jump on board, but they will or they will be left behind.

As for the prices for iTunes plus, they are the same as their DRM material for an entire album purchase. And not everyone is a smart shopper, so the 9.99 USD cost at iTunes is far better than the 17.99 USD price at brick and mortar shops. Granted, I would be more than willing to pay 12.99 USD for the same item on a physical CD.... there are just some things downloads cannot replace.

Oh, and buying, ripping then reselling CDs is every bit as illegal as using illicit file-sharing for the same. So you may as well save yourself gas, postage and/or time and illegally download... Not that I condone that, it just seems inefficient to do it the other way. 

Now if iTunes would distribute their DRM-free downloads in lossless (FLAC or ALAC) and included many OOP performances, I would be buying regularly.

Wouldn't we all!

[tjguitar]

Oh, and buying, ripping then reselling CDs is every bit as illegal as using illicit file-sharing for the same. So you may as well save yourself gas, postage and/or time and illegally download... Not that I condone that, it just seems inefficient to do it the other way.

How is ripping your CDs and then selling your CDs illegal?  What if you copy music to your computer iPod and then yo don't want the CD anymore a few months  or years later...your gonna delete the files?

There's nothing illegal about copying cd's for yourself and then re-selling them.  If there was, used cd sites like cashforcds.com wouldn't exist.


Especially considering you more often than not cannot make your money back on the "resell" unless it is an OOP rarity or something.

[Bunny]

How is ripping your CDs and then selling your CDs illegal?  What if you copy music to your computer iPod and then yo don't want the CD anymore a few months  or years later...your gonna delete the files?

There's nothing illegal about copying cd's for yourself and then re-selling them.  If there was, used cd sites like cashforcds.com wouldn't exist.


Especially considering you more often than not cannot make your money back on the "resell" unless it is an OOP rarity or something.

I don't think it's illegal.  If you buy a cd, rip the music, and then sell unlicensed copies of the music: that is illegal.  It's called piracy and you can go to jail for it.

[tjguitar]

I don't think it's illegal.  If you buy a cd, rip the music, and then sell unlicensed copies of the music: that is illegal.  It's called piracy and you can go to jail for it.

Unlicensed being the keyword there. It is not unlicensed if it is the original CD from the distributor/store.

[Bunny]

Unlicensed being the keyword there. It is not unlicensed if it is the original CD from the distributor/store.

Exactly!  If you can sell used books over and over again, I don't see a problem with used cds, lps or dvds.

[beclemund]

How is ripping your CDs and then selling your CDs illegal?  What if you copy music to your computer iPod and then yo don't want the CD anymore a few months  or years later...your gonna delete the files?

There's nothing illegal about copying cd's for yourself and then re-selling them.  If there was, used cd sites like cashforcds.com wouldn't exist.


Especially considering you more often than not cannot make your money back on the "resell" unless it is an OOP rarity or something.

If you do not see where purchasing a CD, making a digital copy and reselling that CD violates the law (and in general is just unethical), it is probably pointless for me to explain it. You have every right to choose to do as you would like.

I cannot imaging CD resellers purchasing CDs from individuals with the expectation that the user has made every effort to make copies for themselves. Personally, I have never done it, but to me it seems rather clear that such an act would be unethical at the very least.

There are many things we purchase, as consumers, and resell without the expectation that we will fully recoup our losses.... CDs among them. That is not to say that the RIAA is going to come knocking down your door for the practice. On the contrary, they will likely never notice you.... That does not make it any less illegal.

Exactly!  If you can sell used books over and over again, I don't see a problem with used cds, lps or dvds.

Are you scanning the pages of the book into your PC and maintaining a PDF reproduction of the work to reread on your Sony Reader? The analogy is not quite the same if not.

[Mark]

Are you scanning the pages of the book into your PC and maintaining a PDF reproduction of the work to reread on your Sony Reader? The analogy is not quite the same if not.

Thank you for sparing me the trouble of pointing out the obvious flaw in that analogy. I agree completely.

[Bunny]

If you do not see where purchasing a CD, making a digital copy and reselling that CD violates the law (and in general is just unethical), it is probably pointless for me to explain it. You have every right to choose to do as you would like.

I cannot imaging CD resellers purchasing CDs from individuals with the expectation that the user has made every effort to make copies for themselves. Personally, I have never done it, but to me it seems rather clear that such an act would be unethical at the very least.

There are many things we purchase, as consumers, and resell without the expectation that we will fully recoup our losses.... CDs among them. That is not to say that the RIAA is going to come knocking down your door for the practice. On the contrary, they will likely never notice you.... That does not make it any less illegal.

Are you scanning the pages of the book into your PC and maintaining a PDF reproduction of the work to reread on your Sony Reader? The analogy is not quite the same if not.

Actually, unless you are selling the copies illegally, it's not illegal to make a copy of anything for your own personal use.  In recognition of this fact, the record companies permit those buying musical downloads to make a certain small number of copies of the files for personal use in various places, and to burn a fixed number of copies for their personal use -- either to keep or distribute as they see fit.  The problem is not the individual user who has copied the files and then sells the cds.  The illegality starts when owner of the cd makes copies to sell to anyone willing to pay on the marketplace.    That is similar to someone charging admission to watch a dvd of a movie at their home,  which is also is illegal.  If someone copies the dvd so that they can have a copy in their home and in the car, it's not illegal.  If they keep the copy and then sell the dvd, the sale of the dvd is legal, and their copy, which was made from their legally bought dvd is also legal.  People lose things all the time -- a copy of something you have lost or that has become damaged is not an illegal copy.  Recouping part of your cost through a sale of used goods is not illegal either.  People sell cars, dishes, works of art and cds and dvds.  Making a copy of something you own for your personal use is not illegal.  I don't know how you can say that combining two legal acts will suddenly result in one illegal act.  The illegality is when you start profiting from the sale of copies, because that is cutting into the profits of the companies that have issued the cds and the artists who have made them.   No painter can expect a royalty every time a painting changes hands.  Picasso never saw a cent from a painting that was sold years after he sold it, either.  The owner of that painting was also free to reproduce it as a poster without giving him a royalty as well.  The same applies with books.  If someone owns a book, it is theirs to read, reproduce, or sell.  What they are not allowed to do is to sell reproductions or counterfeits of that book.  Just as Picasso never got a cent when one of his paintings changed hands years after he sold it, publishers don't profit from the resale of books they published years ago that have become collectible.  That is the way the market functions and has always functioned.  It's silly to start saying that making a copy of a cd and then selling that cd is llegal, because it isn't, and I doubt a lawyer would have any trouble proving this in a court of law if a record company were so stupid as to push this forward. 

[The Mad Hatter]

Actually, unless you are selling the copies illegally, it's not illegal to make a copy of anything for your own personal use.  In recognition of this fact, the record companies permit those buying musical downloads to make a certain small number of copies of the files for personal use in various places, and to burn a fixed number of copies for their personal use -- either to keep or distribute as they see fit.  The problem is not the individual user who has copied the files and then sells the cds.  The illegality starts when owner of the cd makes copies to sell to anyone willing to pay on the marketplace.    That is similar to someone charging admission to watch a dvd of a movie at their home,  which is also is illegal.  If someone copies the dvd so that they can have a copy in their home and in the car, it's not illegal.  If they keep the copy and then sell the dvd, the sale of the dvd is legal, and their copy, which was made from their legally bought dvd is also legal.  People lose things all the time -- a copy of something you have lost or that has become damaged is not an illegal copy.  Recouping part of your cost through a sale of used goods is not illegal either.  People sell cars, dishes, works of art and cds and dvds.  Making a copy of something you own for your personal use is not illegal.  I don't know how you can say that combining two legal acts will suddenly result in one illegal act.  The illegality is when you start profiting from the sale of copies, because that is cutting into the profits of the companies that have issued the cds and the artists who have made them.   No painter can expect a royalty every time a painting changes hands.  Picasso never saw a cent from a painting that was sold years after he sold it, either.  The owner of that painting was also free to reproduce it as a poster without giving him a royalty as well.  The same applies with books.  If someone owns a book, it is theirs to read, reproduce, or sell.  What they are not allowed to do is to sell reproductions or counterfeits of that book.  Just as Picasso never got a cent when one of his paintings changed hands years after he sold it, publishers don't profit from the resale of books they published years ago that have become collectible.  That is the way the market functions and has always functioned.  It's silly to start saying that making a copy of a cd and then selling that cd is llegal, because it isn't, and I doubt a lawyer would have any trouble proving this in a court of law if a record company were so stupid as to push this forward. 

Person X owns a CD. (this is legal)
Person X makes a backup copy of their CD. (this also is legal)
Person X sells the original CD. (this, again, is legal)
Because Person X now no longer owns the original CD, the backup copy is not a backup copy of anything owned by Person X. It is therefore illegal and should be destroyed.

This is how the law works in this case, to my understanding.

[tjguitar]

Because Person X now no longer owns the original CD, the backup copy is not a backup copy of anything owned by Person X. It is therefore illegal and should be destroyed.

Then what if the original CD is lost or destroyed or stolen?  You're going to destroy your back ups? Isn't that partially the point of back ups?

[beclemund]

Actually, unless you are selling the copies illegally, it's not illegal to make a copy of anything for your own personal use.  In recognition of this fact, the record companies permit those buying musical downloads to make a certain small number of copies of the files for personal use in various places, and to burn a fixed number of copies for their personal use -- either to keep or distribute as they see fit.

This is a little far from the truth... distributing copyright materials whether for profit or not is definitely illegal. That's why folks across the country are getting settlement letters from the RIAA. Folks sharing files digitally (which is the same thing as your burning downloaded tracks to a CD and "distribut[ing]" them) are violating copyright. You are confusing "first sale" rights and making copies.

The problem is not the individual user who has copied the files and then sells the cds.  The illegality starts when owner of the cd makes copies to sell to anyone willing to pay on the marketplace.    That is similar to someone charging admission to watch a dvd of a movie at their home,  which is also is illegal.  If someone copies the dvd so that they can have a copy in their home and in the car, it's not illegal.  If they keep the copy and then sell the dvd, the sale of the dvd is legal, and their copy, which was made from their legally bought dvd is also legal.  People lose things all the time -- a copy of something you have lost or that has become damaged is not an illegal copy.

Here's where we disagree. I contend that making copies of a CD or DVD then selling the original while maintaining those copies is highly unethical and very likely illegal. You are right however, it has probably not been tested in court, but "first sale" rights are definitely under fire. And no, a copy of something lost or damaged is not illegal because you can probably convince a judge that your goal was to maintain the material you purchased with a back-up copy--it's an entirely different issue. This is not the same thing as buying the newest Lang Lang CD, making a copy then turning around and reselling.

Recouping part of your cost through a sale of used goods is not illegal either.  People sell cars, dishes, works of art and cds and dvds.  Making a copy of something you own for your personal use is not illegal.

I never suggested that reselling was illegal. Nor is selling something for more than you paid in a collectible market. Making and maintaining a digital copy of something you no longer own certainly seems to fall on the illegal side of the gray, hazy area of copyright law, however. 

I don't know how you can say that combining two legal acts will suddenly result in one illegal act.  The illegality is when you start profiting from the sale of copies, because that is cutting into the profits of the companies that have issued the cds and the artists who have made them.   No painter can expect a royalty every time a painting changes hands.  Picasso never saw a cent from a painting that was sold years after he sold it, either.  The owner of that painting was also free to reproduce it as a poster without giving him a royalty as well.  The same applies with books.  If someone owns a book, it is theirs to read, reproduce, or sell. [...]  It's silly to start saying that making a copy of a cd and then selling that cd is llegal, because it isn't, and I doubt a lawyer would have any trouble proving this in a court of law if a record company were so stupid as to push this forward.

It is a mistake to assume that it only becomes illegal when attached to profit making or selling duplicates. I do not imagine it will be long before record companies decide to test this in court. Your suggestions stretch the boundaries of "fair use" and "first sale". I will continue to strongly disagree with the idea that it is OK to duplicate CDs and DVD then resell them. But, I am not the RIAA, your parent or even your conscience, so you can do as you please.

Then what if the original CD is lost or destroyed or stolen?  You're going to destroy your back ups? Isn't that partially the point of back ups?

Again, the two things are not analogous.

[tjguitar]

I never suggested that reselling was illegal. Nor is selling something for more than you paid in a collectible market. Making and maintaining a digital copy of something you no longer own certainly seems to fall on the illegal side of the gray, hazy area of copyright law, however.

Yet when you are paying to download a music file, you are obviously never required to delete it?

How is it any different? You buy a CD, you end up only liking a few songs, you copy the ones you want--and you sell it.

That's been going on for at least a decade, well before iTunes.


If I couldn't resell CDs that I didn't want anymore, then I would never be able to afford to buy new ones.

[beclemund]

Yet when you are paying to download a music file, you are obviously never required to delete it?

How is it any different? You buy a CD, you end up only liking a few songs, you copy the ones you want--and you sell it.

That's been going on for at least a decade, well before iTunes.


If I couldn't resell CDs that I didn't want anymore, then I would never be able to afford to buy new ones.

Again, make up your own mind, but you are comparing unlike situations again and trying to make them analogous.

[tjguitar]

Well it's a little absurd to expect people to delete their backups after selling their CDs.  You might as well not even buy CDs if you have no intentions of keeping the hard copy for an extensive period of time.

I'm not sure how dowloading from iTunes and buying a CD and copying the few songs you like is any different.

So, its illegal to re-sell symphonic music but not pop songs? That makes a whole lot of sense.

[beclemund]

So, its illegal to re-sell symphonic music but not pop songs? That makes a whole lot of sense.

I do not even know where that differentiation came from. Good luck and have a great weekend.

[tjguitar]

I'd rather make my own rips at the settings I want then rely on the crap that something like iTunes or eMusic encodes at.  If you think thats illegal, thats fine. 


But I don't think the RIAA cares about people making personal copies for themselves, when you have people sharing music over the internet for free with hundreds (thousands?) of others not paying a cent, not to speak anything of those who download said shared music without paying a cent.  Maybe I'm wrong.

[beclemund]

I'd rather make my own rips at the settings I want then rely on the crap that something like iTunes or eMusic encodes at.  If you think thats illegal, thats fine.

I feel the same way. I tend to buy on CD for the most part with few exceptions. I do not buy from iTunes because 128kb + DRM seems pretty unreasonable for my 10 USD. The cost per download model at emusic is much more favorable and the quality of their rips is almost on par with my own and as Mark's test proved, I could not differentiate between their high quality MP3s and uncompressed media on my iPod, so when I do want to give something a try, more than likely I will search their catalog for it. Even still, I often end up buying the actual CD about 50% of the time (though this is due to my own proclivities and has nothing to do with the legal issues we are discussing)... the other half of the time, I do not find the recording compelling enough to include in my library.

But I don't think the RIAA cares about people making personal copies for themselves, when you have people sharing music over the internet for free with hundreds (thousands?) of others not paying a cent, not to speak anything of those who download said shared music without paying a cent.  Maybe I'm wrong.

And you are doubtless correct. It is an issue of magnitudes. It is far more worthwhile for the RIAA to make an example of peer-to-peer network sharing (and probably much easier for them to pursue) than for them to chase down folks buying CDs, copying them, then returning them to the store or reselling them. Though that, in my estimation, does not change the moral or ethical or even legal implications of the act. As I have said numerous times, it is entirely up to you how you wish to behave. No one else has any control over that, and the likelihood of legal action against you is closer to none than slim. For me, it is wrong, so I choose not to do it despite the seeming absence of risk.

[Mark]

Few hours to go, folks. We've had 106 visitors to the Blind Test Site since this thread began, but far fewer guesses than that. So c'mon: give it a whirl.

And remember, when I give you the correct answers on Sunday July 1st, I'll also give you five RapidShare links to all five complete movements of the work from which this test's sample clip was taken: Colin Davis conducting the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra in Berlioz's 'Symphonie Fantastique'. This recording (unless anyone knows different) is OOP at the moment, so you'll be lucky to hear it anywhere else. The links will be live for one week only until Sunday July 8th, when I'll activate the kill codes.

See you hear tomorrow!

[Bunny]

This is a little far from the truth... distributing copyright materials whether for profit or not is definitely illegal. That's why folks across the country are getting settlement letters from the RIAA. Folks sharing files digitally (which is the same thing as your burning downloaded tracks to a CD and "distribut[ing]" them) are violating copyright. You are confusing "first sale" rights and making copies.

Here's where we disagree. I contend that making copies of a CD or DVD then selling the original while maintaining those copies is highly unethical and very likely illegal. You are right however, it has probably not been tested in court, but "first sale" rights are definitely under fire. And no, a copy of something lost or damaged is not illegal because you can probably convince a judge that your goal was to maintain the material you purchased with a back-up copy--it's an entirely different issue. This is not the same thing as buying the newest Lang Lang CD, making a copy then turning around and reselling.

I never suggested that reselling was illegal. Nor is selling something for more than you paid in a collectible market. Making and maintaining a digital copy of something you no longer own certainly seems to fall on the illegal side of the gray, hazy area of copyright law, however. 

It is a mistake to assume that it only becomes illegal when attached to profit making or selling duplicates. I do not imagine it will be long before record companies decide to test this in court. Your suggestions stretch the boundaries of "fair use" and "first sale". I will continue to strongly disagree with the idea that it is OK to duplicate CDs and DVD then resell them. But, I am not the RIAA, your parent or even your conscience, so you can do as you please.

Again, the two things are not analogous.

It is not a crime to copy a cd for one's personal use.  If one does not sell multiple copies of an original cd, then one has not committed a crime by copying the cd.  If at some date the person who owns the cd wants to clear his shelves and realize a bit of cash, so they then sell the original cd -- as a used cd, not a new one, they still have committed no crime.  If they chose to keep the legally made files, then that's not a crime either.  It doesn't matter how long they've kept the cd, as long as they have bought the cd legitimately, it is theirs do with as they chose.  They haven't robbed the artist or the company of any profits.  If someone goes out and buys a cd used, they aren't committing a crime either.  I have bought numerous cds used, both from Amazon and from brick stores.  I have also ripped them to enjoy them on my ipod. I haven't committed a crime.  If the cd becomes damaged so that it no longer plays, I'm not going to do away with my copy on the hard drive.  If I hold a yard sale and put that cd in the basket, that's not a crime either.  The record companies don't look at that as crime, because it does them no harm.  The crime that they are concerned with is that of counterfeiting.  They are concerned that one of their cds shouldn't be used so that thousands of copies are ripped and sold in place of the real cds.  They are concerned that these counterfeits aren't sold as the original, with counterfeited graphics, and cd labels.  That is a crime and I don't do that.  There is nothing unethical about ripping your music to hard drive and then selling the cds.  That is the right of anyone to do with their legally bought music. 

I think you are willfully misunderstanding the real problem which has never been the individual buyer's use of the music.  The issue has always been the large counterfeiters who flood the stores with thousands of fake recordings that are visually and digitally indistiguishable from the real thing.  This has never been an issue in the Classical market because classical music does not generate the huge sales nor the great profits of Rock or pop music.  Record companies don't want to start chasing down the guy who makes a copy and sells his cd.  He hasn't harmed them.  They do want to track down the factory that's churning out counterfeit cds.  So, it really is a matter of degree, and the deciding factor is harm.  No harm, no foul.

[Mark]

Well, my clock here in the UK says 00:40hrs, so it's officially Sunday July 1st and time to reveal which clip was which.


Clip A was originally a 192kbps MP3 file

Clip B was the original WAV file

Clip C was originally a 320kbps MP3 file

Clip D was originally a 128kbps MP3 file


Many of you guessed without hesitation that Clip D was of the lowest quality and therefore an obvious fake. A good number also guessed correctly the true identity of Clip A. But Clips B and C caused the most difficulties, with a few of those who PM'd me confident that Clip C was the original.

So, how did you do? Feel free to discuss the results here in the thread ... and reveal the fact that you got a perfect score, if indeed you did.

My thanks to all who took part. The test site has now vanished from cyberspace, and all that remains is to give you those links that I've been promising. Don't get too excited, however: these file are only 192kbps MP3 files (would've taken an age to upload anything in better quality). I hope you enjoy the performance, and that you've had a bit of fun with this test.

So, here are those links:

http://rapidshare.com/files/39728563/01_Philips_Berlioz_Symphonie_Fantastique.mp3.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/39730637/02_Philips_Berlioz_Symphonie_Fantastique.mp3.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/39732596/03_Philips_Berlioz_Symphonie_Fantastique.mp3.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/39733507/04_Philips_Berlioz_Symphonie_Fantastique.mp3.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/39734755/05_Philips_Berlioz_Symphonie_Fantastique.mp3.html



NB: Important message for iTunes users - You may find that some or all of the files you download from the above links play back at inordinately low volume levels. This does NOT mean the files are f**ked. It's too boring to explain the reason for this, but let me assure you that in all other media players besides iTunes, the files will play correctly. If you use iTunes, simply import these tracks to your library, create a playlist and burn to a CD-R. You'll then find everything plays normally.