Agreed... .shn files are sexxxy. Just too hard to find as of the moment. In the meantime, I'm content with VBR --ape .mp3 files. They are pretty damn nice.

Now that I agreed with you, you are obligated to take up my cause and use Mozilla. :)

Ha ha, I promise that tomorrow at work I will install the unfortunately-named FireFox on my PC.

They aren't MP3 files. They are AAC files, which do a much better job of encoding that MP3s.

1) As Nathan said, iTunes is AAC, which is much better than MP3. You are right about 128 being a little low, but 160 AAC or 192 MP3 are quite good, and most people couldn't possibly hear the lost data with their craptastic speakers and blown-out hearing.

2) Shorten (SHN is just the file extension) isn't really a very good lossless codec. If you insist on lossless, try FLAC instead.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/~w.speek/comparison.htm has a comparison of various lossless audio compressors. Note the comment at the bottom about Shorten.

To me, 160kbps MP3 (or 128kbps AAC) is completely indistinguishable from the CD. I've tried really really hard to distinguish (I just dug some CD's out of cold storage to try again), but I can't. The convenience and cheapness of online music stores mean that I've spent about $15 on music in the past three months. If I had to somehow get my lazy butt all the way to a physical building in order to buy a CD only to rip it to mp3's I would have spent exactly $0.00 on music. Maybe less.

Joe, I have heard about FLAC but it's even less common than Shorten so I didn't really talk about it. That was an interesting page though with the comparisons. The best part is that no matter which one you use the music sounds the same since they're all lossless. If I'm paying for music I want it to sound good, which is why I still buy CDs.

Very true. Plus, since it's lossless, once you have your hands on it, you can transcode it without paying a penalty. With the lossy compression schemes, you get extra degradation, just like chaining analog copies, whenever you change the format. So the Charlies of the world can cram a bazillion songs at 128bps on their iPods, or those who insist on lossless can go to FLAC or OptimFROG or another better lossless format.

And I'll stick with my high-bitrate MP3/AACs, because at 256 Kb/s, any "muddy" is in your head.

I think an interesting point is being missed in all of this. Even "lossless" compression codecs are lossy. Why? Because it is all digital. And digital is lossy by its very nature.

Nathan, CDs are also digitally encoded, so unless you buy all your music on vinyl, you're already paying the cost for the digital conversion no matter which format you rip to. And these days even vinyl doesn't guarantee you true analog sound -- a lot of recording equipment these days is digital.

The real issue when it comes to all these different formats is that almost no one can actually hear the difference. I've experienced the difference, but you need high end speakers or headphones. The fact that most people play their music through relatively low quality speakers attached to their computers is the main reason why this argument is irrelevant for them. If you're never planning on listening to the music you download through a high-end stereo, is it really worth the extra storage space necessary for a song with lossless compression? Not for me, but then I buy most of my music on CD these days, so what do I know.

I realize that CD's are digital. I was just saying that "lossless" isn't really "lossless".

I will admit that I can tell quality differences. For Christmas I got a really nice pair of headphones, and some old MP3's that I downloaded sound like crap. But, everything from the iTunes Music Store sounds great. That's just me, though.

The other great thing about both SHN and FLAC is the md5 checksum which ensures that you've downloaded or copied a file without errors that is identical to the version encoded.

Is the MD5 checksum built into the SHN and FLAC formats? Because you could use that technique on any files including MP3s.

I think that the tools for decompressing both tend to be bundled with a checksum program, while MP3 players aren't. But Dave is right.

However, if you use Fasttrack (Kazaa) or Bittorrent, checksumming is built in. I even use .torrents to verify that files I've gotten via DCC are correct.

Really, correct transmission of a file isn't that hard, and it is a shame on the developers of many media formats that a bare minimum checksum isn't built in--it adds only a small constant amount of bytes, and small corruptions can make those files useless.

The SHN encoder that most people use generates md5s automatically. FLAC actually has a built-in checksum.

I think I speak for everyone when I say, wow, is this a nerdy conversation. But truthfully, very informative as well.

(I can't believe I know this off the top of my head.)

MP3 supports built-in CRC checks, but most encoders don't use it, since it adds a 16-bit CRC to every frame (!). Plus, most MP3 encoders suck in general and won't do much beyond what the spec requires unless it gives them a chance to make corrupt headers. (I'm talking to you, MusicMatch.)

I'm going to change the subject, if I may, to Mozilla...

I back Mozilla for two reasons, my good Master Hill. First, it actually sticks to the standards set up by the W3C with regards to CSS, and always will thanks to the countless codegeeks who have nothing better to do than tweak the code on a web browser. IE6, on the other hand, doesn't support a good number of CSS commands, which is just sad considering the money they have.

Secondly, Microsoft will never release another web browser, so IE6 is it. Again, it's the money issue - they can hire more people to write a better browser, I'm sure.

On a side note, I really do like mozilla's skins. If someone could come out with a Mandy Moore skin, I'd be in heaven.

Wow, I can't believe people are still commenting on this.

Greg: That's interesting about mp3 having built in CRC. Most encoders don't really know what they're doing, so it's no surprise they don't take the time to incorporate that. At least people aren't encoding in 48 or 96kbps anymore.

Brian: I installed Firefox at work the other day and don't really care for it. The buttons are too small (although I'm sure there is some skin that will make them bigger), and the tabs seem useful but it would be really nice to be able to easily switch tabs, like with alt-tab or something. Either way, it's not the earth-shattering savior that everyone makes it out to be.

I have no experience with Firefox, myself. I know in Mozilla proper you can just hit CTRL-Tab, to switch tabs.