Any format can be DRM'd if it's open or the IP owner will license it. Wrap encryption and key management around the data stream and be willing to require new players. In the case of MP3 Fraunhofer has licensed several companies for years. (Remember Liquid Audio?) They've even done their own version. The reason mutant-mp3 hasn't been popular is that it's no longer the wide-open mp3 everyone loves, so you need new players (or at least decoders). It also carries their significant license overhead. ~$.75/minimum per decoder just for the patent. ~$1.50 if you use their libraries. Add your own development costs for DRM and now it's serious for what's still mp3 quality (or lack of).
As for legality, fair use is being swept under the carpet with new IP laws. DMCA effectively subverts fair use by making copying technologies illegal, even if the "technology" does no more than flip a bit (e.g. Macrovision). So far the laws (written by IP owners) have withstood court tests. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back in time.

cyrnel - forgot about liquidaudio. But yeah I know from a technical point of view it's possible with any format, just didn't think it'd been done and with companies that hoarde their source if they don't do it or license it it ain't happening (as opposed to ogg which I noted).

And I hate the DMCA, it's a worthless pile or worthlessness.

That is all.

Agreed. One of capitalism's true warts. I read a legal analysis that showed humorous yet striking similarities between the DMCA and The Spanish Inquisition. Will try to dig it up.

Figured you'd bumped into mp3 rights stuff. Just wanted to close the loop.

That most people don't remember using mp3 DRM shows how little licensees wanted to be tied to that foundation, by name or otherwise. It provided none of mp3's ubiquity but came with all the limitations and costs. Why help market a bad (and one day competing) technology longer than absolutely necessary?

Oh...I know. It just sounded funny at the time. Now I look like an ass.

...

....

.....

I'm really not.

I need some advice: I have a collection of vinyl which I have started to back up onto my computer as WAV files. Now, my original intention was to keep them all as WAV format, and then to burn them to CD, as separate albums, along with scanning and printing the album art that goes with them, in order to 'preserve' the collection.

However, I recognize that I would like to encode a majority of these to MP3 as well, for ease of use, portability etc.

I have poked around the shareware sites for free encoders, but so far have not had any luck in finding one that will allow me to point to my hard drive as the source of WAV files, versus a CD in the cd drive.

anybody out there have any advice for me?

Sure, use CDex.

It's a little hard to tell exactly what you're trying to say here (probably because you didn't reread your post to check if it still made sense after editing). You don't really notice much difference in quality between various songs you've listened to?

Also, I should probably mention that the songs you rip off your CDs, regardless of which program you used to do so, can't possibly be any better quality than the very CDs they came from, right? So, those "differences" you never noticed before should really have been noticed when you listened to those CDs, you know...

Why do you say "supposed to be lossless?" It really sounds like you're skeptical of this claim. Is there any reason to doubt it?

Sorry, but I'll have to agree with his perception of this. I've noticed things in songs on my iPod that I hadn't heard before when listening to them on CD. It is possible that the compression algorithm changes what is emphasized.

i read most of this and i have a sumery

-mp3 is the best
-about 300bit rate is good higher is beter
-NEVER convert mp3 into wav

Hmm....that's too broad a generalization based on what's been posted. Example:
- why is mp3 the best? It definitely is the most popular, but what is the basis for saying the best? Is it for saving space compared to WAV, or for a digital reproduction of the original analog source? It depends on what the goal of the audio conversion is for.

- 300 bit rate is overkill for most applications. The max encoding rate is 320 bit rate, so you're already approaching the maximum size an mp3 can be. If that's the case, why are you compressing it at all? You'd be better off using a lossless compression method. And the quality of an mp3 is not solely based on bit rate. I can generate lower bitrate/smaller-sized mp3s by using a variable-bitrate encoding system than a constant bitrate system.

- Never convert mp3 -> Wav. Best news I've heard all day :)

Perhaps, but what you need to understand is that those artifacts are coincidental "improvements" to the sound and represent no increase in the actual sound quality.

For instance, if I were to send you a .jpg of the Mona Lisa and there was a bug in the encoding software that turned the laconic woman's hair purple, you might look at that image and say "Wow, her hair looks much better that way," yet that would not constitute an increase in image quality...

quick question, what would you guys suggest as a player for flac files?

winamp works, but it bloatware. i'm sure someone has a better suggestion.

also, FLAC (and shn) are standards within the online bootleg community. mp3s are unacceptible because it is desirable to have an untainted copy of the show (a cd usually doesn't exist).

mp3s for albums...universal format, "the original" quality lossy compression, quickly download a decent representation of the album

but Dare to Compare with ogg, m4a, and whatever else (mp3pro?)

i use itunes to encode my music, with the import settings at max. i can't tell a difference between that and the CD. plus, i can send my music to anyone without worrying about them being able to play it or not, which would happen with most other formats.