Soapbox time

[ecosprog]

Having just used my Christmas money to purchase a slew of new records I have noticed a rather odd, if not disturbing trend. Almost half of the LP´s purchased came with a coupon entitling the purchaser to a free download of the album. Not a bad thing you may say. However, what I find interesting is that despite the majority of these LP´s being sold as ´audiophile pressings´ the associated downloads were in ---- wait for it ---- MP3 format  . And some of these were so heavily compressed that they are almost unlistenable.

Now I´m old enough to have been around at the birth of the MP3 player and can remember my first Samsung, whatever it was called, which  had a whopping 64Mb of storage. MP3 compression was a necessary evil at the time to get even a couple of CD´s worth of music on to the units. However, times have changed and storage has become cheap and plentiful, as has high-speed bandwidth. Added to this the fact that there are now a raft of ´open source´ alternative formats, both compressed and un-compressed. This later issue means that the suppliers and users of the digital music don´t have to pay licensing fees to use the compression algorithm so things could be cheaper (or more profit could be made). So what gives?

It would appear that it´s the same old story. The public are all being led by their nose rings conveniently installed by Big Brother in the guise of Microsoft and Apple. Both of these OS providers have pushed the proprietary formats through their OS´s and the associated hardware. And we all know how hard it is for hardware manufacturers to do something that Microsoft doesn´t want. I had to look long and hard for a portable digital music player that supported non-proprietary formats (Open Source). They do exist but are few and far between. This was after being a long time user of an iPOD. A truly great device but in my opinion now severely hampered by the close minded approach of Apple to supported music formats. Added to this is a public which to a large extent when provided with the limitations of their preffered format claim that they can´t hear a difference. I have friends that fall into this group and no matter how hard I have tried they just can´t, or won´t, hear the difference.

This whole issue is centred around convenience. The masses will always take the easy road. Unfortunately, nothing is free and the easy road is made easy through sacrifice. In music this is present in the poor sound quality of most digital music. In other areas of our digital world it manifests itself in the form of viruses and spyware. ´Ya don´t get nothing for free´ as the saying goes.

Which brings me back to the main point of this venting session. What ´numpty´ in the marketing department of these record companies decided that someone willing to spend a premium (in terms of the CD version) amount on an ´Audiophile´ pressing would then be happy to download and listen to the same music in 128kbps MP3 format .

Right, got that off my chest and I´m now set to face the day.

[GP49]

What ´numpty´ in the marketing department of these record companies decided that someone willing to spend a premium (in terms of the CD version) amount on an ´Audiophile´ pressing would then be happy to download and listen to the same music in 128kbps MP3 format.

Right, got that off my chest and I´m now set to face the day.

I can think of some people who have audiophile rigs at home but who travel or drive a lot; the mp3 version would be acceptable in an airliner, through noise-reduction headphones (IF the knee-jerks who run the US Transportation Security Administration, and run roughshod over the public to provide an appearance of security while not making anything any safer or more secure, wind up allowing passengers to bring ANYTHING aboard any more).  The mp3 would also be acceptable, played in an automobile's audio system, whether through a built-in mp3 player or through a line-level input to the system's amplifiers.

Had the original source been CD, there would be no advantage to the free download, as one could rip the music from the CD to the computer in less time.  But an LP transfer is by necessity realtime, so the mp3 download would be a timesaver.

I carry CD-R discs in my car for listening while driving.  Almost none are transferred from my LPs, because of the reality of the time needed to do the realtime transfers.

[ecosprog]

But why not supply the digital music in an uncompressed format that sounds better and is playable on portable players? This was my main point that may have got lost in my overly long rant. I drive a lot and use my digital music player to connect to the car stereo system and listen to the full glory of the music in uncompressed FLAC format. My point was really that the consumer is being driven to use proprietary formats which cost more to use and provide no real advantage (in fact you are paying for th privilege of using these formats) by the likes of Microsoft and Apple.

I haven´t used a proprietary format in the last 3 years to listen to music on the go. The devices are there to do this. They just need the support of the public and the music community. It never ceases to amaze me that the public is so unaware that they are paying for their digital encoding when they don´t have to. I would rather that extra money went into lower cost equipment, or better still went to the artists. I live in hope that this issue will go the same way as DRM as the digital music industry evolves over the next few years.

[hatehifi]

Don't colleges offer majors in 'Lobbying'?

Boarderlining politics here Reese but, this and a whole carload of other issues, reminds me of German [sort of] New Deal project thirty years ago to 'wire' Germany for the upcoming "digital revolution." Although glass optics were proven superior and beneficial to copper, those in charge opted to install the latter in a comprehensive effort to network this country.

What is DRM? 

[willbewill]

But why not supply the digital music in an uncompressed format that sounds better and is playable on portable players? This was my main point that may have got lost in my overly long rant. I drive a lot and use my digital music player to connect to the car stereo system and listen to the full glory of the music in uncompressed FLAC format. My point was really that the consumer is being driven to use proprietary formats which cost more to use and provide no real advantage (in fact you are paying for th privilege of using these formats) by the likes of Microsoft and Apple.

I haven´t used a proprietary format in the last 3 years to listen to music on the go. The devices are there to do this. They just need the support of the public and the music community. It never ceases to amaze me that the public is so unaware that they are paying for their digital encoding when they don´t have to. I would rather that extra money went into lower cost equipment, or better still went to the artists. I live in hope that this issue will go the same way as DRM as the digital music industry evolves over the next few years.

This is the reason I usually end up buying the CD as well - but that isn't always good either...take the case of Metallica sounding better in Guitar Hero than on CD!!

PS - the vinyl isn't always that good either

[Paul]

Anyone who unwittingly (like me) allowed Mac to update their iTunes to to iTunes 9 will now be very aware of how little Mac cares about the quality of music reproduced on their format. Just google 'iTunes 9 problems' and you'll see how much dissatisfaction is out there. This post may not be exactly on topic but I share a similar frustration compounded by my lack of technical 'nouse' to do much about the problem. You have reinforced a friend on mine's suggestion to save all future music files in FLAC format though. Now where did I save the instructions he sent me on how to download it?

[ecosprog]

DRM = Digital Rights Management (I think)

This was the bit of code put into some CD´s (big mistake) and a lot of the digital music sold online from the likes of Apples music store.

It was the music version of copy protected software.

Politics. Never. Just tripped over my big wooden spoon this morning and thought the pot needed a bit of stirring  .

[gninnam]

You can run FLAC one an iPod, but you have to trash the firmware and install a Linux like frimware.
Not tried it myself (planning to though) but have heard good things about it.

[taskerc]

You can run FLAC one an iPod, but you have to trash the firmware and install a Linux like frimware.
Not tried it myself (planning to though) but have heard good things about it.

I ran FLAC on an iPod for a while and it was very good.  But FLAC file sizes for a large collection of CDs push total storage requirements into the terabyte range quickly.  The quality was lovely though.

Chris

[ecosprog]

You can run FLAC one an iPod, but you have to trash the firmware and install a Linux like frimware.
Not tried it myself (planning to though) but have heard good things about it.

I did run Rockbox on my iPOD for a while but it wasn´t great. I think it has improved but the need to run thrid party firmware on a digital music player to get access to formats like FLAC and OGG is one of the reasons I moved away from Apple and the iPOD.

As for storage space. Yes uncompressed formats will take up more space. But storage is cheap nowdays. I have roughly 500 CD´s ripped to FLAC files and the whole lot fits on roughly 300GB. I have 2 x 1TB disked in a mirrored array storing my music so I still have 2/3rds of the drive to fill. If you are worried about space then a compressed format like OGG-Vorbis is a perfect substitute for MP3.

My main point here is that consumers are being denied a choice here regarding digital music for a variety of reasons. By not being presented with choices, many users remain ignorant of the availability of often better solutions to their needs. There are manufacturers of digital music players that have seen the light and do produce devices capable of playing all of the audio formats available, both proprietary and non-proprietary. I think the number of such devices is going to continue to grow as more and more people realise that there are different, if not better ways to manage their digital music playback and storage.

[rfgumby]

The High Rez downloads (Reference Recordings for example) are a promising upstart.  Compared to the MP3 based drivel that's a blessing.  CD should never be used as an example of how "good" sound is, because that's a terribly compromised format to begin with.  So any loadable format above that is a good start, but the new 24/192 stuff may be our savior.  But as we know, people don't care about sound and they are more than happy to provide us with compromised (read: non-archival grade) junk.  If we demand more they will provide it.  If we settle, they will be even happier.

[hatehifi]

Hear, hear!

[ecosprog]

Well said Scott.

Drive, don´t be driven!

[Jos]

Hi Reese,

I too have got a lot of these "free downloads" that were given as an extra with an album. Usually of poor quality indeed, but I always download them (pointless greed....?) and they live somewhere on my computer, unloved, unused.
Last week I bought an album by "my morning jacket" and I got a digital version as well. The original CD ! A friend bought the same album on CD and it was more expensive ! And no free analogue version with this purchase 

Cheers, Jos

[ecosprog]

Now that´s the right way to do it .

Proper digital music. Makes you wonder what the cost of doing it this way is related to the cost of hosting/maintaining the servers to provide the free downloads. I´d bet that there isn´t much difference.