Download V.S. Buying CD's

[Saladbar]

That is not to say I don't OCCASIONALLY download a CD illegally to check it out, and decide whether or not I want to buy it. However, I only do that when: a) the album is taking forever to be released, b) it is only available as an expensive import, or c) I can't find adequate samples offered anywhere on the internet, such as MySpace, etc.

See, this is where the record industry does wrong, the demand is odviously there but the product is not available to be purchased. Hence we result in "illegal" ways to satisfy that demand.
I'd had the same situations come up, it's not my fault that I can't find the freaking album.

 

[Vegetaman]

I have about 300 CDs and 50 DVDs - all bought legitly. The only stuff I download is bootlegs and demos (which are legal, as far as I know). I love shopping for used CDs and waiting for that handful of awesome CDs and DVDs to come out every year that I will buy. The last few albums I bought were Dream Evil - United and Savatage - Edge of Thorns. I also still collect vinyls, too, but usually only for $2 a pop. With the fact that there seems to be less and less new music that I want to buy, I spend most of my effort on finding old used CDs of bands I want to check out for around $5 or $7 a pop. I mostly just focus on DVDs now, though.

I also find myself just buying a few CDs and DVDs every year and playing the crap out of them and really taking the time to listen to them and enjoy them.

 

[skyrefuge]

I only buy CDs. MP3s sound like crap.

Crap mp3s sound like crap. Good mp3s sound as good as CDs. Unless you've done an ABX test that shows you can tell the difference between a 256kbps mp3 and a CD?

I think it is interesting that for a long time it seemed like there was a trend in the masses to want higher quality audio and now that seems that the reverse is true.

It's not really "the reverse". It's not that people want LOWER quality audio, it's just that they no longer care about audio that's better than their ears can hear. Digital audio made it a lot easier for people to compare different levels of audio quality, and now they can see that the expensive stereo people were selling them stuff they just didn't need.

Even some high end stereo businesses are going out of business (at least around here). There still seems to be a demand for high quality video but not audio.

Yeah, because people can still see the difference in video, because it hasn't gotten beyond the range of human vision yet. It's getting close though, with the "120Hz" trend, and I'm sure we aren't too far off from HDHD TV, which will have more pixels than they eye can actually see.

If I'm going to buy an album, I feel like I deserve to own the full 1411kbps version.

Why is 1411kbps so special to you? Why not the 4608kbps of 96kHz/24-bit DVD-Audio? Why not more? Why do you believe the record company lies that the puny 1411kbps of CD is good enough for you?

I think it's silly to pay for an album and only get some crappy 128kbps version of it.

I agree, that would be silly. That's why you can't buy 128kbps mp3s from anyone. Where did you get the idea that you could?

Neil

 

[TomAwesome]

Why is 1411kbps so special to you? Why not the 4608kbps of 96kHz/24-bit DVD-Audio? Why not more? Why do you believe the record company lies that the puny 1411kbps of CD is good enough for you?

1411 isn't a magic number to me or anything, it's just the current and long standing standard for digital audio. Since real CDs are generally only a few dollars (if any) more than their watered down digital counterparts, I guess my logic is just more in the area of "Why not?" than "I don't really need 1411kbps." I think what you said about people not feeling a need for better quality than they can easily notice is largely true, but I think the whole MP3 thing is far more about a matter of convenience. The format is a fraction of the size and still retains most of the quality, so it's far easier to use MP3s than CDs or lossless audio formats for computer storage, and especially for mobile use. I prefer CDs, as I do notice a kick up in the audio quality, especially when I'm using my good ear buds, but the vast majority of the time I use MP3s because they're so damn convenient.

I think another factor is that people have gotten so used to listening to MP3s that they don't really miss the extra fidelity. People used to be more than happy enough with cassettes, and even crappier formats before that. Not that the difference between an MP3 and a CD as nearly as big, but I think the general idea still applies.

As for the DVD-audio, it just doesn't seem as practical for me at this point in time. It's still relatively new and is far from standard. I haven't heard of many artists actually releasing albums like this except for maybe NIN and Porcupine Tree (or was the PT album just in 5.1 surround? I forget). If it became more of a standard and didn't cost much more than a regular CD (which I'm hoping becomes the case in future years), I'd probably be more interested in regularly buying albums in that format.

I agree, that would be silly. That's why you can't buy 128kbps mp3s from anyone. Where did you get the idea that you could?

I guess that's just the impression I had for whatever reason. Aside from a fleeting interest when MP3 stores were pretty new, I haven't really looked into or kept up with any of them. My bad I guess, but my sentiment on the matter is pretty much the same whether the bitrate is 96, 192, or even 320.

If a person has no desire for better quality audio, no problem! I'm not bashing that. The majority of people aren't musicians and audio engineers and probably won't really notice the difference anyway. I just personally like having the full CD quality music available to me.

Sorry if I rambled. I do that sometimes.

 

[Jasonic]

Fuck the haters!!!
Cassettes rule!

 

[TomAwesome]

 

[Vegetaman]

That's because you only listen to one album per band.

For a lot of bands, this is indeed the case. And it's usually two albums, anyway.

Armored Saint - Symbol of Salvation
Armored Saint - Revelation
Jag Panzer - Mechanized Warfare
Jag Panzer - Casting The Stones

So on and so forth...

 

[Jasonic]

Jag Panzer - Mechanized Warfare
Jag Panzer - Casting The Stones

With the amount of raving you do for Jag Panzer, I am surprised THESE are the only albums you have! No THANE TO THE THRONE or AMPLE DESTRUCTION = FAIL!

 

[rms]

Thane is weak! Change that to Chain of COmmand

 

[Vegetaman]

With the amount of raving you do for Jag Panzer, I am surprised THESE are the only albums you have! No THANE TO THE THRONE or AMPLE DESTRUCTION = FAIL!

I have heard Thane to the Throne before while hanging out with Lee, but I am strapped for cash like pate.

I just happen to absolutely love Mechanized Warfare and Casting The Stones. They rock hard.

 

[Saladbar]

Jag Panzer - Mechanized Warfare

This is all the Panzer you need.

 

[Jasonic]

This is all the Panzer you need.

You guys are all smokin' something VERY strong..

Yes, Mechanized Warfare is a great album, but you are seriously missing out if you are ignoring the rest of their catalog....

Ok, let me take that back. Avoid Dissident Alliance like the freakin' plague!

 

[Jasonic]

If I want to hear Harry from back then, I listen to Satan's Host.

Wow, how KVLT of you to bring up Satan's Host!

 

[Jasonic]

Metal From Hell is a great album. Way better than Ample IMO

As if you actully own the album,................

 

[Jasonic]

Go clean your dentures.

I have all my teeth son!
Never even had braces..
That's how we do, up north!

 

[Jasonic]

I've never had a cavity. And my e-peen is bigger.

You lost me on that one!

 

[rms]

his internet ego

 

[Vegetaman]

The inherent problem of downloaders vs. buyers is people that download albums usually wind up listening to a wider range of music, while those of us that buy limited CDs wind up with tunnel vision where we only listen to two or three albums from most artists (except a few of our favorite bands, of course). Instead I find myself knowing my Dio and Black Sabbath discographies inside and out and focus mostly on a smaller spectrum of metal. So the sword cuts both ways, really.

 

[skyrefuge]

I guess my logic is just more in the area of "Why not?" than "I don't really need 1411kbps."

Yeah, so then I guess my implied question was, in the absence of a current and long-standing standard, how would you decide the optimal bitrate for your music delivery? The most obvious answer to me is that you would do a blind test to determine scientifically at what level your ears are incapable of hearing any further improvement.

And a lot of people on forums who post things like "MP3s sound like crap!" haven't even tried to test themselves, and are simply repeating what they've heard other people say. But yeah, if you've done blind testing to prove that you CAN hear the difference between high-quality mp3s and CD, then you have every right to say that mp3s sound like crap to you and gloat about your ears. (if you haven't tested yourself, here's a small writeup I did about how I did it: http://pmx2.krose.org/forum?action=view&forum_id=1&message_id=254839)

I think another factor is that people have gotten so used to listening to MP3s that they don't really miss the extra fidelity.

I disagree. I think most people can't actually hear the fidelity that they're missing, even if they tried. In one informal study, only 33 out of 700 people ranked 256kbps mp3s above 128kbps mp3s.

People used to be more than happy enough with cassettes, and even crappier formats before that.

Yeah, there are two topics here: can people detect a difference, and, do they care? With cassettes, or lo-fi black metal, or driving in a car, I think the answer is yes, they can detect that the sound is sub-optimal, but they don't care. With mp3s, I think that most people can't even detect that the sound is sub-optimal.

As for the DVD-audio, it just doesn't seem as practical for me at this point in time. It's still relatively new and is far from standard.

It's actually "old", in that it's essentially dead. It just never caught on, and no one is releasing new DVD-Audios anymore. Any surround mixes coming out today (like Opeth's "Still Life") are just done as the audio track of a DVD-Video. And yeah, I have "In Absentia" on DVD-Audio...the surround mix is cool, but of course the stereo mix sounds no better than CD (or mp3!) to me.

If a person has no desire for better quality audio, no problem! I'm not bashing that. The majority of people aren't musicians and audio engineers and probably won't really notice the difference anyway. I just personally like having the full CD quality music available to me.

Yep, cool. Likewise, I have no interest in forcing people to listen to mp3s! I just like to try to clear up some of the misinformation that gets thrown around out there so that people can make informed decisions about this topic.

Neil

 

[skyrefuge]

That's because you only listen to one album per band.

This is actually really admirable.

In recent years, I've tried to think of music in terms of "essential" albums. Since the number of albums available so completely dwarfs the ability of someone to listen to even a small percentage of them in their lifetime, I don't want to waste any time listening to stuff that I can hear on another album done just as well, if not better.

And since most bands don't change a very much throughout their careers (relative to the entire range of musical styles available), that generally means that one album per band is enough to fill that particular style/mood. Does anybody really need a new Arch Enemy record at this point in time? Certainly there are those bands who release multiple albums that are excellent AND unique, but those are really pretty rare.

Of course, the whole problem is that, if I'm only going to own one album from a band that has 5 similar albums, I want to make sure that it's the BEST of the 5. And the only way to know that is to become intimately familiar with all 5 by listening to them a lot, and that makes the whole "essential" concept completely collapse. Argh.

Neil