To begin with, I love CDs. So much so that I would never consider buying a song online, when I could buy the CD. There are various reasons. Firstly, I love having the CD. There is something about holding the "Kind of Blue" CD in your hands that doesn't compare to having to buying on iTunes. Beyond this purely aesthetic pleasure, I find functional benefits in a CD. That same "Kind of Blue" CD the personnel listed on it. You might say "well you can find that on Wikipedia", and yes, you can. Take a lesser known CD like Happy Apple's "Youth Oriented". On that CD I can find both the personnel and who wrote every song. And on the inside there are some pretty trippy pictures to accompany the listening experience. "Kind of Blue" features some historical liner notes. And if your computer fries, you still have the CD nicely sorted on your book shelf. My reasoning to buy the CD is not so much focused on the music, but everything else about a CD. I do absolutely despise talking to people who say they "know" a band, when they downloaded their 3 most popular songs off of Limewire. Knowing a band is listening the heck out of whole CDs, from their whole career.
I hate record companies for putting CDs out of print. Here's an idea: a website that buys 50 copies of a CD when it is released, and doesn't sell them until it goes out of print. It would probably flop... but it'd be nice. If you don't know about a band when it's first CD comes out there is an amazing likelihood that you will never have that first CD. You might be able to find somebody who has it and have them burn you a copy, but then you lose that aesthetic CD feel. Either that or it is listed on Amazon for $70, and after staring at if for 3 months you finally break down and buy it.
Saying this, I read about something cool, that I would use. Deutsche Grammophon just launched an online store with liner notes in a PDF file which carries out of print CDs. I haven't quite found the same frustration with out of print CDs in the classical genre, but it is a great first step. It wouldn't hurt record companies to put their CDs online for download, where it arguably is cost prohibitive to keep printing a CD that isn't selling. It wouldn't be quite the same as having the CD, but I would settle for it. The complete Beethoven Symphonies via Leonard Bernstein is cheaper on Amazon.com as a CD than it is on the online download site. That was the only thing I checked, but I would think it would be the other way around. Seems CDs are always a bit more expensive.
Online Music Downloading
November 30, 2007 | |
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Very, very well said. I also enjoy owning the CD, but, up until recently, for a different reason. I like to support the artist and buy their material. Back in my Kazaa days I'd just download a song in .mp3 format and that would be the end of it. Since then I've deleted all of those and bought CDs of the artists that I really liked and actually wanted to listen to. I suddenly had a compact, but valuable and meaningful library, instead of a conglomeration of songs people told me were good and that I, "had to download."
The new reason I find is actually quite alarming to me. I knew this already, but somehow didn't see the impact as being that great. The fact is that even a 192 kbps .mp3 file, and much less the 128 kbps .aac or .mp3 files you download from iTunes or other services are of a much lower sound quality than the music on a CD.
The unnerving fact is that .mp3 encoders take out sound data to make the original raw .wav file smaller. It's not really compression, it's more like a trim, or, depending on the, "compression level," a all-out buzz cut. Many frequencies are removed, and the overall sound of the file is changed. So, notes won't be gone (some overtones and echo might be), but the tonal characteristics of the voices and instruments will be changed.
I used to rip everything from my personal CDs in 192 kbps .wma format (also a "lossy" format, like the .mp3). Listen to a 192 kbps .wma or .mp3 compared to a 128 kbps .mp3. You will notice a difference. Now imagine the difference between a .mp3 and a raw CD sound file.
It's not technically bad for your ears to listen to .mp3's, but .mp3's lose depth and clarity from the original file, and if you listen, it is very noticeable indeed.
I'm now re-ripping all of the CDs that I bought in Apple Lossless format. Now there's another subject I won't get too deep into, but here's the cool thing about lossless formats: They compress the audio WITHOUT changing, trimming, cutting, or taking away any data whatsoever. They simply compress the data, like a .zip file would. Once the contents are compressed, if they are uncompressed, they will be identical to their original uncompressed file.
The only problem is that this kind of compression obviously does not yield as small of files, but you are trading space for quality; an invaluable comparison.
Now, here's where one of the, "kickers," is for me. iTunes and other services charge anywhere from .89 cents to .99 cents per song, and offer albums for around $9.99. Now as you said, if you buy the CD, (often for $3-$4 more; that's lunch money) not only do you get a secure and aesthetically pleasing hard copy, but you get all of the full quality sounds, and all of the sound data. For the cost of one .mp3, you are probably getting overcharged compared to how much data you are losing buy buying an .mp3 over the CD counterpart.
Now, of course most people couldn't care less either way, for .mp3 compression is done well, and most people listen for a hobby or while doing other things, but for people like you and me, listening to Jazz and Classical music, every single frequency involved in every single instrument matters. I believe I can speak for both of us in saying that we want to hear every one single sound that was produced on that stage or in that studio to.
For you rockers out there. I suggest you do a comparison as well. I'm sure you will notice a more full sound, that is really enjoyable to listen to, that .mp3's or .aac's (.aac is the superior of the two) just cannot give you. I've tested this myself.
I discuss these things in more detail on my new blog, Sonus Primus, which is linked to Sonare Coeli.
I'll try and get a little more info on .mp3 compression for your enjoyment.
For now, may God bless you and keep you!
http://sonusprimus.blogspot.com
As always, wikipedia has some useful information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustic_model
Really look at this one about the Psycho-Acoustic model. This is where they derive their process of cutting down sound files to make .mp3's.
The main reason why .mp3's were invented was to conserve space. I remember back when .mp3 were first getting really popular: 1999, around the time of Napster. Our computer then had a 10 GB hard drive, and that was considered good back then. Now I run a Macbook Pro with a 200GB hard drive, which is considered moderately large today.
Storage is now very, very cheap too. I just bought a 500GB external hard drive for $100. It will take me a very, very long time to even come close to filling that.
Also, the iPod classic can now hold either 80GB or 160GB, depending on the model. That's enough space for (rough math) 267 CDs in Apple Lossless format on the 80GB model, or for 534 CDs in Apple Lossless format on the 160GB model. I think very few of us personally own 534 CDs, much less even 100 CDs, and that's the space on a portable player!
On a 500GB hard drive, you could hold a whopping 1,667 CDs in lossless format. That's enough for your whole family and probably a few neighbors as well.
I'm speaking about CDs, not individual songs; full quality, losslessly compressed CDs.
I apologize for the tangent and if I sound a little uppity, but I find things like this very exciting, haha.
Thanks for reading, if you get through this, haha.
You spoke about your "Kazaa days". There are way to many people in the world that get one song by an artist. I think music is a hobby for them, and music is more of an art for the cd collector.
I also like supporting the artist, but I think it is more self-satisfaction than actual help. If the band gets $9 when I buy their $12 cd, and that gets split 3 ways, each member gets $3.
Space is the only reason I compress anything. I wouldn't mind having a library of lossless music. I have everything saved at 128 kbps because my 21 days of music wouldn't fit any other way. When I have some money I'll buy a laptop, and a huge external hard drive.
I wouldn't dare say I have to much music.
I very much agree. I like knowing the artists I have in my playlist. One of the greatest parts about getting a CD is listening through those 12 tracks the first few times, and getting to know the artist from scratch.
That is true about supporting an artist, but either way, I'd rather give each member $3 than deprive them of that. It makes one seem like even more of a jerk for not paying such a small amount to support an artist they love.
You could do with a 200GB hard drive, and you don't necessarily have to have a laptop; your current computer will do, as long as you have enjoyable speakers, haha, which by the way, are also inexpensive. I have a set that I love, with just the standard left and right, and a subwoofer. It was $102, and in the world of speakers, that's a steal. They still offer a similar model for the same price I believe.
Post a Comment