Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Does anyone do it? Do you use the iTunes shop? What do you think of the pricing? Etc?
millions do though. you thinking of putting your stuff on there?
all the major services, iTunes, e-music, Napster etc. But I don't know anyone that pays for downloads. So I thought I'd see what people think of it.
Can paid downloads work while Soulseek is in operation? Do people worry about the revenue they take away from titchy labels? I mean EMI can handle the losses, but can Chicks On Speed, or Tomlab, or Brainlove for that matter?
if you don't have to pay anything up front to at least give people the option (i assume a percentage will go to itunes/the other services?) than it can't do any harm. i worry slightly if i download something that i know might be taking away from independents, but my guilt is tempered by the fact that when i do have money (which is not very often) i do buy an awful lot of music, go to lots of gigs and at least do my best not to download everything. i only download out of necessity because i am the poorest boy on the planet.
and i never will.
never have, never will.
Downloading on p2p and torrent sites is such a great way of discovering new music to listen to, you can hear what you like on a whim, and if you don't like it, you haven't lost anything. If i do like something then I'll always try to buy a proper copy of it.
You can't really do that with payed downloads. It's just like record shopping - you only buy what you want anyway. You don't really discover anything new.
I just can't see any good reason for doing it yet... MP3s don't feel like they're worth paying for.
Why is the object neccessary again?
Just because it's not vinyl, doesn't take away from the fact you have album artwork and a physical item.
You questioned why the 'object' was necessary, as if owning a CD was pointless if you had an MP3.
To my mind a CD or a 7" are both valid items of the artist, and I can make MP3s from CDs so why not have the object and the MP3s. It's actually nice to own the package.
fair enough. I don't like 'the package'.
I can do without loads of plastic lying around my house.
when was it ever not?
mp3s are to cds what digital cameras are to 35mm ones. preferable only for convenience and documentation.
Digital cameras are better than 35mm cameras in my view.
'objects' are better quality soundwise.
they're also more flexible - itunes downloads can only be played on ipods/itunes, right? but what if your ipod breaks? if your music collection is in a format that only works on ipods, you're locked into buying another one. if you have a CD, you do not have this problem.
also, what happens with itunes downloads that you lose through IT problems? i assume you can't just download them again for free?
The object isn't neccesary, but i like having it, and I can't see any advantage to buying something in mp3 format when I can buy the cd for the about the same price, if not cheaper sometimes a lot of the time.
It doesn't seem like value for money at all.
and won't be doing so anytime soon.
I can't see why indie fans would pay for downloads. The whole indie thing is about going to gigs, buying seven inches etc...
Reckon people who like 'all types of music' ie- some random shit they can play on the drive to work- are more into downloads.
Suppose you might get some takers, but I'd be suprised
before Karma shut down.
Sure, indie kidz like 7"s, but they like iPods too.
cool- you sorted your own conundrum then.
actually- if someone can't figure out how to rip something off a record and stick it in itunes, they probably DESERVE to pay for downloads.
Rocket Science it is not
The sound quality just isn't good enough to justify paying the same amount as you would for physical media.
who still pay for downloads, yep. Trouble is, they're mostly fans of more 'mainstream' music.
iTunes has worse quality MP3's than bands do...
huh? Probably the other way around because iTunes makes people encode at a higher quality than they would for personal use.
not particularly high
Normally for albums I want to hear and am feeling too moral to download illegally, and probably won't buy on CD anyway. (Eg. Muse's new album)
Stuff I love, I get on vinyl.
I really dislike not having physical copies of stuff I like.
I really try not to download anything illegally.
Bands normally offer enough free stuff that you can get a good feel of them without having to resort to illegal-ness.
why wouldn't you buy the new muse album on CD? there's not that much of a price difference, if at all, surely?
It was just a case of I wanted to hear it there and then, had I waited until I'd made it to a shop, I know I'd not have brought it... as it was more of a passing curiosity than an 'I actually want this album'.
seems very strange to me, though!
I'm not against paying for downloaded music, but I only would if the music was in the form of raw unsullied MP3s. WMAs with licenses embedded in them, ATRAC, et al are no good to me.
mostly when i can't find it anywhere else. beatport has good stuff which is often only available at silly prices elsewhere. but i do prefer OWNING physical stuff, for some reason. even though i mostly play it once, rip it and consign it to the pile.
use beatport and i have a friend who uses emusic alot. and personally the only downloads ive paid for are ones from small labels.
good exposure innit.
I don't know about the pricing. 79p seems reasonable for a track, but they come out in some compressed form that will only play on an iPod and to play on a computer you need a licence etc.
This would annoy me. My workmate has to burn them to CD and then MP3 that CD to get a version she can use anywhere.
What would also annoy me is having to pay again if something happened to my data storage that wiped all my MP3s out.
"My workmate has to burn them to CD and then MP3 that CD to get a version she can use anywhere."
those must sound terrible.
the iTunes downloads are high quality. You definitely get some degradation burning from 192 MP3s and then re-encoding but mostly I've found you don't notice.
I think the iTunes tracks are lossless format or something.
I get really pissed off with a lot of people's attitude towards downloading songs.
Bands wrote the songs, they paid for the recording and release it.
Why is it ok to have a copy of that song on mp3 for free and not buy a hard copy.
The argument seems to be "the quality is bad so im not going to pay for it" well if you'll buy a copy of the song on another format fair enough but if youre only going to listen to that song in the downloaded format then you should fucking well pay for it.
Can you tell me what that has to do with my workmate? The point is that she doesn't have an iPod, but a different player.
Hence stuff she buys on iTunes then has to be fiddled with to get it to play on her player and in work.
Yes, if it was a whole album I am sure she'd buy the CD but the track by track thing is convenient for her kids' desires as well as hers, just not the varsion that she is given.
As far as I'm concenred, I buy the CD. Then I make the MP3s I want from it at the quality I want, but I still have an uncompressed version to hand.
Though I'm sure she'd appreciate it if you want to buy her one?
My phone number is 999, tell her to get in touch.
My point was more - if she wants to use iTunes shop, she should have bought a player compatible with iTunes. Otherwise, use e-music or something instead.
iTunes has the biggest market share by a long way, doesn't it, hence the best selection of CDs?
All I'm saying is that any sort of encoding like that puts me off. I'm guess emusic might use WMAs? It rarely seems as cheap as it would have to be for me to sacrifice the versatility of a CD.
If they had a better selection of tunes they would kill itunes dead over night.
sorry, has nothing to do with your workmate, was replying generally.
'MP3s sound bad' argument at all.
Only a very few people I know even care about it, and I haven't noticed any diff at all between hi-quality MP3 and CD.
i was saying mp3s downloaded from somewhere like itunes and then burnt to a CD and then re-encoded as MP3s would sound bad.
Though whether you could tell the difference is another matter.
That's all it is in this context. This is like saying if you take a jpg from the internet, burn it onto a cd, then put it into another computer, the picture will get more fuzzy.
i.e. not true.
Continually decompressing and re-compressing to lossy formats like MP3 or JPG does degrade quality. The more times you do it, the worse the quality gets.
If you want to keep the quality you have to create your lossy compressed version from the original, uncompressed recording or picture.
burning a CD (raw uncompressed audio) of some MP3s, and then ripping and re-encoding them, will lead to a loss of quality. As music passes around from person to person on CDRs and P2P this process could have happened many times over for all you know, and the difference certainly may be noticable.
when i used to trade bootlegs 4/5 years ago there was a big problem with people downloading gigs off napster in 128/160/192, burning them and passing them off as straight CD->CD burns. and then people would MP3 the CDs they've received and those would end up on napster, and you'd get people downloading encoded versions of those and burning them and trading them and on and on.
OK, I was wrong about that.
If you bought it from iTunes then burned the CD in iTunes from the AAC and re-encoded the MP3 version from that CD, it might not lose as much quality as you'd think, maybe? Because the same algorythm would have been used in all cases?
The main git about CD encoding (I think) is CD Audio standards are quite different so that the data isn't identically written to the CD as it would be if you burned a WAV file to a data CD.
is 44kHz 16-bit raw audio data, same as an equivalent CD-quality WAV file. While the data may be laid out slightly differently on an audio CD, it's equivalent in that you can convert to WAV and back without affecting the data.
AAC uses a different, better compression algorithm to MP3, but even if you decompress and recompress with the same compression algorithm it doesn't necessarily mean there'll be any less degradation in quality.
It might be the case that compression algorithms specifically optimised for recompressing previously-compressed audio data might be able to mitigate the quality degradation a bit, but I'm not aware of any work in that field. That said I'm not a DSP expert so maybe some exists.
I mean that the data is 'spread around' or something? Seriously it's been a few years since I remember going over this so maybe I'm thinking of something else. I just seem to remember something about how it stores the data differently, partly so that it can easily error correct for scratches and such.
its be more like having a one meg jpg or something, printing it out on a very good printer and then scanning it back on
ie, to have a comparable quality to the original, its have to be a much much bigger file
Often differences in sound quality are quite subtle, but that doesn't make them any less important.
I'm rather concerned about DJs using low-to-mid-quality MP3s, for example. It may be fine for bedroom listening but when you're playing in a club you want the best quality possible. I'm not saying it's necessarily going to be conciously noticable to an untrained ear, but better sound quality is a really important factor in creating that unqunatifiable 'good feeling' of a club or a DJ or a night out being really 'good' as opposed to 'mediochre'.
in that I tend to DJ with MP3s.
But, once mass storage becomes even more affordable, I hope that DJs will be able to store their material in really high-quality lossless formats, and for that reason I'd rather own a higher-quality recording on CD if I can, to future-proof me against this.
Also my other beef with lossy encoding formats is that if I later need to transcode them to another format (say to play on some proprietary player), I then sacrafice even more quality. If you own the original lossless recording, you can rip and compress to any new format you happen to need in the future without losing any more quality than is absolutely necessary.
Matt speaks sense.
that although I download stuff, it is not stuff that I would buy. If a product is available from one of my favourite artists, I buy it because I am a fan and it will be of better quality.
The downloaded stuff is essentially to see if I like something that I would not have otherwise been able to hear.
I accept that this has stopped me buying stuff completely unheard, but I've got tons of CDs from rubbish bands that I bought because I read a good review of them.
but that argument then gets extended and people end up just downloading enormous amounts of music for free. If its a band giving stuff away, then im all for it. I'm fine with people downloading my bands tracks because i want as many people to hear it as possible but for some bands it is how they get their food paid for.
I suppose is that by downloading stuff that I would not otherwise buy, the band is not losing any sales because I wouldn't have bought the music anyway.
Conversely, I may become a fan of a band which I have downloaded on spec and start paying for their official stuff, going to see them etc.
It's only a more hi-tech way of listening to/taping stuff off the radio.
so it's kinda equivalent to a half-decent MP3 encoded at a VBR.
still, eMusic offers 192 MP3s, which are better.
But also use OiNK and indietorrents and STILL prefer things on 12" or CD.
not because the quality is bad, but because i am a materialist, and i like owning physical things.
When i can buy a CD for the same price as a CD, i'm going to buy the CD. It feels like i've bought something, you get all the pretty album artwork, and if your hard drive is wiped (like mine was a couple of weeks ago) you haven't lost everything.
i know a lot of people who do though, so yano, go for it.
because you want to be?
get me :')
this thread makes me think about an insurance question.
If you get robbed, you can try to get some money back from the CDs ( depends of your insurance and of the prooves of purchase you may have ).
But if your laptop ( or i-pod ) get stolen, can you have refunds of MP3s you bought ?
start a new thread!
i think generally buying stuff that only works on one type of hardware is pretty stupid, and i'm surprised apple / sony / whoeever can get away with it. i would guess it's a lack of understanding of new technology, but i'd like to see sony pictures try and sell DVDs that only work on sony DVD players and get away with it...
last time i checked you could burn them to cds five times, play them on up to five different computers and any iPod in the range.
i can't play them on another brand of MP3 player, can i?
if my DVD player breaks, i just go out and buy another one, irregardless of manufacturer, and my DVDs will play on it. not the case with AAC files bought off iTunes though or ATRAC files bought from Sony's store, is it?
it's apple and sony who are limiting their own market by doing it and therefore it's not really an issue.
if sony's films only worked on sony dvd players, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot and it would certainly be hard to build a case from.
just why i think buying downloads is a stupid idea, innit.
from eMusic, which I think are reasonably priced. I always burn to CD anyway 'cos I prefer listening to stuff via cd player. I don't have any sort of mp3 player
I don't have an MP3 player, I prefer things that way.
and I quite like it.
To be honest, I don't really want to be looking back through bits of data as a representation of my record collection in a few years time. And, when places like Fopp dominate, it's cheaper to buy the cd. Vinyl is great though, if it's an album that I love to bits.
The free downloads.
And I've also got 5 free coke songs. So all is good :)
But I have paid money for a b-side or two.
Buying MP3s is for dumbasses who don't really care about music (connecting with the artist and the "album experience"). Buy the album in any number of other formats. Every other one sounds better and is packaged as the artist intended. MP3s are fine for checking out an artist, but I don't know why anyone would buy them. I have NERO specifically so that I can make FLAC files if I want to make a copy of an album or on those rare occasions, a mix CD. Besides, anytime I see someone walking around with an iPod it gives me the creeps. It's like they've just been assimilated by the Borg or something.
It's perfect for mobile listening. It's not like you're gonna get amazing sound quality through earplugs while on the 38 bus anyway, so it's worth it to have any song you want from your collection to hand at any time.
I know it's morally a bit dubious but the Russian download site allofmp3 really is the top dog of download sites.
not so clear. Russian copyright law is a bit mad, and allofmp3 take avantage of this. Were the site 'totally illegal' then it would have been shut down by now.
The fact that Russian law is being changed specifically to close down such sites is evidence that, at the moment, they are not illegal.
and loophole legal for them to operate