Is the Sound Quality of CDs and MP3s Hindering Sales?

[Dean Roddey]

Infringement isn't considered the same as theft from a technical legal standpoint, but from any common sense moral point of view it is theft. It is taking what others have created without compensating them for it, against their will. That's about as clear a defintion of the common concept of theft that I can think of and file sharing clearly meets that definition. Attempting to hide behind technicalities to pretend like it's anything less is just a huge rationalization.

As to the Harvard study, there's just no way you can prove the point without actually just finding out what kids are really doing. And anyone with any sense who has any interaction with them knows that most of them are stealing the bulk of what they listen to. To try to pretend like this doesn't have a detrimental effect on the industry is laughable to me. Trying to prove it doesn't affect sales by trying to look at the sales numbers vs. the downloads is a waste of time, IMO. You have no idea how it would have sold if it wasn't available for free.

There are currently over an order of magnitude more tracks downloaded in a given period of time than sold legitimately, by the estimates I've seen, actually more. To claim that that level of theft doesn't affect sales boggles my mind.

As to new approaches, yeh, they are going to start doing things like putting commercials in the actual songs. If they cannot make you pay for the product, they will have to become an ad supported medium, and since people are so cheap that they'll buy technology to remove the ads from add based media, they'll have to put the ads in the songs like product placement in movies or something. Other than that, please explain to me how you can make money when people just steal your product?

[Billster]

Trying to prove it doesn't affect sales by trying to look at the sales numbers vs. the downloads is a waste of time, IMO. You have no idea how it would have sold if it wasn't available for free. There are currently over an order of magnitude more tracks downloaded in a given period of time than sold legitimately, by the estimates I've seen, actually more. To claim that that level of theft doesn't affect sales boggles my mind.

 

 

Conversely, there's no way of telling what kind of sales would be facilitated if the record companies had embraced new technology instead of clinging to their old paradigm. I think you miss the point of the economists' study.

 

These old-line music executives sound to me like the auto executives of the late 60's and early 70's who kept saying "people don't want small cars" and "safety doesn't sell", and ended up getting their asses handed to them by the import companies.

 

For another example, the toy industry opposed mandatory safety testing for decades. Now they're tripping all over each other on requiring safety tests in the wake of the "Made in China" scandals.

[Dean Roddey]

Conversely, there's no way of telling what kind of sales would be facilitated if the record companies had embraced new technology instead of clinging to their old paradigm. I think you miss the point of the economists' study.

 

 

They HAVE embraced the new technology. Services like Rhapsody and iTunes and others are out there and have been for some time now. But they still have to make money and therefore cannot compete with free. All of these 'if they'd just get with the times' claims are just whistling in the wind if you cannot keep people from just continuing to steal the product.

[Billster]

They HAVE embraced the new technology. Services like Rhapsody and iTunes and others are out there and have been for some time now. But they still have to make money and therefore cannot compete with free. All of these 'if they'd just get with the times' claims are just whistling in the wind if you cannot keep people from just continuing to steal the product.

 

 

The point is that they embraced new technology after the cat was out of the bag.

 

Or the horse had left the barn.

 

Or the genie was out of the bottle.

 

Or the train had left the station.

 

See what I'm sayin'?

[Dean Roddey]

That makes no difference. If the claim is that theft is going on because it's not available legitimately online, then that would only explain the theft that happened in the past. Given that the theft is still going on, then clearly it has nothing to do with that, and never did. It's people stealing stuff because they can steal stuff and get away with it.

And given that the cat would have been out of the bag either way, it wouldn't have done them a bit of good to have started sooner. If having made it legitimately available now had stopped all the theft, then that would be a legimate argument that that short period of loss was their own fault and now they can just move forward. But that's not the case.

Nor should they have been expected to move instantaly. They are a business and they are responsible for the money that is invested in them (and that's people's 401K as publically held companies, not just a few fat cats), and they cannot just go flying off in some new direction at the drop of a hat.

So none of these arguments hold any water. They are being stolen from on a large scale, and it's ridiculous to just say, well they have to adjust to the new technology. Theft isn't a new technology. No industry should have to completely change because people are breaking the law. It's the people stealing the music who are wrong, not the music industry. It's not like those people are fighting for their rights. They are stealing.

[Billster]

I want to emphasize that in no way do I endorse illegal activity. I see a difference between sharing music with a small circle of people you personally know vs. plopping your music collection on a public server via p2p systems.

THAT SAID,

the salient points of the Harvard article to me were:

Our research shows that people do not download entire CDs. They download a few songs, typically the hits that one would also hear on a Top 40 station. This suggests that P2P is much like the radio, a great tool to promote new music. The music industry has of course long recognized that giving away samples of music for free over the airwaves can stimulate sales. The same seems to hold for P2P.

Clearly.

P2P networks are promising because they make the market for music promotion more competitive. From the perspective of the music industry, the more competition among P2P services, the less costly it will be to promote music.

You see this in the "mixtape" environment for marketing hip-hop music too.

The classic business model was a teaser model: The music labels provided one or two hit songs for free by promoting them on the radio and on MTV. If consumers liked the samples, they purchased a dozen songs at a price of $15. We now have gone from one extreme to the other. While inflexible bundling was the rule, services such as iTunes now completely unbundle CDs and offer all music by the song. The difficulty with this approach is that the economics of producing music are characterized by significant fixed costs. It is not much more expensive to promote an entire album than to promote an individual song. With complete unbundling, the revenue streams generated by a new album are likely to be much lower. How many consumers will pay a dollar for song number thirteen? Clearly, there is a profit-enhancing role for some type of bundling even with digital distribution. For example, consumers might be willing to pay full price for the core songs on an album if they get the rest at a discount. We need systematic experiments to find out which types of bundling are economically most attractive.

This is the gist of the article. These are forward looking statements. Instead of lamenting that they used to be able to sell a $15-$18 CD on the back of one hit song, they could re-focus on quality singles and re-mixes. And as stated, the promotional costs for an album are comparable to those for a single. So discount the secondary album cuts and regard the income as cake, instead of treating it as total filler to justify a so-so full price CD instead of a great EP length release.

A key uncertainty relates to our finding that file sharers do not download entire CDs. We do not know why they sample only a few songs. One possibility is that the current patterns of file sharing reflect consumer preferences. Consumers do not know the quality of new music and sampling one or two songs is good enough to assess quality and make a purchasing decision. If this view is correct, the radio model is well and alive, and P2P offers great opportunities to promote new content. Clearly, there is a profit-enhancing role for some type of bundling even with digital distribution. However, it is also possible that the observed behavior is due to technical difficulties. In our data, only one out of three downloads is completed successfully. File sharing is fairly cumbersome for many consumers with poor Internet connections. If this is the reason for highly selective sampling, we can expect consumers to download entire CDs when broadband connections become more common. This is a less rosy scenario for the music industry because downloads of CDs are likely to be closer substitutes for CD purchases. If poor Internet connections explain file-sharing patterns, general access to broadband would have profound strategic implications, suggesting that music companies ought to pursue a strategy of selling complements to recorded music. We see some examples for this strategy even today: Apple sells songs to promote its iPods. Prince gives away his most recent release to promote his concerts. We need careful continuous monitoring of the effects of P2P to know which strategies are most appropriate in the digital age.

Again, these are forward looking statements. Forward. Looking.

[Billster]

Nor should they have been expected to move instantaly. They are a business and they are responsible for the money that is invested in them (and that's people's 401K as publically held companies, not just a few fat cats), and they cannot just go flying off in some new direction at the drop of a hat.

They've been such great custodians of the shareholder investments by clinging to an outdated business model.

These people were completely flat-footed and are now years behind the curve. That's not failing to move instantly. That's failing to think ahead.

Again, I can only compare it to the auto executives who got their lunch eaten by smaller imported cars, and spent decades catching up (and to some degree still don't get it).

[Dean Roddey]

The point in the Harvard article only make sense *if they then buy the CD*. But they have no reason to buy the CD because they can just steal it. When you see kids all over the place who have NO purchased content or very little, and hundreds or thousands of songs on an iPOD, then the Harvard article is just completely irrelevant. They stole the popular songs plus anything else they liked.

The Harvard comments also completely miss the point that when something is on the radio, you can only hear it when it's played. When you download it, you can listen to it any time you want, so you have no incentive to buy it.

They've been such great custodians of the shareholder investments by clinging to an outdated business model.

Making a product and selling iot and expected people to either buy it or not buy it (not steal it) is not an outdated business model. And again, I ask, if that was the cause of the theft, why is the theft still going on? It was irrelevant whether they got onboard 5 years ago or now. The theft will continue the same way.

[Lee Flier]

Between now and then, we will continue to mock the 1980's gated reverb sound, and "re-discover" the good music that happened during that era.

 

Yeah, and there was a lot of it... a lot was ruined by bad production too. I can only hope that in 20 years (or maybe less if we get a clue) people will start remastering and perhaps remixing some of the great music that's coming out now, without the overcompression. Like some people have done with other past records that weren't recorded very well originally.

[ronbelluso]

I think that in many subtle ways, the overall quality of sound affects how people react to music. Think back to your first demo recordings. I believe that many listeners, whether consciously or subconsciously, will feel emotionally disconnected from music that does not sound clear, pristine, and full of life. The artist suffers in this situation because it was the recording, not the quality of the song itself, which caused such a serious disconnect. While some listeners will claim that the audio difference between an MP3 and a CD is negligible, again, on a subconscious level listener disconnect will likely occur.

[Billster]

The Harvard comments also completely miss the point that when something is on the radio, you can only hear it when it's played. When you download it, you can listen to it any time you want, so you have no incentive to buy it.

 

 

You never taped a show off the radio?

[John Sayers]

I've got 1.5meg internet which is now common and I can download a .wav file in the time it took to download an mp3 when I was on dialup.

people happily download DVDs.

I'm sure that's the way we'll go eventually and probably 24/96.

[Beck]

The RIAA is baling out the Titanic with a teacup. What they should have done was miss the iceberg.

[TIP]

it almost seems as if music is seen as disposable these days...just something to listen to until the next thing comes out.

[Dean Roddey]

The RIAA is baling out the Titanic with a teacup. What they should have done was miss the iceberg.

 

 

This is what bothers me about this kind of discussion. They couldn't miss the iceberg. That's not a valid analogy. As I said above, there is pretty much no correlation between the level of theft now that online outlets are available that sell singles and before. So the fact that they were late to the game has nothing to do with it. People keep acting like people were fighting for their rights for online distribution and stole it because they had to. They steal it because they can, and they will continue to steal it now that there are legitimate online places to purchase it.

 

Some remaining honest people will certainly avail themselves of places like iTunes of course. But all those people out there downloading songs are not freedom fighters of any sort. They have plenty of quick rationalizations to pop out any time anyone questions them. But basically they are just stealing because they can and they know they are more likely to be hit by lightning than to get caught.

[alphajerk]

But hypercompression specifically DOES cause ear fatigue and does unconsciously make people want to turn it down, or off, after a period of time. That really isn't subjective, the effect has been measured.

 

 

prove it. i like loud records just fine, it doesnt bother me... i have a whole load of albums that you would consider hypercompressed that i crank in my truck all the time.

 

it is subjective.... the proof otherwise lies in your court.

[alphajerk]

I've got 1.5meg internet which is now common and I can download a .wav file in the time it took to download an mp3 when I was on dialup..

i got 10meg service... i have 1meg upload. man i love speed.


and i love that reverb on the snare from the 80's. that music wouldnt sound right without it. i also love dry in your face drum sounds. i love electronic music and intellectual hip hop [the artists who acually have something to say]. i love all kinds of rock, although i do hate emo i love super dynamic music, i love super compressed music that sounds like the speakers are going to blow up. i love live shows people trade on the net.

pop sucks tho. "entertainers" suck, especially when they have to have a dance crew on stage and probably are lip syncing.

[John Sayers]

i got 10meg service... i have 1meg upload. man i love speed.

lucky bugger!! I also agree about old verb etc. I've mastered tracks for people and given them hypercompressed and fully dynamic - everytime they choose the hypercompressed - they say it sounds better

[alphajerk]

last album i did i used nothing on the 2buss [not something i ever do] and the band sent it off to be mastered.... it got the {censored} slammed out of it. kept saying louder LoUdEr LOUDER! its {censored}ing LOUD. if i had known that was going to be the case i would have done it right from the start of the mix, which i think ultimately sounds better than a ME slamming it post mix cause you mix into the "mastering" chain.

i prefer my unmastered version because it sounds like *I* intended it to sound... but people seem to dig the mastered version. it literally does sound like the speakers, the amps, and the cd itself is going to blow up at any second.

i actually really mastered the album [though i let the mastering guy take the credit ], slammed it to utter {censored} as a joke and that was the version that stuck. personally, i would of rather had howie weinberg or vlad slam the {censored} out of it, or at least taken the mastering seriously. goes to show you cant joke around sometimes.

i went back and remastered it seriously and probably like that version over my mix or the released version, although it is just as loud as the released version. i doubt i will ever remix that album... {censored}, i dont even want to ever hear that album again.... not because of the mastering or supercompression, but because of the drummer bringing back editing nightmares working on the album..... oh if i had a gun.

drummers. {censored} em when they suck.

[Billster]

Some remaining honest people will certainly avail themselves of places like iTunes of course. But all those people out there downloading songs are not freedom fighters of any sort. They have plenty of quick rationalizations to pop out any time anyone questions them. But basically they are just stealing because they can and they know they are more likely to be hit by lightning than to get caught.

 

 

This speaks to my point. At the advent of downloadable music, the powers that be in the music industry regarded it as a threat instead of an opportunity. They were so happy selling re-issue CDs of back catalog they did nothing with new music or marketing. If they had responded to the opportunity, they could have created an environment where everyone understood that intellectual property has a cost, regardless of the delivery medium.

 

Because they missed the boat, there's a lot of people who figure if there's no box or plastic disc it's not "real" enough to charge for. It's going to take time and effort to enlighten those people, and the situation could have been avoided.

[Lee Flier]

and i love that reverb on the snare from the 80's. that music wouldnt sound right without it.

 

 

SOME of it wouldn't. The trouble is that once a few people had (deserved) hits with that sound, people started using it on everything. That's when a trend really starts to suck, when everyone starts doing it by default whether it fits the music or not. It's a business decision.

 

That's what happened in the 80's with gated reverb (and I know because I was a fulltime engineer in L.A. when that happened, and EVERY producer who came through the door was telling me they wanted that sound), and that's what's happening now with hypercompression, Autotune, etc. It does work on some things, but when everything starts getting that treatment just because "it's the thing to do" is when you know something's wrong. I'm with you - I like a variety of sounds and all the bandwagon jumpers just kill that.

[Lee Flier]

 

prove it. i like loud records just fine, it doesnt bother me... i have a whole load of albums that you would consider hypercompressed that i crank in my truck all the time. it is subjective.... the proof otherwise lies in your court.

 

 

The effect is not subjective as there've been a crapload of studies dating back many years about it. I don't know if any of them are online but I'll take a look... probably some are on the AES website. That doesn't mean some people are not bothered, and also the louder stuff always does sound more attractive on first listen. But on average, people become fatigued after listening to something with no dynamics for more than 10-15 minutes.

 

Overcompression CAN be useful in the car. That's why I just wish they'd stick an L3 or some such in car stereos so the listener can squash the crap out of it if they want and the rest of us can hear it without the squashing. Yeah I know it sounds better if the original engineer does the squashing, but geez. Radio stations do the same thing so why not just put them in car stereos and be done with it.

[Billster]

Overcompression CAN be useful in the car. That's why I just wish they'd stick an L3 or some such in car stereos so the listener can squash the crap out of it if they want and the rest of us can hear it without the squashing. Yeah I know it sounds better if the original engineer does the squashing, but geez. Radio stations do the same thing so why not just put them in car stereos and be done with it.

One of my favorite radio stations plays Cannonball Adderly's "Mercy, Mercy, Mercy" often. I also have that CD, and the radio playback of course sounds better than the CD in the car. The CD sounds better in my living room, which is not usually traveling at 65 mph.

[dicky sofa]

I can turn my dog ears off when listening mp3's so thats not the problem for me... My problem is finding new music that I like enough to shell out my hard earned cash for. I still buy 1-3 "albums" a month but nothing compared to the 70's - 80's when I bout hundreds of records and CD's...

[philbo]

The effect is not subjective as there've been a crapload of studies dating back many years about it. I don't know if any of them are online but I'll take a look... probably some are on the AES website. That doesn't mean some people are not bothered, and also the louder stuff always does sound more attractive on first listen. But on average, people become fatigued after listening to something with no dynamics for more than 10-15 minutes. Overcompression CAN be useful in the car. That's why I just wish they'd stick an L3 or some such in car stereos so the listener can squash the crap out of it if they want and the rest of us can hear it without the squashing. Yeah I know it sounds better if the original engineer does the squashing, but geez. Radio stations do the same thing so why not just put them in car stereos and be done with it.

 

 

They're doing that - sort of.

 

My Scion xB has a button that kicks in frequency dependent compression over a loudness curve, to make up for the lack of true bass response... It REALLY hypes up the pseudo-bass (100-200 Hz) by an ungodly amount. (sigh)

At least they give you the option of turning it off....