Do you still buy CDs?

[PermaNoobie]

Apologies, I was talking about format churn (why some users would select one format over another) - that the medium (size, delivery method, device compatibility, etc) could effect that - I didn't phrase that very well. First cup of coffee hasn't hit and it's chicory (which I drink slowly b/c I'm not sure I actually like it)

[BlueSteam]

I guess I should have said the format itself isn't the main reason for waning CD sales. Regardless, I understand that the CD will eventually go away as a new medium fully takes over... I guess I just assumed I'd be getting something better, not worse, when that happened. I wouldn't be so against downloads if they outperformed CDs, but that has yet to be the case in my experience. And still, I'll miss the packaging, notes and ability to hold a record in my hands if physical mediums go away. I'm the same way with video games.

How should the music industry go about protecting its intellectual property rights? Like those in the industry, I've got no good ideas. But why is a crackdown on online pirating so hard to pull off? I know the web is a big place and that making an example out of someone has already failed... But stealing should always be prosecutable.

[PermaNoobie]

I wouldn't be so against downloads if they outperformed CDs, but that has yet to be the case in my experience.

 

 

That's the kind of a nifty thing about an abstracted model ("downloads", etc where we aren't just specifying ONLY Mp3), there's nothing inherent about "downloaded files" that make them lower quality and there isn't quite the technical spec Lock-in like with a HW standard.

Both Pristine classical (now, they are a historical place, so a lot of the source material is mono, but that's the source material) and HD tacks (they also include e- liner notes) have 24 bit offerings (HDTracks I think is usually 96/24).

 

 

I don't think it's quite hit the mass market yet and maybe the smaller files will just still be popular but that's more of a market interest thing- much like R2R or heavy weight vinyl and glass plinth record players and stuff.

 

Other stores have lossless offerings though

 

I think there's a sort of continuum of users - there's always someone who is satisfied with lesser equipment/collection and "they just dont really care" and there's always someone with a bigger collection and crazier kit and they are "ridiculous corksniffers".

We can bitch at the curmudgeons and at the kids b/c what we like is obviously the sweet spot.

 

 

 

 

 

And still, I'll miss the packaging, notes and ability to hold a record in my hands if physical mediums go away. I'm the same way with video games.

 

 

I think we might just see a generational shift there (I'm of the older gen, but can see how the younger gen just works differently - well, even much of the older gen who are more "radio listeners" and not "collectors")

I mean some guys feel that way about 12" LP album covers and "real" liner notes and

I've heard more than one talk lovingly about the "ceremony" of cleaning the vinyl record and putting it on the player and all...that is makes you "slow down and really listen" and such.

 

I sometimes pull my audiophile friends' chain "Oh, yeah all that stuff - that's great for you collectors....I'm more about the music myself" -- oooh that gets em worked up!

 

 

 

But stealing should always be prosecutable.

 

 

We really aren't even there yet. Most of the copyright infringement cases are still civil, not criminal.

I think the last major revision to the criminal part was about 13-14 years ago

[PermaNoobie]

I'm the same way with video games.

 

It's funny, but I guess, well I'm not really the opposite, but I am glad there is abstracted archiving going on

 

I mean I dig the romance of an actual arcade Cinematronics "Rip-off", but trying to keep those old things running (they were discrete logic, not really CPU based) is a labor I don't wish on anyone - and that's why you see some classics in barns as a rat hotel.

Same thing with old apple ][ games, keeping em archived on 5.25" is a bear.

I mean I still think the copyright should be respected (1:1 for active use and if > 1:1 for archiving a cold archive), but it terms of preservation -- I think abstracted archiving has some benefits.

[Matximus]

I think we can all agree that the reason for declining CD sales is not the medium itself, but other factors. Maybe kids today aren't as interested in music as they used to be. Maybe the market is oversaturated. Maybe today's artists don't have the staying power that other artists have enjoyed in the past. Maybe other forms of entertainment are stealing away sales.

 

 

Been reading a lot about this this week... I mean, the main obvious reason CDs aren't selling is because packaging music that way is an obsolete product. It's as simple as that.

 

The content of music - I mean professionally recorded music performed by top-notch artist - is incredibly value, demand wise. Demand has never been higher. But there's no way to meet that demand in a way that people will hand over money for the experience of obtaining music.

 

It is going to take a very, very long time for a new business model surrounding music to emerge.

 

I think the general consensus is the record industry is dying. And that's not really a bad thing. The music industry will live, although just how has yet-to-be-determined.

 

We'll see how sad it all is. There are sad things about this disruption - fewer substantial new artists are breaking through because of all the static hobbyists with access to Pro-tools are making. The high-quality, professionally recorded albums we all grew up enjoying will eventually go away - if not forever, at least for a while - because you can't expect people to keep makings people won't pay for.

 

It sucks that we may look back on a record like Sgt Peppers that took like nine months and god knows how much money to record as an historical curiousity. On the flipside, some of the best and most powerful records ever made were made were done cheap and in an afternoon. So who knows.

[Next Direct]

The high-quality, professionally recorded albums we all grew up enjoying will eventually go away - if not forever, at least for a while - because you can't expect people to keep makings people won't pay for. It sucks that we may look back on a record like Sgt Peppers that took like nine months and god knows how much money to record as an historical curiousity. On the flipside, some of the best and most powerful records ever made were made were done cheap and in an afternoon. So who knows.

 

 

Given that technology has made it possible to create albums for a fraction of the cost of yester-year, I don't think good albums are going to go away because there's no money in them.

 

This threat/scare has been bandied about before, that if artists can't make money, all we'll be left with is amateur YouTube bandits and cheap recordings.

 

Just like people will pay good money for the pleasure of owning a nice car that they drive around in (and which costs them petrol/insurance money), I think there will be just as many musicians who will dip into their pockets to bring their music to the world (and then try and make money back in other ways).

[junkyard bennie]

If I can find them for $2 and I like the cover, I'd had bought them in the past that way

[grace_slick]

I buy CDs if I like the particular artist as well as JUST as the music, and also if I like several or most or all songs on the CD...

If I only like a few songs, I'll download 'em online.

[BlueStrat]

 

Given that technology has made it possible to create albums for a fraction of the cost of yester-year,

 

 

How so?

[nat whilk II]

I buy used CDs - there are great stores in town with lots of inventory constantly changing - and I download mp3s from eMusic also.

I preview the mp3s for sound quality before I buy. I end up passing on downloads when they have that harsh, distorted mp3 sound. But for some reason, a ton of electronic stuff sounds fine off eMusic.

But I also have to watch out for early CDs - 80s stuff - that has that terrible tinny, thin, digital sound that CDs had a lot of the time early on. Also not good.

I don't have golden ears - but maybe silver. I just want it to be clear, all the hz levels reasonably represented, and no distortion that wasn't intentional. I can handle a little tape hiss and a few vinyl pops if it sounds good basically. But that harsh mp3 compression is to me the audio equivalent of licking newsprint...

nat whilk ii

[Next Direct]

How so?

 

 

Well, the cost of hiring a recording studio used to be much more expensive. Many bands simply needed labels to be able to put out a professional sounding record. Now, with so many engineers slashing their prices just to stay in business (because bedroom musicians think they can produce hits from their computers), a band can get a very competitive rate for their album, and with all the new bells and whistles in recording technology that have come around, it can all sound very, very good. I’ve listened to some professional albums (released on labels) that were recorded for less than 10K. I’ve listened to others (more mainstream) that obviously, cost quite a bit more. I’m not commenting on the music now, just the sound quality here.

[BlueStrat]

 

Well, the cost of hiring a recording studio used to be much more expensive. Many bands simply needed labels to be able to put out a professional sounding record. Now, with so many engineers slashing their prices just to stay in business (because bedroom musicians think they can produce hits from their computers), a band can get a very competitive rate for their album, and with all the new bells and whistles in recording technology that have come around, it can all sound very, very good. I’ve listened to some professional albums (released on labels) that were recorded for less than 10K. I’ve listened to others (more mainstream) that obviously, cost quite a bit more. I’m not commenting on the music now, just the sound quality here.

 

 

 

I see what you mean. All my albums have been self produced and I don't see any way to make them cheaper. I put about 90 or so hours into each record in just tracking and mixing, and get chided by other guys in bands for not doing it in half the time. Well, I don't want it to sound like i did it in half the time, and I haven't found a way to make a decent sounding record without trying different things in the studio. But the big budget studio projects have had to scale back out of necessity. I remember reading the Rolling Stone articles back in in the 70s of bands like Fleetwood Mac taking a year to record an album, endless hours in the studio with manual editing and the like, miles of tape being rejected by one band member or another, arguments with producers, etc etc. Something like 150k was spent on just recording one album in the 70s, which would be approaching a half mil today. Those days are long gone, that's for sure.

 

But you're right, we do pay a price. My wife and I were driving home and listening to a local blues show (they play my stuff and stuff from my friends on it once in awhile) and I had to turn it off. Song after song was literally unlistenable to me, recordingwise, and I'm not talking about local or regional guys, I'm talking label releases from Alligator, Black Top, Sennachie, Blind Pig...Scratchy, shrill guitars, middy vocals buried in the mix, too much effects on everything, drums too loud, cymbals too hissy... they just don't have the resources anymore to pay for great production or a decent producer. A lot of these niche acts like blues, fusion, jazz, folk, and so on are all producing themselves, and it's painfully evident most aren't producers.

[BlueSteam]

I buy used CDs - there are great stores in town with lots of inventory constantly changing - and I download mp3s from eMusic also. I preview the mp3s for sound quality before I buy. I end up passing on downloads when they have that harsh, distorted mp3 sound. But for some reason, a ton of electronic stuff sounds fine off eMusic. But I also have to watch out for early CDs - 80s stuff - that has that terrible tinny, thin, digital sound that CDs had a lot of the time early on. Also not good. I don't have golden ears - but maybe silver. I just want it to be clear, all the hz levels reasonably represented, and no distortion that wasn't intentional. I can handle a little tape hiss and a few vinyl pops if it sounds good basically. But that harsh mp3 compression is to me the audio equivalent of licking newsprint... nat whilk ii

 

 

I think this is one of my problems. I wouldn't say I have a "golden ear" either, but I do think I can detect more than the average listener. When messing with my tube amps, I feel I can hear subtle changes with every tube I change, changes brought on by tube rings and changes brought on by every cable in my chain/cable length. When listening to recorded audio I'm the same way and some of the little things make me nuts. With downloadable files they cut out the frequencies that people "can't hear" in order to make the files smaller. I think they go a little further than the ones we can't hear though, because there are definitely missing upper and lower frequencies on any download I've ever listened to. I've also experimented with converting my own music into different formats and can hear the difference there as well. Another thing I don't like about downloads is that they seem to take away some of the frequencies we feel as well. Whenever in my car, which has a modest but great stereo system, there is just no oomph provided by files I've downloaded off the web. Though, admittedly, I've only used a few sources such as iTunes and purevolume and hadn't thought of looking for high quality downloads prior to responses to this thread bringing them to my attention.

 

As far as ripping CDs to my computer is concerned, I use the highest quality setting I can and I found a great pair of headphones that seem to hide some of the things that bother me about these types of files.

[veracohr]

 

So I guess I'll need a faster internet connection, a bigger hard drive and at least one back up hard drive because I'm going to want the best quality I can get! =)

 

 

At 24 bit/96kHz, you can get 964 hours of audio on a 1TB drive ( provided I did the math right). You can get external 1TB drives for less than $70 for a crappy one.

 

At CD quality: 16bit/44.1kHz, you can get 3149 hours of audio on a 1TB drive.

 

This is for uncompressed formats.

[Samilyn]

my wife buys some mp3's off itunes, but mostly my attitude is that if I'm paying top $$ for the music, I want a top audio quality CD with all the trimmings. Especially considering that I'm paying the same price overall (most cd's are $9.99 these days). In fact any CD with more than 10 songs, you pay more for the mp3's in a lot of cases- screw that. Amazon usually has a free shipping special, or I order in bulk and pay minimum shipping.

 

 

This ^

[Anderton]

A lot of people refer to MP3s as using data compression, but a more accurate term would be data omission. Although they can come pretty close to CD quality, especially at rates above 256kbps, at lower rates there are big pieces of music missing and it's definitely audible.

 

This is why I still buy CDs...but not very many of them, it just hasn't been the same since NARAS nuked the Grammy Awards Guide

[kurfu]

I buy unprotected mp3's from Amazon.

They sound fine to my ears.

[Matximus]

Just like people will pay good money for the pleasure of owning a nice car that they drive around in (and which costs them petrol/insurance money), I think there will be just as many musicians who will dip into their pockets to bring their music to the world (and then try and make money back in other ways).

 

 

And we all know how the whole world is eagerly awaiting... to hear the do-it-yourself offerings of good intentioned hobbyists and pub-circuit warriors and all that they can accomplish with their pro-tools-running-laptops...

 

Making and mixing records - or any kind of simple sound collage, really - takes an immense amount of skill and training to do well. And that's just capturing it in a professional way. We're not even talking about the skill of the players, which is a whole other thing that's incredibly hard to do...

 

Ask anybody you know with professional skill in the field of audio recording about how much technology has improved the quality of audio recordings... what they will tell you is that it's simply created glut of sloppy recordings from well-intended hacks...

 

So, yeah, nobody's digging into their own pockets or heading to the wreckroom to record albums on the level of Sgt. Pepper's - that's what I'm talking.

 

That is what we are going to lose for a while - really high-end and professional music recordings of the kind we all grew up listening too. THe people that know how to make them are going to stop because they don't make any money doing it - this is certainly going to happen.

[Grubgoat]

I'm not buying that logic. The first Metallica album sounds *terrible*, so do the early Who, Beatle, and lots of other acts' albums that people are still buying to this day, and tracks off of them are being played on the radio all the time. Give me 5 more years, and I *know* I can be making albums that both sonic-ally and artistically compete with those, and I'm not ashamed to say that publicly OR to make that my goal. Put your time in, work hard, get better gear, it can be done.

 

The next "Downward Spiral" or "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" or "OK Computer" is being written and recorded in *someone's* basement right now. I guarantee this.

[Elemenope]

Very rarely. In order for me to purchase a cd it has to be something that really impresses me. I am just so burnt out on music-bands that nothing really does it enough for me anymore to go out and spend $10+ on a full cd.

[panthalassa]

More and more, I find myself buying mp3s from iTunes or Amazon, although the record stores are still the best hangouts to talk to DJs and see what's new. Plus, I'm running out of room for the boxes of LPs and CDs I have accumulated over the years. Just can't bear to part with them!
Interestingly, as a music instructor I have quite a few teenagers who still prefer to buy CDs. They think paid downloads are "cheesy." To be fair, it's about 40%, or about thirteen kids. My only explanation is there is some value in buying something tangible: you can hold it. Otherwise we're on the road to download-only world.

[Matximus]

I'm not buying that logic. The first Metallica album sounds *terrible*, so do the early Who, Beatle, and lots of other acts' albums that people are still buying to this day, and tracks off of them are being played on the radio all the time. Give me 5 more years, and I *know* I can be making albums that both sonic-ally and artistically compete with those, and I'm not ashamed to say that publicly OR to make that my goal. Put your time in, work hard, get better gear, it can be done. The next "Downward Spiral" or "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" or "OK Computer" is being written and recorded in *someone's* basement right now. I guarantee this.

 

 

Yah... the First Beatles Album... was cut at a time when records were made in an afternoon... by a highly trained recording professional that had spent tons of time recording everything from comedy to classical music and knew a damn lot about what he was doing... And each album kept getting more time-consuming and expensive as the Beatles incredible earnings let their masters at EMI give them incredible leeway to go-to-town in anyway they pleased in the recording studio...

 

Which in turn directly opened the door to the Who (who famously derided their first album as a crummy rush job, by the way) making an incredibly indulgent (expensive) and crazily legendary and influential rock opera album called... Tommy...

 

Which in Turn solidified this whole "Rock Music as High-ARt" making it possible a number of years later for a goofy scruffy and ambitious metal band called Metallica (whose must successful record was made by an incredibly productive and proficient dude that's helped everybody from Cher to Motley Crue get their sound together) to get the asinine (and stupidly indulgent) idea to make a record and DVD of their performance with the San Francisco Orchestra ....and still be taken kinda seriously for the effort..

 

The whole point being all of these grand sweeping stupid and expensive cultural touchstones in pop were possible deep-pocketed investors saw an upside and spending a lot of money in making big professionally recorded music extravaganzas - that a lot a lot of people enjoyed. This may have been a phase that is over.

[daddymack]

Point being, though, that it isn't teh technology that is the key to good recording, it is the mind of the person actually doing the recording, their ear, their judgement, that is a zillion times more crucial than what microphone, what software, etc.

Which is why so much stuff being recorded on modern, digital, cutting-edge gear still sounds like crap.

[richardmac]

Can't even remember if I already responded to this. I do all three, but mostly buy from iTunes. If I happen to stumble across a physical used CD for cheap, I'll buy it. Otherwise I buy from iTunes. If I can't find what I need on iTunes, or I want something so I can hear it and then trash it, I might bittorrent it.

Regarding audio quality - 95% of everyone I know do not care about it. And the other 5% are musicians. I'm personally OK with iTunes level quality.

But I agree with daddymack - It's about the guy twiddling the knobs. We have the ability to make great sounding recordings now in our bedrooms, but that doesn't mean we do.

[davejh]

The quote that "cd's still make up for 80% of music purchases" is due a lot to back catalog, and not new music. Most of the best selling cd's today are re-issues, stuff like Christmas compilations, and generally stuff that is targeted to the 40+ age range. There was an article in our local newspaper about that, not too long ago. About what % of cd sales are attributed to what age range.

I know as far as punk rock, and indendent music goes, that figure can't be even close to accurate. My labels distributor deffinitely loves seeing vinyl releases, and cd Suggested Retail Prices have taken a huge dip, most independent music nowdays has SRP's of 8-10 bucks, and under, and distributors encourage labels to have a lower srp than in days past, so that also.

Another thing that the RIAA and music sales studies never take into account either, is that a huge majority of vinyl sales are never recorded with soundscan. More and more, people are buying direct from labels, from online marketplaces like www.interpunk.com and the like, as well as the fact that a huge amount of independent vinyl releases have no barcode, and are sold online and through smaller mom and pop stores that don't submit to soundscan.

As an owner of two independent labels, I can safely say that probably 20% of our stuff is actually reported to soundscan. Our cd sales are gone down so incredibly much that we quit even pressing them over a year ago, and nowdays only press very small amounts to give to bands for tour, and to use for review purposes. Vinyl outsells our cd sales tenfold.

Anyway it's late, I hope I just made sense, I shouldn't type while half asleep