The Great Digital Swindle! --(Downloads)

[Johnny Vinyl]

Found this article on The High Fidelity Report.

The Great Digital Swindle

Thought you would find it an interesting read.

[Lemmy Lugosi]

I mostly agreed with the article. Very interesting read.

I'm considering penning another book, to be called The Death of Rock & Roll. It's a very personal story.

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by Lemmy Lugosi

I mostly agreed with the article. Very interesting read.

I'm considering penning another book, to be called The Death of Rock & Roll. It's a very personal story.

I did as well, and I liked the fact he didn't discuss "quality" as that is another issue.

What was your previous book?

[anthonyls]

He makes some very good points. Personally, I still collect music and movies in a physical format.

[Mahatma]

It's strange viewing the audio community from somewhat outside.Twist and bicker if that or this sounds better.If some small detail may sound better on what medium.I have found 320kb/s mp3 to sound damn good on portable devices.Yes CD's sounds better on a high end setup,and SACD (probably) even better.But what's missing from this equation is the source,the music and lyrics which is the meat of this dish.Kind of like movie afficionados debating the merrit of the transfer rather the movie itself.

I wonder what that PONO thing-a-ma-jig which Mr.Young is flaunting is the mirical cure...

And from an anatomical point of view:maybe the youths should be given the very high end HIFI equipment and the the old farts-like me-just settle for the medium stuff

/Rant over

[rock, stone]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

It's strange viewing the audio community from somewhat outside.Twist and bicker if that or this sounds better.If some small detail may sound better on what medium.I have found 320kb/s mp3 to sound damn good on portable devices.Yes CD's sounds better on a high end setup,and SACD (probably) even better.But what's missing from this equation is the source,the music and lyrics which is the meat of this dish.Kind of like movie afficionados debating the merrit of the transfer rather the movie itself.

I wonder what that PONO thing-a-ma-jig which Mr.Young is flaunting is the mirical cure...

And from an anatomical point of view:maybe the youths should be given the very high end HIFI equipment and the the old farts-like me-just settle for the medium stuff

/Rant over

This is totally different subject.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by rock, stone

This is totally different subject.

I think his was mostly a general comment as to how into all this many are, way past even the most avid BD fan here, hence the " /Rant"

And it is on topic in the sense that how ever it is distributed, that stays true, and is what differentiates the "audiophile" from the rest. Considering we are but a grain of sand on the beach, we really are the "weird" one.

But the article does make a very valid and solid point, we as consumers will continue to have our rights diminished, as is in everything else, to the point when even if, as is in a supposed free country, our $ should be the final say in it, that is the next step.

Not only that, very soon the distribution chain will be so short that a heck of a big bunch of employees and intermediary links will just die.

And they say that it's supposed to be the beauty of capitalism, I only see the rich getting obnoxiously filthy rich at a very fast pace.

That is the real big problem with this, the little say the tiny consumers still had is basically taken away from them. Very very sad

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

I think his was mostly a general comment as to how into all this many are, way past even the most avid BD fan here, hence the " /Rant"

And it is on topic in the sense that how ever it is distributed, that stays true, and is what differentiates the "audiophile" from the rest. Considering we are but a grain of sand on the beach, we really are the "weird" one.

But the article does make a very valid and solid point, we as consumers will continue to have our rights diminished, as is in everything else, to the point when even if, as is in a supposed free country, our $ should be the final say in it, that is the next step.

Not only that, very soon the distribution chain will be so short that a heck of a big bunch of employees and intermediary links will just die.

And they say that it's supposed to be the beauty of capitalism, I only see the rich getting obnoxiously filthy rich at a very fast pace.

That is the real big problem with this, the little say the tiny consumers still had is basically taken away from them. Very very sad

Bingo.

This is about money and control of content. Physical media is dying and soon downloads will take over completely (barring a small niche segment in various areas). The publishers love this as their operating costs for delivery to the consumer has been cut by 50-75% , if not more.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vinyl

Bingo.

This is about money and control of content. Physical media is dying and soon downloads will take over completely (barring a small niche segment in various areas). The publishers love this as their operating costs for delivery to the consumer has been cut by 50-75% , if not more.

Won't be like the sword of damocles in this digital age?It's ironic that vinyl is set to take over the ground of HIFI CD's took over.I personally hope CD's can co-exist alongside vinyl.

Thank god for second hand HIFI stores

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Won't be like the sword of damocles in this digital age?It's ironic that vinyl is set to take over the ground of HIFI CD's took over.I personally hope CD's can co-exist alongside vinyl.

Thank god for second hand HIFI stores:D

We'll have used record stores around for decades.......just bummed that I might not get a lot of new material unless I download them.

[rock, stone]

The one thing that always bugs me about these discussions about quality/worth is how often the augment is couched in "256 is fine for me, I can't tell the difference" (or whatever, cds, lps, whatever) when it seems to me that when the file sizes aren't really an issue anymore, why the default shouldn't be very high quality. You can make a 320 mp3 in a matter of seconds, if that is all you want and then everyone gets to win.

My other big issue, which the article does touch upon, is that the companies won't stop trying to exhort as much money as possible when going digital, despite their distribution costs plummeting. That is (to date) my biggest gripe with the Pono model. The labels are pricing HD music out of the conversation.

[ZoetMB]

While it's true that you can't resell a digital file the same way you can resell a physical disc, his arguments really ring hollow for me because in spite of the fact that the labels save on manufacturing and physical distribution costs, the record industry is a financial disaster and no one is making any money.

He acts as if the record industry is making money hand over fist. Nothing can be further from the truth. We're down to three major record labels. How much more proof does anyone need?

What Napster and other illegal downloading did was to make the perceived value of music next to nothing. What legal downloading did was change the preferred format from albums back to singles.

In today's creative and corporate environments, the industry is not sustainable selling singles. In the U.S. the record industry is about 45% of its 1999 peak. But that doesn't include inflation. If you adjust for equivalent dollars, the industry is close to 30% of its 1999 peak.

If one doesn't want to pay the freight for the higher resolution tracks, either because one doesn't think they actually sound any better or because, as the author states, he doesn't want to take a financial risk since it can't be resold, then don't buy them.

The reality is that music is the least expensive its ever been.

Let's go back to 1965:
Albums listed for $3.79, $4.79 and $5.79, sold at discounters like Sam Goody's for $3.25, $3.85 and $4.49, respectively and on special sales, were discounted to $2.17, $2.77 and $3.37, respectively. That's $16.28, $20.78 and $25.28 in 2014 dollars and that's at super-sale prices. ($5.79 list in '65 is $43.43 in 2014 dollars).

In the early 60's, a single listed for $1 and sold at discount stores for 64 to 66 cents (albeit, a 2-sided single). 65 cents in 1962 is $5.09 in 2014 dollars.

The reality is that his argument is also bogus because it's actually quite easy to audition any track via any of the free streaming services. And most legal paid download services permit you to audition at least 30 seconds of each track anyway.

His argument is also bogus because unless the album or single in question is an esoteric rarity, it's not worth anything anyway. Just take a look on eBay. A very large percentage of the million or more albums are selling for under a dollar and they don't get a single bid.

So he can't resell a digital download? Tough. (Besides, is that really accurate? I can't send a file to someone else and have it work? Does the DRM prevent that?)

So I'm not buying his arguments. If one wants to argue that there isn't very much good new music, I'll buy that. If one wants to argue that HD tracks don't or won't sound better, I'll buy that. But there's no logical argument one can make that music is too expensive. We've just decided we pretty much don't want to pay for music anymore at all. And that's killing the industry, which is a shame because it used to be a very cool industry (aside from the fact that many artists got screwed to some extent by their labels) that brought much joy.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

What Napster and other illegal downloading did was to make the perceived value of music next to nothing. What legal downloading did was change the preferred format from albums back to singles.

This!

In the same vein though, one thing that does bother me is having to pay extra to get "high" quality when before the MP3 high quality was the norm and the only choice anyways. You didn't have a choice between a good vinyl and an average vinyl. Maybe I'm missing something but it's not more expensive (outside of bandwidth) to produce 96/24 than CD so why have to pay more???

And while the industry did shoot itself in the foot they should just be happy to sell full albums on the hi res sites instead of milking the ones they know will pay (the audiophile crowd).

But in the end if the artists do benefit and not only the labels, I can live with that (but we all know they are not the ones who will actually really profit the most).

[djkest]

I agree with that article, one of the reasons I am very apprehensive to embrace digital downloads. I have spent $0 on iTunes and it bothers me that Disney has an agreement with iTunes for the digital copies now.

If I purchase a BD I can watch it as many times as I want, lend it to a friend, Give it to someone, sell it off.
If I purchase a movie on iTunes, my choices are limited, and I don't believe I can "lend" it to someone.
Just as I can't lend my Kindle books out to anyone.

I still buy CDs. Not many, but I do. I (obviously) still buy Blu-ray discs as well.

[richieb1971]

Don't know what the original article says because the link no longer works.

However several things annoy me with the current state of the music industry. To make silly comparisons :

A Ferrari is a niche product, but it co exists with affordable cars.

I don't see why any music format can't start at the top of its game. Every single no matter what it is, should be recorded in the highest standard available and then that format should be A CHOICE of purchase for the masses.

I don't expect every piece to be demo quality and I don't expect everyone to buy the most amazing format available. Amazon, iTunes, HDtracks should all stock/carry all resolutions of music. Just like youtube you should be able to choose the resolution you want to play.

The problem here is that the hardware industry is leaps and bounds beyond the music industry who do not have a marketing strategy to sell high resolution to the masses.

The other issue is that high resolution nuts like ourselves are looking for something that developers/mixers of this type of music are not even sure what we want. They stick a format out there, put labels on it stating "state of the art sound" and hope we don't notice any shortcuts.

In comparison to other markets, people buy cars that go too fast for our roads. Photographers buy cameras that take pictures so big you would need a projector to see it properly. But in the music industry, they give you just enough.

My other concern which I don't have facts to support and it may be a load of BS is the cost associated with remixing stuff in 5.1 surround. I've heard figures of millions of $$$$$$. How is this possible? You need limited skills (but good skills), some equipment and a few weeks to master the final product. Why millions?

Also, is there a lack of talent in this area?

[cricepng]

Originally Posted by djkest

Just as I can't lend my Kindle books out to anyone.

Actually, you can lend Kindle books to other Kindle owners.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

My other concern which I don't have facts to support and it may be a load of BS is the cost associated with remixing stuff in 5.1 surround. I've heard figures of millions of $$$$$$. How is this possible? You need limited skills (but good skills), some equipment and a few weeks to master the final product. Why millions?

Also, is there a lack of talent in this area?

Except for the biggest groups, it probable doesn't cost anything near that, but it still can be very expensive, especially the way that artists obsess over everything today.

Think about it: if it was a big record, the label probably has to hire both a producer AND a mixing engineer. The producer probably gets somewhere between $2K and $5K a day. The engineer (if not famous), probably gets between $1K and $2K a day. So that's somewhere between $3K and $7K a day and let's say it takes three weeks. That's $45K to $105K for the first go-around. And then each member of the group listens to it and has approval, so there's probably one or two more rounds. So now we're somewhere around $100 to $200K, but that doesn't include the studio rental. So at $3K a day, that's another $50,000 or so. So now we could be up to $250K, the group wants at least a $100K royalty advance and we haven't even begun to calculate manufacturing, packaging and distribution costs. So before too long, we are already at $500K.

But the bigger problem is that the big labels don't think there's a market for most 5.1. I know of a number of albums that went Gold or multi-Gold in the 1960s and 70s that have already been remixed into 5.1 and the label won't release them.

I don't think there's a lack of talent in this area. There's two approaches to mixing music into 5.1. The first is to place the listener in the audience. In that case, most of what you'll hear in the surrounds is artificial echo and room ambience. The other approach is to place the listener in the middle of the group on the stage. That's done less often and is a bit more complicated, but it's not rocket science: you might send a guitar lead to one surround channel or split off the toms to the surround, etc.

In the fronts, anything mono, which in a stereo recording would have been perceived in the phantom center channel would simply be mixed to the hard center channel. Anything mixed to left or right would stay left and right except for the "sweetening" effects which would go to the surrounds.

And of course, deep bass (kick drum and some bass guitar) would go to the .1 channel.

[richieb1971]

Well, for the sake of trial and see the studios should not take any cuts to see if something sells.

Capitalism is pure evil in some regards and to be an artist totally obsessed with money is not being an artist at all. Music is about creativity first and foremost.

How much creativity are we missing because of money?

We need a "James Cameron" in the music industry to set the world alight.