Author Topic: The Classical Download Thread  (Read 233303 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Franco

  • Guest
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #640 on: August 14, 2009, 07:24:41 AM »
That's a bit glib.

Now that I have over 70,000 tracks loaded into my iTunes Library, it is not very practical to switch - or storing that many songs in a higher quality format.  And besides, AAC, while lossy, is better than mp3 and I like the flexibility of the software in all other respects.  I don't buy/download many songs anymore, but usually upload CDs or my current project, which is converting my vinyl and tapes to CD via a CD Recorder (HHB CDR-850), and then either ripping them to my hard dirve or uploading directly into iTunes.

I won't be doing away with my CD collection - but having the portability of the iPod is a great benefit.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2009, 07:26:35 AM by Franco »

Offline Tapio Dimitriyevich Shostakovich

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1252
  • Location: Germany, Ruhrgebiet
  • Currently Listening to:
    Autechre NTS Sessions - Nothing else!
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #641 on: August 14, 2009, 07:38:09 AM »
Yes of course. 70000 tracks, if in typical classical length, is a lot. I've got 20000 of classical and this is already more than 11 weeks.

I just want to say it's always better to start from a lossless source on a PC and convert to any possible format. In your case it's not a problem to convert whatever lossless format to m4a (e.g. with foobar2000+neroacenc.exe).

Well I'm from the fb2k world. Once done, it's more flexible than anything. Has a very good converter and great database queries. But needs a geek to have it all ;)



E.g. this is my naming scheme for lossy files for my DVD player. It's disgusting ;):

Code: [Select]
$puts(altmp,$ascii($trim($if3(%work%,%album%,%directory%))))$ifequal($strrchr($get(altmp),'No. '),$sub($len($get(altmp)),4),$puts(al,$left($get(altmp),$sub($len($get(altmp)),1))0$right($get(altmp),1)),$puts(al,$replace($get(altmp),No. 0 ,No. 00 ,No. 1 ,No. 01 ,No. 2 ,No. 02 ,No. 3 ,No. 03 ,No. 4 ,No. 04 ,No. 5 ,No. 05 ,No. 6 ,No. 06 ,No. 7 ,No. 07 ,No. 8 ,No. 08 ,No. 9 ,No. 09 )))$puts(com,$ascii($if2($trim($substr(%composer%,$strrchr(%composer%, ),999)),$left(%album artist%,30))))$if(%conductor%,$puts(con,$ascii($trim($substr(%conductor%,$strrchr(%conductor%, ),999)))))$if(%ensemble%,$puts(ens,$ascii($upper($abbr(%ensemble%)))))$puts(fn,[$num(%discnumber%,1)]$ifgreater(%subsong%,0,$num(%subsong%,2),$num(%tracknumber%,2))'. '$trim($left($ascii(%title%),80)))$if($or($strstr($lower(%title%),'symphony'),$and(%work%,$not($strcmp($lower($ascii($replace(%work%,'.',,',',,' ',,'-',,':',,';',))),$lower($ascii($replace(%title%,'.',,',',,' ',,'-',,':',,';',))))))),$get(com)\$get(al)$if($and(%conductor%,%ensemble%),' ('$get(con) - $get(ens)')',[' ('$get(con)')'][' ('$get(ens)')'])\$get(fn),$get(com)\_Various\$left($trim(%title%),80)$if($and(%conductor%,%ensemble%),' ('$get(con) - $get(ens)')',[' ('$get(con)')'][' ('$get(ens)')']))
« Last Edit: August 14, 2009, 07:46:32 AM by Wurstwasser »

Offline Fëanor

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Shostie fan
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #642 on: August 14, 2009, 08:09:13 AM »
cds are cheap enough that if you don't want to, don't bother, that's what I say.  I only buy mp3s when it's significantly cheaper than buying the cd (new or used), or the cd can't be found.  There are still so many holes in digital download I really don't think plunging into the digital world is worth it yet, cds will still be around for along time to come. :)

I refuse to pay for MP3 at any bit rate, even 320 kbps.  Paying US$1.00/track for a lossy format is an outrageous gouge when the physical CD likely costs no more.  This pricing is indicative of the greed of music distributors. After all, the whole cost of the physical production and distribution is by-passed, yet they expect to get the same price; it makes no sense.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 04:02:48 PM by Feanor »

DavidW

  • Guest
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #643 on: August 14, 2009, 08:40:06 AM »
I refuse to pay for MP3 at any bit rate, even 320 kbps.  Paying US$1.00/track for a lossy format is an outrageous gouge when the physical CD costs likely costs no more.  This pricing is indicative of the greed of music distributors. After all, the whole cost of the physical production and distribution is by-passed, yet they expect to get the same price; it makes no sense.

I don't think you've looked around enough.  If you buy them by the album it's much cheaper.  I picked up a Wuorinen chamber album for $3, the Suzuki Handel Messiah (a 2fer) for less than $4.  The complete Haydn symphonies can be purchased on mp3 for around $23.  I agree that $1/track is a rip, but there some sweet deals out there. :)

Offline Gurn Blanston

  • Haydn: that genius of vulgar music who induces an inordinate thirst for beer - Mily Balakirev (1860)
  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 31429
  • Support your local Haydn Society
    • Gurn's Haydn Blog
  • Location: Texas, where else?
  • Currently Listening to:
    Haydn, I reckon.
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #644 on: August 14, 2009, 08:48:05 AM »
I refuse to pay for MP3 at any bit rate, even 320 kbps.  Paying US$1.00/track for a lossy format is an outrageous gouge when the physical CD costs likely costs no more.  This pricing is indicative of the greed of music distributors. After all, the whole cost of the physical production and distribution is by-passed, yet they expect to get the same price; it makes no sense.

I completely agree with that. Lossy downloads are generally overpriced. You rip once, sell 1,000,000 times. And yet, when I browse Amazon, for example, I see "MP3 Album price $9.99", and right next to it "CD - Used, like new - $3.99". Now, I'm a well-known dumbass, but which choice do you think I would make there? :D  I have, however, gotten many rare, OOP disks as downloads, and there the $9.99 looks pretty damned good! :)

8)
Help support GMG by purchasing from Amazon using this link

Visit my Haydn blog: HaydnSeek

Follow me on Twitter @GurnBlanston106

Offline Tapio Dimitriyevich Shostakovich

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1252
  • Location: Germany, Ruhrgebiet
  • Currently Listening to:
    Autechre NTS Sessions - Nothing else!
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #645 on: August 15, 2009, 10:15:32 PM »
As an example you typically have four choices:

a) mp3 at $9.99. Maybe a jpg cover.
b) lossless at 9.99$ plus maybe a scanned booklet. Thanks Chandos.
c) CD for $11.99.
d) lossless with scanned booklet and ripping log by a community for $0.00 (I just say Avax, Melo & Co.)

Oh what a dilemma! The morals! The sin! The solution of course is: a) or b) because d) is illegal. c), erm, c. I don't like c because I need everything digital and I hate ripping and having the physical media. They will only crowd my basement.

I remember this blog entry (german) where the author states computers basically are copy machines, IT is copying, and he does not know a solution to the dilemma. I fully agree with that article. OTOH I do not agree fully with Paratenpartei. Piratenpartei is kind of trend sport in Germany, especially amongst students. To me, basically they apply socialist wet dreams on IT.

Yours,
Wurstpope
« Last Edit: August 15, 2009, 10:31:43 PM by Wurstwasser »

Offline Fëanor

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Shostie fan
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #646 on: August 16, 2009, 03:09:33 AM »
As an example you typically have four choices:

a) mp3 at $9.99. Maybe a jpg cover.
b) lossless at 9.99$ plus maybe a scanned booklet. Thanks Chandos.
c) CD for $11.99.
d) lossless with scanned booklet and ripping log by a community for $0.00 (I just say Avax, Melo & Co.)

...

Yours,
Wurstpope

Well, this is a good synopsis.  From my perspective only (c) represents fair value for money, though, of course, (b) is a huge improvement over (a).  I would be just happy with (b) but I'd rather pay less -- and ought to, given the much lower distribution chain costs.  The cost of (a) for those satisfied with MP3 ought to be perhaps $1.50 or maybe 20 cents for a single "song".

If irrational greed didn't trump common sense for the music distributors, they would be charging 15-20 cents per there would be far less piracy. Or at least if the long-time high prices hadn't already gotten people in the habit of piracy, that would be the effect.

DavidW

  • Guest
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #647 on: August 16, 2009, 06:24:55 AM »
If irrational greed didn't trump common sense for the music distributors, they would be charging 15-20 cents per there would be far less piracy. Or at least if the long-time high prices hadn't already gotten people in the habit of piracy, that would be the effect.

Charging $1 per is not "irrational greed", it represents the biggest price cut the major studios have ever made.  People used to buy an entire album to get the one song they liked, and they paid $12-17 to effectively get one song.  Now instead of buying the entire thing they get exactly what they want for less than 10% of the original price.

The system wasn't created to rip off classical music listeners, it was created to provide a cheap enough solution to turn the majority of people away from piracy and start paying for their music again.

When you think of the big picture, of what most people want, if someone is not willing to pay $1 per song, then they are not willing to pay at all.  Your suggestion of charging 15-20 cents does not really make any sense to me.  And you must realize that itunes, amazon etc employ professionals to gather and analyze statistics to determine the pricing that will yield the highest profit.  I doubt an armchair critic on an internet forum knows better.

Offline Gurn Blanston

  • Haydn: that genius of vulgar music who induces an inordinate thirst for beer - Mily Balakirev (1860)
  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 31429
  • Support your local Haydn Society
    • Gurn's Haydn Blog
  • Location: Texas, where else?
  • Currently Listening to:
    Haydn, I reckon.
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #648 on: August 16, 2009, 06:58:19 AM »
Well, I do think that the price of lossy downloads is, at least in some instances, irrational greed. I'll give you one example, but there are plenty of others. On Amazon right now, the BIS set of Brautigam Haydn sonatas. MP3 price for the album: $65.50. Now Amazon doesn't carry the set itself (I think it recently went OOP), but when they did it was <>$55, and on the Marketplace it can still be had for $59. (sometimes $49). Now, I'm sorry, but that's irrational greed. That would be high even if they were lossless downloads. Their distribution costs and overall investment is nearly insignificant. And as a marketing thing, how many of those sets do you think they actually sell? Who would pay that price! :-\

I am still willing to pay a fair price, and I think the concept of selling downloads is a good one, but there are clearly some things that are entirely out of line.

8)

----------------
Listening to:
Ludwig Van Beethoven - Op 061 Concerto in D for Violin & Orchestra 1st mvmt - Allegro ma non troppo
Help support GMG by purchasing from Amazon using this link

Visit my Haydn blog: HaydnSeek

Follow me on Twitter @GurnBlanston106

DavidW

  • Guest
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #649 on: August 16, 2009, 07:14:47 AM »
Well if you compare mp3s to the used market, you can't really expect the prices to be the same.  I think it only makes sense to compare directly to amazon's price.  Their "marketplace" is driven by a different supply/demand and also can fluctuate quite rapidly, it would be near impossible for amazon to track their marketplace pricing to match on their mp3 pricing to be fair.  And I speak as someone who sells on amazon, I can come back and find my listing buried under cheap prices in just a day, or find it sell within hours when it was in the middle before.

Offline Fëanor

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Shostie fan
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #650 on: August 16, 2009, 11:27:33 AM »
Charging $1 per is not "irrational greed", it represents the biggest price cut the major studios have ever made.  People used to buy an entire album to get the one song they liked, and they paid $12-17 to effectively get one song.  Now instead of buying the entire thing they get exactly what they want for less than 10% of the original price.

The system wasn't created to rip off classical music listeners, it was created to provide a cheap enough solution to turn the majority of people away from piracy and start paying for their music again.

When you think of the big picture, of what most people want, if someone is not willing to pay $1 per song, then they are not willing to pay at all.  Your suggestion of charging 15-20 cents does not really make any sense to me.  And you must realize that itunes, amazon etc employ professionals to gather and analyze statistics to determine the pricing that will yield the highest profit.  I doubt an armchair critic on an internet forum knows better.

No doubt the online music distributors rejoice to hear your argument.  But I'm not entirely convinced.

I have no idea whether most people bought entire albums to get one song as you suggest. Some did not doubt, but most I knew including me bought whole album out of choice, even when a "single" (45 rpm) was available.  Obviously the $1 per "song" figure is psychologically significant.  And I'm sure you are right that the $1 per was a deliberate calculation.  However I doubt consideration of piracy much entered into it. Rather my guess is that it was decided as the figure that would not undermine CD sales for brick & mortar sellers.  This has certainly born out for classical sales.

I'll stick to my point that $1 per track is a rip-off given the huge distribution cost savings.  The arguement that the masses will pay happily pay a buck to avoid paying for the whole album, or for the gradification of an instant download, sounds reasonable -- except that it is refuted by the evidence of piracy.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 04:00:20 PM by Feanor »

Offline vandermolen

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 13677
  • Location: Rotherfield, Sussex, UK
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #651 on: August 22, 2009, 03:00:57 PM »
I just purchased my first 'download' - the reason being because Barbirolli never made a commercial recording of Vaughan Williams's 4th Symphony and it is only available as a download. A performance from 1950 - unlike any other - a great performance:

"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

Offline Coopmv

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 11738
  • Mein Freund ist mein
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #652 on: August 22, 2009, 03:26:45 PM »
I just purchased my first 'download' - the reason being because Barbirolli never made a commercial recording of Vaughan Williams's 4th Symphony and it is only available as a download. A performance from 1950 - unlike any other - a great performance:




But is this considered an EMI recording?

DavidW

  • Guest
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #653 on: August 22, 2009, 04:25:06 PM »


But is this considered an EMI recording?

Since when does the record label matter at all?  Unless you are suggesting that he was swindled into paying for a bootleg.  As far as I know, only those pesky russian stores have distributed music without paying royalties.

Offline vandermolen

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 13677
  • Location: Rotherfield, Sussex, UK
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #654 on: August 23, 2009, 01:25:55 PM »


But is this considered an EMI recording?

Don't think so - no mention of EMI in the accompanying booklet. It was taken from a BBC studios broadcast in 1950.
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

Teresa

  • Guest
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #655 on: August 27, 2009, 03:47:47 PM »
I refuse to pay for MP3 at any bit rate, even 320 kbps.  Paying US$1.00/track for a lossy format is an outrageous gouge when the physical CD costs likely costs no more.  This pricing is indicative of the greed of music distributors. After all, the whole cost of the physical production and distribution is by-passed, yet they expect to get the same price; it makes no sense.

I agree! I will accept MP3 for free, such as the free downloads at Amazon.com but when I lay down REAL MONEY I want at least 24 Bit 88.2kHz lossless downloads.  I get the 24/88.2 and 24/96 FLAC downloads from http://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=staticpage&pagename=audiophile_96khz and then convert them to 24/88.2 and 24/96 Apple Lossless to play on my MAC.  I am also a Digital Subscriber to the Boston Symphony website http://www.bso.org/bso/shop/productCategories.jsp?id=bcat13360032 and get their concerts in 24/88.2kHz. 

The physical formats I purchase are SACDs, DVD-Audios and LPs, I was never into CDs as I never cared for their sound.  But I will say I prefer a CD ripped to Apple Lossless over the original CD, still I don't use such recordings except for background music.  When I listen to music for pleasure I choose high resolution digital and analog.  :)
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 03:53:31 PM by Teresa »

DavidW

  • Guest
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #656 on: August 27, 2009, 04:01:32 PM »
But I will say I prefer a CD ripped to Apple Lossless over the original CD,

Why?

Teresa

  • Guest
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #657 on: August 27, 2009, 04:06:07 PM »
Why?
To my ears it sounds less harsh, but even the Apple Lossless version I do not listen to seriously, just as background music.  I really don't like any digital lower than the Soundstream 50kHz recordings from LPs or SACDs.  I prefer as high a sampling rate as possible and like DSD the best of all. 

DavidW

  • Guest
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #658 on: August 27, 2009, 04:07:34 PM »
But it's the same thing.  How can it sound less harsh if it's the same thing? ???

Teresa

  • Guest
Re: The Classical Download Thread
« Reply #659 on: August 27, 2009, 04:08:41 PM »
But it's the same thing.  How can it sound less harsh if it's the same thing? ???

It is to my ears and they are the ones that count to me.  :)

Not sure of the reasons why?  Perhaps less jitter due to re-clocking?  Perhaps warmth is added in the lossless conversion?  Who knows, but I think that is one reason computer audio is popular.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 04:11:24 PM by Teresa »