Jump to content
  • 0

To CD or Not To CD

Rate this question


Ishiyoshi

Question

In today's WSJ Weekend Journal section:

To CD or Not to CD

Ethan Smith. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jul 15, 2005. pg. W.1

[With album sales down, record companies are touting their big acts, hoping fans will pay for entire discs by Foo Fighters or Springsteen. But Ethan Smith asks: Should we just buy the single instead?]

AMELY GREEVEN rarely ventures into music stores and hasn't replaced the iPod she lost in January. When Ms. Greeven does pick up new music, she becomes the kind of customer the recording industry is desperate for -- one who buys entire albums, not single songs.

"It would never occur to me to pick through an album song by song," says Ms. Greeven, a 31-year-old marketing consultant and writer in Los Angeles who usually buys music online. "I still take the leap of faith and buy the whole thing."

With album sales down almost 8% this year and single downloads continuing to rise, the $34 billion recording industry is in a fix. How can it keep consumers buying compact discs, which account for the bulk of the industry's revenue, but still satisfy the expanding audience that wants to cherry-pick hit singles? In a nod to the inevitable, labels are working to make more single tracks available through downloading, subscription services and even deals that one day will allow consumers to download music onto cellphones. At the same time, the industry appears to be placing its larger bet this summer on the familiar names they think still have the power to sell entire CDs -- from Coldplay's adult-friendly "X&Y" to Bruce Springsteen's acoustic "Devils & Dust."

Which poses a crucial question for consumers: Is it worth buying the whole CD -- or just a song or two? To find out, Weekend Journal asked retailers, radio programmers and record company executives to help us sort through summer's big releases for a good cross-section of rock, country, pop and hip-hop. Then we ran the albums by a few of the most experienced ears in the industry, including the colorful Walter Yetnikoff, former CBS Records chief executive; Emmanuel "E-Man" Coquia, music director at Power 106 FM in Los Angeles, an influential hip-hop station; and "American Idol" judge Randy Jackson, who is a producer and musician.

The panelists weighed in in favor of buying rock group Nine Inch Nails' new "With Teeth," even though the band is encouraging fans to download the album's remixable cuts "Only" and "The Hand That Feeds" for free, using Apple's GarageBand or other specialized software. On the other hand,

they gave a thumbs down to the Foo Fighters' two-CD set, which sold more than 500,000 copies in its first three weeks in stores. (Their complaint: not enough material to fill two full CDs.)

These days, even recording-industry executives acknowledge privately they alienated some consumers by resisting single-song sales for so long -- frustrating people who felt they had to pay $15 for a full CD when all they wanted was a single cut. But analysts believe that change is afoot. "We're going to see a lot of pop music returning to singles, and that's going to shake up the industry," says David Card, a senior analyst at Jupitermedia Corp.'s Jupiter Research. Nearly all of the labels are trying to make music available in as many forms as possible, starting with more product on services such as iTunes, which sells about four-fifths of all legal music downloads, as well as Napster, Rhapsody and AOL. Most of these services charge 99 cents a song, with Wal-Mart's rate a dime cheaper.

Napster, Yahoo and Rhapsody offer "all you can eat" subscriptions, where consumers pay a flat monthly fee between $6 and $15 for access to an unlimited amount of music. As for the cellphone downloads, they're still a ways off. The plan eventually is for consumers to be able to download songs from a special service, directly to handsets -- just as they do with MP3 players. (The phones will probably have limited ability to store songs, more along the lines of Apple's iPod Shuffle). Apple and Motorola have built a prototype for a hybrid iPod- cellphone, but its commercial rollout has been delayed.

For now, record executives are sticking to CDs because that's where the bulk of their revenue lies -- even though the margins on digital sales are better than CDs. On average, labels collect $10 to $12 a unit on CDs that retail for an average $15, but they have to pay for manufacturing and shipping, and handle unsold discs returned by retailers. Digital sales sidestep those costs, plus the industry takes in at least 80 cents for a track that sells for 99 cents online. Still, even a recent optimistic forecast from PricewaterhouseCoopers shows that by 2006, digital sales (including cellphone ringtones) will account for no more than 25% of the industry's projected $42 billion global revenues.

In Los Angeles, Ms. Greeven says she heads to the music store for ideas. Proof in point: In a blue mood a couple of weeks ago, Ms. Greeven was wandering through a Virgin Megastore when she stepped up to a CD listening station and heard a dance song. "It lifted my spirits so much, I ended up spending over $100."

Discuss accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

cd sales are down for the same reason film ticket sales are down - too much average product, not enough interesting, new, diferent music in most genres.

perhaps the centralisation of music labels & film studios will learn the 'mcdonaldisation' of entertainment leads only to similar bland product availible everywhere but cherished by few. i have my doubts if it'll stick whilst they can sue people instead though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

i dissagree to an extend, i don't believe that there isn't enough new or enough previously unheard great music out there, i think the record industry, facing year after year after year, of declining CD sales would be stupid not to find some middle ground between slashed CD prices and profit.

Also for once the digital era of internet music is working for them, why not create company based music stores (i.e. Sony BMG, Warner Bros., etc) and undercut all of these joint stores like iTunes? You could sell a song for half the price as say Apple could, and make more money in the long run. Isn't this what the airlines have been doing the past few years with the sudden surge of cheap tickets online?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I think commercial radio stations are part of the problem in declining cd sales. Stations owned by large companies play music that is chosen for them by the research and marketing sectors and stations play only the singles they are told to play. This limits exposure to the variety of artists who are producing music. When 1000 people are hearing the same music and 395 of the listeners are interested in purchasing the cd, it only takes one person to buy the cd and make copies for everyone else who wants the album. Increase the variety of music exposed to listeners and you will create a more diverse buying population, 200 people who want this artist, 200 people who want that artist, etc, etc, etc...

Edited by bland10000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Simple:

Albums cost too much for what they are worth!

I will rarely pay over £8.99 for an album and that's on the net. In stores they are more like £14! (Yeah, they've got bills to pay, blah, blah... blink.gif )

Lower the RRP of CDs from £15 to say £6 and sales will go up, piracy will go down. (Why have a shabby copy probably recorded from mp3 files when you can get the 'kosher' CD off e-bay for a couple of quid... tongue.gif )

Edited by MDGB2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The only time I buy single CDs is if there's an additional rare song on it. Otherwise I'll wait for a sale and buy the entire CD. Buying one song at a time makes no sense to me, nor does buying a compressed piece of crap from iTunes or the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The only time I buy single CDs is if there's an additional rare song on it. Otherwise I'll wait for a sale and buy the entire CD. Buying one song at a time makes no sense to me, nor does buying a compressed piece of crap from iTunes or the like.

Same here. I really don't see the point of single CDs : when you discover an interesting artist through one of their songs, the most dumb thing to do is to buy the single just to listen the same song over and over. But no, I'm under the impression that people think "After all, that's the song I heard, and that's the song I liked. If this is the single, it means it's the best song of the album, so there is no point in buying it."

Still, I'm not THAT concerned because it seems to me that most albums getting single releases aren't worth a buy anyway. Maybe they are worth an illegal download, and if they prove valuable, a buy (of the CD of course, as I'll never never buy an album over the net. I think that there is too much sentimental value when you own and can touch an album you like).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

...worth an illegal download, and if they prove valuable, a buy (of the CD of course, as I'll never never buy an album over the net. I think that there is too much sentimental value when you own and can touch an album you like).

I'm with faelnor here. I can't get over the attachment to physical objects. I personally buy a sh'load more CDs since file sharing came out, because I can be exposed to so much more music without any danger of losing out.

My wife got into '70s funk because her best friend at work made her an MP3 CD (a la mix tapes from the good ol' 80s) of lots of Funk tracks.

18 months later, and she owns about 30 funk and soul and motown CDs which she bought as her tastes expanded thanks to illegal music downloading and sharing. Before that she hadn't bought an album for two years.

I don't end up giving much to record companies because I buy a lot of my CDs secondhand. I often have tastes that are "vintage" and therefore readily (and cheaply) available secondhand. And without being ruined by copy protection biting into my ability to enjoy the music I buy. (Many re-releases with copy protection added as an extra feature!)

Edited by genghisbunny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I think commercial radio stations are part of the problem in declining cd sales.  Stations owned by large companies play music that is chosen for them by the research and marketing sectors and stations play only the singles they are told to play.  This limits exposure to the variety of artists who are producing music.  When 1000 people are hearing the same music and 395 of the listeners are interested in purchasing the cd, it only takes one person to buy the cd and make copies for everyone else who wants the album.  Increase the variety of music exposed to listeners and you will create a more diverse buying population, 200 people who want this artist, 200 people who want that artist, etc, etc, etc...

I would agree with the insipid 'programming' that we have to put up with on commercial radio. It was enough to force me to stop listening to commercial radio stations completely, years ago...AND I stopped buying CDs. I still have vinyl from the 1960's (and something to play it on) and I am converting that to MD.

The problem with commercial radio's 'programmed' playlists is that the same idiots that ruined broadcast radio are being hired to 'program' Satellite radio (XM and Sirius) broadcasts as well. Sure you can pick your genre much more finely but what you get is what the marketing types TELL you "THIS is what you WANT to listen to!"

For me, the most radical approach is NOT to support commercial radio by not listening and NOT to support the music industry machine by not buying (either packaged CD OR downloads).

"You say you want a Revolution"...learn to make your OWN music and ignore the corporations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

You mean don't actually listen to any new music at all - that'll show 'em... rolleyes.gif

I concede that commercial radio stations are pretty dire - at least in the UK, but we do still have high quality public sector broadcasting (ie. the BBC), so I'm not about to switch that off either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I've replaced some stuff I sold ages ago and the only compelling music I find nowadays is "world music" and experimental stuff on indie labels.

The presence of copy-protection and lawsuits is definitely off-putting; the only experience I had with a "non-CD" resulted in my making a pirate copy of the offending disc and returning it to the shop.

I cannot say I'm too sad about it however. Spending less on CDs means I can save more and spend more on holidays and fun times with my family; I don't see that as a negative. I also wouldn't have turned to great shows like Late Junction on Radio 3 without the moribund state of pop music (which, let's face it, is not a recent phenomenon and has been going on since pop music became big business in the 60s and 70s).

I think the only way forward is for the big labels to die and copyright laws to be overhauled. The phenomenon of making a living by making music is relatively new (only the last few centuries), and I don't think making a hit single means anyone deserves to be a millionaire. Even if the big labels die and the era of the pop star comes to a close, people will continue to make music; if it becomes more hobby than get-rich-quick scheme, we might even see an improvement in the quality of music people create.

Edited by saaron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I must admit I don't buy or listen to much new popular music any more, and that's been for about 10 years now. Not particularly because of being ripped off, but because there didn't seem much of interest going on in that 'genre'. Maybe that's just me getting old though...

However there do seem to be plenty of new and exciting recordings in the classical music field (particularly Baroque - my special interest area), and I'm not prepared to miss out. Admittedly it is an expensive hobby, but that's my choice. At least I haven't come across any copy protection here recently...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I still buy full-album CDs... CD singles I usually only buy for remixes and B-sides not available on the album the singles came from.

I don't mean any offense to anyone but I have to say that I've always been fairly annoyed at what I used to refer to, back in the day as, "radio junkies". I.e. people who only listen to music because it is popular and gets airplay on pop music radio stations, and television channels.

In most cases these are the people that "get mad" about having to "buy a whole CD for one song" and other such nonsense. To me these are people who have no appreciation for artists and music at all--they are primarily interested in keeping up with the latest fads and fashions.

I'll admit that in very rare cases there are single tracks from certain artists that will be the only music from that artist that I like; but that is more the exception for me than the rule. If I don't like the band enough to buy their whole CD and like either all or most of the tracks on it, I'm just not going to buy the CD in the first place.

It is interesting that today you don't even have to go out and buy the CD single for a one-off song you happen to like--you can just pay for it online and download that track (or do it illegally and not pay for it, as is the case with a lot of people). I guess being able to buy single tracks like that is a good thing but the unfortunate part is that you can't really get these downloads encoded at good data rates, from what I know.

The thing that *REALLY* annoys me about buying CDs in this day and age is *not* the so-called "high" price (really CDs are not that expensive in Canada, particularly new releases which are always in the $10-$15 CDN. range for single CD releases), but rather it is the fact that CD-TEXT was invented perhaps a DECADE ago and almost ALL CDs *still* do *not* have it! mad.gif It even used to be that all labels associated with Sony in some way had CD-Text but now even those labels are releasing discs WITHOUT CD-TEXT!!! It is retarded that with all the music files, DAPs, etc. in use today that CDs aren't even released with a *tiny* bit of subcode that allows for text. The aging CD only shows its age even more when you buy a CD today in 2005 and you put it in your CD-Text-capable player and it is utter disappointment everytime when all you see is the stupid track number and playtime. mad.gifmad.gifmad.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

In most cases these are the people that "get mad" about having to "buy a whole CD for one song" and other such nonsense.  To me these are people who have no appreciation for artists and music at all--they are primarily interested in keeping up with the latest fads and fashions. 

Look at the number of top 40 stations around the country, there's a whole lot of people in this category. The CD-Text thing doesn't bother me so much. If I've taken the time to pull a CD from the rack, put it in my player, and play it, I've more than likely got the jewel case nearby to look at track names, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Look at the number of top 40 stations around the country, there's a whole lot of people in this category.

Yeah there sure are a lot of losers about eh? LOL.

The CD-Text thing doesn't bother me so much. If I've taken the time to pull a CD from the rack, put it in my player, and play it, I've more than likely got the jewel case nearby to look at track names, etc.

Yeah that's one way of looking at it, but when you just buy a new CD from the store and pop it in your car CD player it isn't as easy to be driving around trying to read a jewel case. And once you put the jewel case in your house and keep driving around with the CD, it doesn't help either. Plus if it is in either my 10-CD or 6-CD changer in the car it gets even worse with all the CDs...

Even at home, put a few discs in a multi-CD changer and then you're also screwed... I'm lucky enough to have a CDP-CX90ES 200-CD changer (a rare model--one of the only Sony mega changers that allowed you to input track titles as well as disc titles) but evenso inputting titles for each new disc is annoying and there is a limit for non-CD-Text discs for each track title... In the 5-CD changer, without text it's retarded.

It would be fine if this were 1994 still and discs had no text but c'mon now, in this day and age? CD-Text which you can add in a few minutes burning any given CD to a CD-R? Or getting text via tags from MP3s and other files or by using MD? Pretty much every type of music media used today has artist/album/track text info available except CD, despite it being entirely possible and certainly *very* easy to include on CD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I dump all my CDs to MDLP2 for listening to on the road and the train; CD-TEXT rocks because my shelf-unit will automatically title everything on the MD. What pisses me off is when the Text is copy-protected -- what's the point of that? I have to manually title my tracks now....ooooh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The only time I buy single CDs is if there's an additional rare song on it. Otherwise I'll wait for a sale and buy the entire CD. Buying one song at a time makes no sense to me, nor does buying a compressed piece of crap from iTunes or the like.

For reals.

Whatever the reason is that CD sales are declining, I still buy them primarily because I demand the quality. Buying off iTunes is convenient, but no thank you DRM and no thank you lossy crap.

I have a couple younger siblings that buy primarily indie rock from smaller labels. They buy TONS of CDs. I love that none of that money goes to the big record labels. Of course, their beloved bands probably still have to tour like crazy to try to make a dime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I have a couple younger siblings that buy primarily indie rock from smaller labels.  They buy TONS of CDs.  I love that none of that money goes to the big record labels.  Of course, their beloved bands probably still have to tour like crazy to try to make a dime.

Aye. Small labels have some of the best music out there IMO. Their releases usually cost less, plus I've found a bunch of labels will throw in extras when you buy their releases. Customer service is usually excellent too.

edit: Thought the whole small label thing would be a good thread topic. Share away.

http://forums.minidisc.org/index.php?showtopic=11525

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The thing that *REALLY* annoys me about buying CDs ... is the fact that CD-TEXT was invented perhaps a DECADE ago and almost ALL CDs *still* do *not* have it! mad.gif  It even used to be that all labels associated with Sony in some way had CD-Text but now even those labels are releasing discs WITHOUT CD-TEXT!!!  It is retarded that with all the music files, DAPs, etc. in use today that CDs aren't even released with a *tiny* bit of subcode that allows for text.  The aging CD only shows its age even more when you buy a CD today in 2005 and you put it in your CD-Text-capable player and it is utter disappointment everytime when all you see is the stupid track number and playtime.  mad.gif  mad.gif  mad.gif

Here's a really annoying workaround that even I wouldn't bother with: rip the CDs to your HD, use Nero to look up the CD text, then rewrite the CD to a CD-R. I wouldn't do it personally since it would drive me crazy to have to dupe each CD that I own...but it is possible to do. wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Look at the number of top 40 stations around the country, there's a whole lot of people in this category. The CD-Text thing doesn't bother me so much. If I've taken the time to pull a CD from the rack, put it in my player, and play it, I've more than likely got the jewel case nearby to look at track names, etc.

"Love Media - Making sure every radio station in America sounds exactly the same"

-GTA3 radio ads

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

For reals. 

Whatever the reason is that CD sales are declining, I still buy them primarily because I demand the quality.  Buying off iTunes is convenient, but no thank you DRM and no thank you lossy crap.

I have a couple younger siblings that buy primarily indie rock from smaller labels.  They buy TONS of CDs.  I love that none of that money goes to the big record labels.  Of course, their beloved bands probably still have to tour like crazy to try to make a dime.

I buy most of my CDs second-hand so nothing gets to the labels or the artists. I'm just saving it from becoming landfill.

And yes, iChoons is a waste of money - why buy music that's been made less useful rather than just buying the proper CD version? Then again, I'm not in the target "single-buyer" demographic (I'm well over 15) - I buy albums after sampling a few tracks through file-sharing.

Edited by genghisbunny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

nor does buying a compressed piece of crap from iTunes or the like.

You should set up a website that offers uncompressed WAV downloads. Yeah, the file size is about 10 times bigger than your average MP3 but the people who will be downloading the WAV files won't care because they're there for the quality. You'd have my business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

You should set up a website that offers uncompressed WAV downloads. Yeah, the file size is about 10 times bigger than your average MP3 but the people who will be downloading the WAV files won't care because they're there for the quality. You'd have my business.

I have two challenges to this: FLAC and WavPack.

Both feature good lossless-packing ratios, embedded cuesheet support, corruption-resistance/error correction, sample-accurate positioning within files, and full metadata support.

FLAC has some hardware playback support as well.

Both are open-source, and as such conversion tools that enable trancoding to any other format are both easy to find and free.

Also, in terms of download sites, I'll remind us all of archive.org. Plenty of concert recordings, documentary stuff, copyright-lapsed audio and video, &c. downloadable in multiple formats [often including lossless]. A great number of recordings there are even originally from MD and HiMD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Lossless is still compressed though. If I'm parting with my hard-earned cash I will not accept any substitute for quality, nor should I have to. I'm also yet to see a DAP that supports FLAC (in Australia). Many support WAV though.

Edited by PCManiac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Lossless is still compressed though. If I'm parting with my hard-earned cash I will not accept any substitute for quality, nor should I have to. I'm also yet to see a DAP that supports FLAC (in Australia). Many support WAV though.

Uh. What part of "lossless" are you not understanding?

lossless packing = exactly the same quality, sample-for-sample identical playback as LPCM.

The key differences between lossless-packed formats and LPCM:

* lossless-packed formats can contain error-correction and still have less overhead; this means they can be streamed over network pipes with fewer errors, and still use lower bandwidth, with exactly the same output, bit for bit, at the receiving end

* they take up less storage space and use less bandwidth regardless of error-correction and metadata [and even DRM], with exactly the same output on playback

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Lossless compression is an oxymoron; you remove data from an audio track you are removing quality; that's an unavoidable fact. Believe it or not but there IS an audible difference between "lossless" compression and uncompressed; you just have to know what to listen for. When you find the differences they stick out like the dog's proverbial so to avoid noticing the differences, don't have them there in the first place!

Excactly the same quality? Not on a decent playback system.

Edited by PCManiac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Lossless compression is an oxymoron; you remove data from an audio track you are removing quality; that's an unavoidable fact. Believe it or not but there IS an audible difference between "lossless" compression and uncompressed; you just have to know what to listen for. When you find the differences they stick out like the dog's proverbial so to avoid noticing the differences, don't have them there in the first place!

Excactly the same quality? Not on a decent playback system.

Okay. I'm trying, really really hard to be nice about this.

There is a reason it's called lossless. It works a bit like how zip or rar compression works - you remove redundancy, analyse for patterns &c. and reduce them, and store the compressed version. On the output end, you decompress the data to get back out *exactly* what you put in. Bit for bit, word for word, every single bit of audio data that goes into the encoder comes out of the decoder exactly the same.

This is not a lossy perceptual coder. This is not based on data REDUCTION, but data COMPRESSION.

What goes in is exactly what comes out. mm'kay?

To reiterate, that means that the output of the decoder is identical in every single way to the PCM data that went into the encoder. Every sample in the same spot, every amplitude identical.

There is no loss. Period. Hence LOSSLESS. Quality is 1:1, PERIOD.

Please. Wrap your head around this.

If you don't trust me as a source of information, try reading some of the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flac

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavpack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Loss...sion_algorithms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Bit for bit, word for word, every single bit of audio data that goes into the encoder comes out of the decoder exactly the same.

So that's why the lossless file sizes are usually half the original size? Bit for bit? Bit for every SECOND bit. If it were bit for bit, it would also be the same 1441kbps playback rate, and if this were the case then the audio is uncompressed.

This is not a lossy perceptual coder. This is not based on data REDUCTION, but data COMPRESSION.

So how is the playback device going to decompress the data? It can't, so it uses data reduction to acheive a smaller file size. You are able to retreive the original data with data reduction (aka Winzip), but you can't retreive data lost via compression (unless it's a Winzip file, and you're not playing that back on any DAP soon).

What goes in is exactly what comes out. mm'kay?

Not mm'kay. You lose important audio information. Would ANY compressor include information above 20KHz? Even though humans can't hear the information above 20KhZ (more like 17KHz really, but I digress), it influences what you can hear. That's why it's important.

To reiterate, that means that the output of the decoder is identical in every single way to the PCM data that went into the encoder. Every sample in the same spot, every amplitude identical.

If the "compressed" file had every sample that the uncompressed file has then it wouldn't be compressed! How are you going to reduce the file size without removing samples? Reduce the bitrate so you get a pitiful SNR? Then that defeats the purpose of a lossless compression; enjoying a NEAR-identical sounding music track with only half the storage needed and and minimal unwanted distortion.

There is no loss. Period. Hence LOSSLESS. Quality is 1:1, PERIOD.

1:1? It goes IN at 1441Kbps, it comes OUT at 1441Kbps. THAT'S 1:1, which is uncompressed. Anything below 1441Kbps is COMPRESSED and thus, loses data and integrity. To reduce the file size, you have to ditch data, and thus, valuable audio information.

Why would it be called lossless COMPRESSION if it was the same, 1:1, as uncompressed audio.

Lossless. Look at that word. LOSS-LESS. If there was no difference, it would be LOSE-NOTHING.

PLEASE, stop trying to tell me that lossless and uncompressed are the same when they are not. Wrap your head around it. (It's really [firetrucking] hard to be nice about this).

For veezhun: Yes, I have and I can tell the difference. Listen for sibilance, attack on notes and all the usual culprits. Using high quality playback gear is a no-brainer too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Are there any programs that let you compare lossless and PCM, bit-by-bit? You're only basing your argument on your stupid listening tests, if you can hear a difference then you must have a VERY sharp ear indeed.

Perhaps you're just imagining there's a difference.

1:1? It goes IN at 1441Kbps, it comes OUT at 1441Kbps. THAT'S 1:1, which is uncompressed. Anything below 1441Kbps is COMPRESSED and thus, loses data and integrity.

OK, think of a ZIP file. You put a word document in a zip file and then you take it out again, no problem. If any integrity or data was lost this word file would probably become corrupt. Dex Otaku was talking about the QUALITY of the music being 1:1, not the actual data itself :wacko: Duh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

You compress, you lose quality, therefore it's no longer 1:1. DUH!

Also, NO I am NOT imagining there is a difference. I KNOW there is a difference because there IS a difference i.e. the bitrates between lossless and uncompressed are different, usually by about 50%. For a DAP, it's negligible but it's there.

Use as many computer programs as you want to determine SQ; all they can do is spit out numbers and graphs at you. How else are you going to determine Sound Quality; by using a spec sheet? Heaven forbid if you actually use your ears!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

And when you decompress AND play the lossless file, you restore that quality. Not to argue with you, but by the same token, anyone's ears cannot tell for sure if a bit is missing in a sampled waveform and therefore is not an exact copy of the original.

Edited by Syrius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

You compress, you lose quality, therefore it's no longer 1:1. DUH!

DUH to you, you really seem to be totally uneducationable. :wacko::rolleyes:

And, of course playback devices that play FLAC files start with decompress them.

Simple example:

The string "33333333333333333333" can (using a VERY simple algorithm) be compressed to "~20*3". If the same algoritm is run backwards it will be decompressed to "33333333333333333333".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

And when you decompress AND play the lossless file, you restore that quality. Not to argue with you, but by the same token, anyone's ears cannot tell for sure if a bit is missing in a sampled waveform and therefore is not an exact copy of the original.

Provided that you used a data compressor (i.e. Winzip), and not an audio compressor. Also, chopping half the info out from a song (like most lossless compressors seem to do) is a fair deal more than a few bits. If it was "it's compressed down to 1300kbps", then I wouldn't bother arguing, as you would need SERIOUS ear training and a playback system to make the gods jealous, but how often are you going to get a bitrate that high?

DUH to you, you really seem to be totally uneducationable. :wacko::rolleyes:

"uneducationable". Nice way to ruin your post.

I'm not against education, by the way. Believe it or not, but I DON'T know everything.

*sigh*. Must I produce educational achievements? Does someone's validity revolve around how much they have studied (and not experienced)? Fine. Audio Engineering at SAE College (2003). That's where I received ear training and I've been training my ears ever since. Go read Sound on Sound or any other quality audio magazine and they will help. Audio Technology is quite good (for Aussie readers).

Edited by PCManiac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Oh my god.

I give up. This will just devolve into insults if I don't stop now. The fact that I'm correct apparently makes no difference.

Believe what you like. Just don't rely on a computer to tell you what sounds good and what doesn't. Why the hell do you have ears if you aren't going to use them?

Oh my god.

I give up. This will just devolve into insults if I don't stop now. The fact that I'm correct apparently makes no difference.

Believe what you like. I'm wasting my time. Languish in sub-standard "music" if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I have been using my ears as a recording and live sound engineer on and off for about 14 years. I programmed computers for years, and later became a hardware tech. I've also been around satellite TV distribution systems since I was about 7. University I got bored with. Broadcast college I got bored with. Audio Engineering college I had to quit because of a 3,000km move.

Perhaps some of this gives me the background to understand the difference between data compression and data reduction. Please, do scroll back up and read some of the wikipedia articles about the various codecs. Or go to the codec websites. Or maybe study computer science and English until you can understand the difference between compression and reduction. Take your pick.

You are quite plainly a git, but hopefully you can learn at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...