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

If we were starting with insults a similar comment about brains seems to fit... :rolleyes:

You don't differentiate between "data compression" and "audio compression" - you differentiate between "lossy compression" and "lossless compression".

Examples of lossy compression:

JPEG for pictures

MP3 and ATRAC for audio

MPEG (1/2/4) for video

Examples of lossless compression:

ZIP and RAR for computer files (usually data files, but not necessary)

FLAC, APE and WAVPACK for CD-Audio (and other audio)

MLP for DVD-Audio

RLE for B/W pictures

Edited by tommypeters
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

In my first post, I used the phrase "lossless packing". This is synonymous to "lossless compression". At no point did I mix "wavpack" annd/or "flac" with the term lossy.

Incidentally, WavPack also does lossy encoding, with the option to make a supplement file that will make it lossless again if the two are used together. This is not the mode I use for archival, which is lossless, and therefore doesn't alter the signal but reduces the amount of space required.

* compression != loss. Compression is squeezing something into a smaller space. The general term does not imply loss in any way whatsoever.

"Audio compression" blankets both lossy and lossless methods, as well as being a general term for a type of dynamic range processing [compressing the dynamic range].

"Audio compression" also is often mistaken to mean or to imply loss because the average consumer, like you, didn't even know it was something desirable until the most common forms of it were lossy - in the form of DTS, ATRAC, MP2 and MP3, and AC3 for beginners. The reason you are mistaking my language is because you have accepted the term to imply loss, which is false.

There are many forms of lossless compression. One is used in DSD streams on SACD. One [Meridian Lossless Packing] is used by DVD-Audio. These are systems, like WavPack, FLAC, shorten, WMA lossless, Apple lossless, APE, and OptimFROG which are able to compress - not reduce, but compress - a digital audio stream without there being any signal loss in any way.

All digital audio compression, lossy or not, is a form of data compression. I started using more specific terms because obviously using the blanket term that people have come to associate with lossy compression was not clear enough for someone who doesn't know that it doesn't imply lossy compression.

Christ.

Agree to disagree - okay, I'll do that. It doesn't change the fact that you're still wrong.

It wasn't a quality debate, either. Lossless packing algorithms are lossless - so there's no quality loss. You can't seem to get that, though, and you appear to refuse to actually educate yourself on the subject.

Have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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