Digitalism

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

I will come clean right from the off and say that yes, this is background research for work. But I will just be absorbing the info myself and not giving any of it directly to THE MAN.

[Poll #940984]

I'm also rly interested in thoughts on digital music and its marketing and pricing in general, especially FORMAT - which appeal more to buyers? Single? Album? Either with lyrics/videos/art bundled up? Single plus a free B-Side? 4-song EP package? "Subscription" to new/work-in-progress artist tracks? (Much mooted this, rarely-actually done?) I get the feeling that the major labels' thinking is still VERY tied to what they're used to in terms of physical sales.

Anyway this is the future of pop distribution and access, so let's talk about it!

Comments

[jauntyalan.livejournal.com]

128 bit rate AAC. these sound better than 128kbps mp3. for what that is worth.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Yeah I've heard that though and it's far from the best - surely it should be a basic thing that if you expect people to pay money for an mp3 you should at least give them the option of having the v best sound quality available? I wouldn't pay money for a 192-bitrate mp3 either, even though I'd be happy with an illegal download of it. This is astonishingly rubbish. I mean, CAN you get 320-bitrate mp3s of pop songs anywhere?!

[chezghost.livejournal.com]

you can get 320kbps stuff on the dodgy Russian sites inc. Allofmp3 and GoMusic. but it's rather random. there's a lot of VBR stuff too (VBR = variable bit rate where the quality changes depending on what is happening in the song i.e. higher for bass or whatever).

the argument re iTunes quality mp3s is that they do not present any discernible difference to the AVERAGE listener. but i do not usually buy from them on the DRM issue is nothing else. DRM sucks!

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

I am not going to dodgy Russian sites. I don't know what DRM is. And seriously, fuck the average listener with sticks.

So you mean that there is actually NOWHERE to legally download music other than crap-quality/DRM itunes, dodgy Russian sites, or this e-music thing which has its own problems and which you have to subscribe to? Why do people do any of that?

[chezghost.livejournal.com]

Lex do you really notice the difference between iTunes-quality songs and the CD original, on a device like an ipod or standard stereo?

many people wouldn't or just don't care about it. people have always tolerated quality compromise - before CDs it was forced on them by the medium itself (vinyl scratchiness, tape hiss etc.) after all.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, I definitely do! It depends what kind of song to an extent, I guess if you're into acoustic music you won't notice (and it'll already be clear you don't care WHAT crap goes into your ears) but being into hyper-modernist r&b and the bobbins, things like crispness of beats and deepness of bass are V V V V IMPORTANT.

[blue-russian.livejournal.com]

I have to say, skeptical though I was previously, I have been somewhat converted recently after having the opportunity to compare 128kpbs, 192kbps, and CDs on a real normal stereo. 128 is pointless for anything more than test drive; 192 is the absolute minimum, but I have begun to regret the fact that I haven't yet bought CDs for certain things I really like.

[chezghost.livejournal.com]

I guess people were so tolerant of 128kbps 7 years ago because of the general excitement regarding the compression scale. It was touted as 'FM quality' and 'near CD quality' at the time. I still have so many mp3s of this bitrate on my PC it's ridiculous although the purge is well under way and the majority of my CD collection (not actually that big) is now encoded or re-encoded at 256 or higher.

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Yeah even *I*, master of the shonky CD, am trying to avoid 128.

I have quite a few MP3s at 96 hanging around :(

[chezghost.livejournal.com]

i have ripped about 40 of Alix's CDs to my laptop today - all at 256. i've now used up a third of the hard drive (although there was aready some large video clips on there too) :)

[atommickbrane.livejournal.com]

Ha ha - I have some things at 64!!

[chezghost.livejournal.com]

'So you mean that there is actually NOWHERE to legally download music'

you cannot download super chart-friendly pop/rnb/dance music at above 192kbps legally as far as i've found :(

it's been very frustrating when it comes to compiling Ultramixes and whatnot.

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Does anyone know if bandwidth is getting cheaper, by the way?

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

what i am struggling with at the moment = so much of my music from the past few years has been mp3s burnt to cd (original mp3s deleted to make room for new ones). and now I realise that re-importing them to new laptop - which I really want to do, to consolidate songs from various disparate compilations - means re-compressing them to an extent and they will sound even worse :(

[chezghost.livejournal.com]

And you can get 320kbps and also some FLAC stuff on Bleep - but they don't really do Pop (they've got some dubstep, grime, american alt-indie, ed banger and more tho)

[sbp.livejournal.com]

I work for an encoding house. I'll see which stores we supply with decent quality stuff.

[sbp.livejournal.com]

Looks like it's mainly dance music places that want their stuff in 320kbps MP3. Most of the regular WMA stuff isn't better than 192.