[Bevo]

Talking with my 16 year old nephew today I discovered that he and most of his friends never buy CD's, they just download.

I have a Ipod with 450 or so songs on it and 1500 on my I Tunes program, all off my CD's. I can't stand downloading and try to support my bands in my own little way.

After the Napster thing from years ago I think downloads have become have become the way of the people. If this keeps up the music industry will have a big problem unless they find a way around it.

Do you download or purchase the CD? Someone do a poll maybe?

Let us know why you do either with the band as part of your answer, lets chat!

Bev

 

[jcayer]

Do you download or purchase the CD? Someone do a poll maybe?...

I don't buy CD anymore (almost...) Instead I buy the songs, online. So I guess I download...

The songs go for something like .99 each or you can download the whole CD for around $10 or more depending of the number of songs/popularity etc...

Then you can burn a CD. The place where I buy the songs (Archambault.ca) limits the CD burning to 5 times. But you can copy the burned CD ...:wink:

But it's not all the CD that are downloadable yet...

 

[torndownunit]

There are 2 things that keep me from using download services. First, until they offer the files in a format that is closer to CD quality I am not interested. Apple offers AAC which is a great format for mp3 players (file size vs quality ratio). But 128 kbps AAC is still not high enough quality. I want files I can make burns of that are closer to CD quality and none of the services offer file formats like that. I would like the option to download FLAC files, or in Apple's case even Apple Lossless would be great.

Second the price is still too high. I can see paying 99 cents for singles, but they there should be more of discount on albums. $15 for 15 tracks that don't have any packaging is just too high. If you can get the same CD for the same price and get inserts and stuff, there isn't much motivation to buy a download. With the packaging and the middle man taken out of the equation, a full album download should cost less then it does.

Plus there are the ridiculous DRM issues. At least that seems to be getting resolved though. If you guy a product, there should be no limitation on how you use it. A limit on burns is ridiculous.

In my opinion right now you are paying more money for a lesser quality product.

 

[violation]

I download first, listen over a couple times and if I like it I buy it when it comes out. But if it's something I love like Ozzy or Van Halen, either way I buy it. I've got about 93 GB of music on here, and well over 500 actual CDs.

I used to buy CDs and never download, but then I found I was spending like $15 or $20 on albums that sucked *cough* Metallica's St.Anger *cough*, haha.

 

[hoser]

I do both but all my cds are ripped to mp3 as soon as I get them. my cds are stored in boxes in the basement.

 

[jcayer]

But 128 kbps AAC is still not high enough quality. I want files I can make burns of that are closer to CD quality and none of the services offer file formats like that. I would like the option to download FLAC files, or in Apple's case even Apple Lossless would be great.

So far, the cd's that I burned and listened with my hifi system are very acceptable (to my ear anyway). Of course some people have better ears and can detect the differences in recording format, but I'm very far from there :wink:

Second the price is still too high. I can see paying 99 cents for singles, but they there should be more of discount on albums. $15 for 15 tracks that don't have any packaging is just too high. If you can get the same CD for the same price and get inserts and stuff, there isn't much motivation to buy a download. With the packaging and the middle man taken out of the equation, a full album download should cost less then it does.

There is a discount for the albums. I have paid $10 for 15 tracks often. From my experience, it's always cheaper than buying a CD at HMV or the likes.

Plus there are the ridiculous DRM issues. At least that seems to be getting resolved though. If you guy a product, there should be no limitation on how you use it. A limit on burns is ridiculous.

+1

 

[torndownunit]

So far, the cd's that I burned and listened with my hifi system are very acceptable (to my ear anyway). Of course some people have better ears and can detect the differences in recording format, but I'm very far from there :wink:
[/B]

I don't have a problem listening to them on my iPod or something. But when you burn them to CD I hear a big difference. You can't remove that much information from a file (128 kbps ACC is a lot of compression) and have it sound the same.

Apple Lossless codec is part of iTunes. I don't know why they can't offer downloads in the format. Then you can convert them to mp3, AAC, or burn them to CD and always have a full quality version around.

128 kbps AAC is the optimal setting for that codec. AAC shines at lower bitrates. It gives the best file size to quality ratio for portable devices. I don't want to pay for a song that is only optimized for my mp3 player though. I want as close to CD quality as I can get. If they offered that I would have no problem at all paying for downloads.

 

[iaresee]

Apple Lossless codec is part of iTunes. I don't know why they can't offer downloads in the format. Then you can convert them to mp3, AAC, or burn them to CD and always have a full quality version around.

The new non-DRM tracks that are coming to iTunes will use a much higher ripping standard. Not lossless, but better than the current standard (which is horrible and the reason I won't pay $0.99 for a track from iTunes).

Personally I love flipping through CDs. The pleasure I get just standing in a record store and browsing is something I won't give up. And with used CD stores aplenty in Toronto I find I'm never paying more than $10 a CD these days.

 

[dwagar]

I download some stuff, usually something obscure that I don't have on CD.

But I prefer CDs mostly because some of what I consider the best cuts may not be the 'top 40' ones you hear and download.

 

[torndownunit]

This is my personal feelings on the pay services in general. Record companies thrive on greed. If all of them combined their efforts to make one download service that had ALL their releases and catalogs I think it would be a success. But the way it is now you can only get certain content from certain services.

 

[Michelle]

I started to download a few years ago and found it frustrating finding what I wanted and actually getting a successful download so I quit it.

When I started playing in a band again last year, I needed a lot of songs that I didn't have, enter my techie daughter, I just let her do it, then she got tired of doing it for me and introduced me to Limewire so I download some songs but I like to support the artist too.

I really like the song "Turn The Lights On" by Big Sugar so I downloaded it, then I went and bought one of their CD's. I really like Big Sugar I guess and am glad I bought the CD, good value. Same thing happened with "Shine" by Collective Soul but when I bought the CD, I was rather disappointed with the rest of their stuff.

Mich

 

[iaresee]

Same thing happened with "Shine" by Collective Soul but when I bought the CD, I was rather disappointed with the rest of their stuff.

I'm a huge Collective Soul fan and even I can't go back to HAATLU -- it was a budget record and while I love the songs, it still sounds like a budget album. Live they are a whole different beast. PM me and I'll hook you up with their Niagara Falls show from last year. Stellar rock band.

 

[Bevo]

Today I scored some CD's, I manage the old Q 107 station in Toronto and found a box hidden in an old storage room..
Aerosmith to ZZ Top:banana: about 150 in total!!

Do you think the artist and record companies are feeling the pinch with all the downloads?

Hearing that Avril and Sum 41 guy just spent what $30mil on a house makes me think that the artist are doing ok. They are in the prime kiddie download age.

Bev

 

[Emohawk]

As I've said before, I see downloads as a free preview service. I download stuff and if I like it, I buy it. If I don't, I ditch it. It's also a great way to get access to music that's not readily available, especially in a smaller market like St. John's. 95% of the music I've purchased over the last few years is a direct result of hearing the stuff from downloads first. Downloads have actually INCREASED my music purchases over the last few years.

The record companies are just scared to death of informed consumers. It's one of the few industries that hasn't even attempted to adapt to that trend. Instead, they go screaming to government & lawyers and whine that their insane profits aren't quite as insane as they once were. I just don't understand that mentality. I thought capitalism was consumer-driven. So much for my university economics courses...

Oh, by the way...in response to the original question, I prefer CD over MP3, especially the horrendous quality stuff that's provided by the download purchase sites. As someone else noted, 128k is terrible quality and I can easily hear the artifacts caused by the compression regardless of where I'm listening to it. It drives me crazy. When I buy a CD, I rip it at around 160k to use for my home computer "jukebox" and for the car. That's at least tolerable, if not perfect.

With the growing penetration of high speed internet I don't understand why they don't just offer CD-quality downloads. Even in uncompressed format it's still only 40-60 MB for the average tune. That's a joke in the current world of hundreds of GB of storage on the average rig.

P.S. If I had my way, I'd own everything on vinyl...but that's a whole other debate!

 

[The Nazz Are Blue]

I get all I can on CD, and I'm quite fond of my collection. I just like having them instead of some foggy downloaded file on the computer that can get wiped out pretty easily. I also hate having stacks of random, mediocre-quality CD-Rs lying around. And if I don't have stuff on CDs at all, then it quickly gets forgotten after a few listens.
The only music I download is stuff you can't get on CD anyways, and it never costs anything.

 

[peter benn]

I purchase CDs. Being primarily interested in pre-1975 R & B keeps me focused on the 1990-to-now golden period of CD reissue material, I suppose, although it is a little frustrating to have one track wear out on an expensive box set. I like specialist stores like Vintage Sounds (Kopps/Vortex) on Queen West and all the used CD places in Toronto.

I have heard anecdotally that downloaded music doesn't sound as good, but then I've also heard that CDs don't sound as good as vinyl. The message is more important than the media, in my opinion.

Peter

 

[jcayer]

The record companies are just scared to death of informed consumers. It's one of the few industries that hasn't even attempted to adapt to that trend. Instead, they go screaming to government & lawyers and whine that their insane profits aren't quite as insane as they once were. I just don't understand that mentality.

This is so true.

It reminds me back in the 70's when my friends and I (and almost everybody who where teenagers back then). We were listening to radio stations with the finger on the button of that old cassette deck, ready to record that next song. We were doing mixes right there on the spot and it was a real challenge

Then one day, the record companies complained about that. From this day the radio anouncers / DJ began to talk endlessly on the intros of almost all the songs they turned.

Not too long ago I wrote to a couple of radio stations asking them why they still talk on the intros of the songs. Nobody records the music from the radio anymore (I hope...), it is so much easy to download on the internet...

They never answered me and kept on talking...

 

[Robert1950]

I've been downloading lately.

 

[david henman]

As I've said before, I see downloads as a free preview service. I download stuff and if I like it, I buy it. If I don't, I ditch it.

...its unfortunate that this same "rationale" doesn't work for other products. i'd love it if i was able to preview new kitchen appliances, for example, and only keep the ones i like.

how about free previews of books and movies?

you'd only have to pay for it if you decide that you...er...like it.

(sarcasm alert..).

-dh

 

[torndownunit]

...its unfortunate that this same "rationale" doesn't work for other products. i'd love it if i was able to preview new kitchen appliances, for example, and only keep the ones i like.

how about free books and movies?

you'd only have to pay for it if you decide that you...er...like it.

(sarcasm alert..).

-dh

Ya but don't forget you can return the kitchen item if something is wrong with it. Im my opinion if you don't like a CD, that qualifies as 'something wrong with it'. But you aren't allowed to return it, and I don't even know if you can exchange it at most stores now.

I agree with the 'preview' post. I do the same thing and I buy as much, or more, music then I have ever bought. I am just able to better pick my purchases.

I also don't have any CD stores where I live. I don't listen to mainstream music. Future Shop and Walmart are the only stores that carry CD's, and they don't have as much variety as I'd like. I can rarely find what I am looking for.

Again, the music industry could be MAKING money from new technology. Make a damn kiosk in Walmart or Futureshop were I can go in and burn my own CD with the tracks I want! Or offer CD quality downloads online instead of crappy lossy audio. There are a bunch of ways it could work better. They are all greedy though and won't work together.

The other side of this that always gets ignored is that while printing and CD manufacturing costs drop all the time, record companies charge the same or more for the product. Their model just does not work anymore.