recorded music sales by format 1980-2010

[Old Listener]

This thread on Audio Asylum has several interesting posts. The pie chart posted by Alan Sircom is quite eye-catching.

http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=critics&m=61312

I found Gag Halfrunt's posts to be realistic.

Vinyl enthusiasts can find some encouragement in the evolution of the pie chart.

Bill

 

[JackD201]

My reaction to his didactic tone was the same as his first name.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Problem is that the numbers are really BS. One has to really know how they collect this figure and how it skews the data. For instance, the numbers do not reflect independent music dealers and ergo, the numbers for LPs are skewed since the majority of LPs are handled by companies such as Acoustic Sounds, Elusive Disc, Music Direct, etc. Try finding an LP, other than DJ music, in a mainstream store nowadays (that BTW are shrinking too).

 

[rbbert]

Problem is that the numbers are really BS. One has to really know how they collect this figure and how it skews the data. For instance, the numbers do not reflect independent music dealers and ergo, the numbers for LPs are skewed since the majority of LPs are handled by companies such as Acoustic Sounds, Elusive Disc, Music Direct, etc. Try finding an LP, other than DJ music, in a mainstream store nowadays (that BTW are shrinking too).

But how many LP's do you think those smaller companies sell each year? Even if all together they sell 200,000 (probably optimistic), it won't change the relative percentages noticeably.

 

[MylesBAstor]

But how many LP's do you think those smaller companies sell each year? Even if all together they sell 200,000 (probably optimistic), it won't change the relative percentages noticeably.

Well I think they can reach the 200,000 number simply by the number of jazz releases eg. the Blue Notes, Impulses, Classic Record leftovers, MMJs. They're probably was at least 50 titles of each say last year x 2000 copies and one can do the math

 

[FrantzM]

Even if we go totally optimistic and think about 1 million new LP a year it pales in comparison to the other formats. I understand the sentiment although I don't share it .. LP is on its last leg, I don't see that as a loss ... the same no one here would see the demise of the Edison Wax cylinder as such....

 

[Old Listener]

Problem is that the numbers are really BS. One has to really know how they collect this figure and how it skews the data. For instance, the numbers do not reflect independent music dealers and ergo, the numbers for LPs are skewed since the majority of LPs are handled by companies such as Acoustic Sounds, Elusive Disc, Music Direct, etc. Try finding an LP, other than DJ music, in a mainstream store nowadays (that BTW are shrinking too).

The pie chart animation appears to be from the RIAA shipment database, page 7 "History back to the 70s."

As a percentage of the total, LP sales are shown as rising from -.1-0.2 back to about 1 % in 2010. Do you feel that LP sales are actually a much larger percentage of the total?

It is quite common for bands to sell CDs at venues where they perform. Those would be counted either. Sales made on performer's web sites might not be counted either.

Bill

 

[Old Listener]

My reaction to his didactic tone was the same as his first name.

Some of his points resonated with me:

"The rank-and-file audiophiles switch off the moment someone dares to suggest lossy compressed versions of good recordings can be better than uncompressed versions of bad ones."

I've been collecting the music I remember from my youth (mid 50s through mid-60s mostly.) Much of that music is by "one-hit wonders". Even if I buy a CD by such a group, I may keep only one track from the CD. Downloading a single MP3 from Amazon is cost effective. Recording quality for such music was not great. Whether I buy the MP3 or a CD, the important thing will be to gauge the amount of compression of dynamics that has been applied in recent remasterings.

"Some recordings are great on LP, some are poor."

I had some great performances on LP but sound quality was not that great for most compared to remastered CDs.

" What happens if the next Kid Rock album or the one after that is:

a) Excellent, and
b) Not available on anything other than lossy download?

It seems you either download it and enjoy it for what it is, or avoid it on ideological grounds."

I agree that this scenario might happen.

"My view: If you have the CD, store it lossless. If you can get the FLAC files, get the FLAC files. If you can't, don't sweat it."

I agree.

"You only really notice the differences between high bit rate compression and lossless when you have something to compare against, anyway. Unless the compression is so heavy-handed it makes everything sound like a telephone call, I doubt anyone would be able to tell a track is 256 kbps VBR AAC simply by listening to it on its own."

Well, that'll raise some hackles. I don't feel that this assertion is essential to the main point but it has some truth to it.

I get a lot of recordings of live classical music concerts via the OperaShare and SymphonyShare groups. The files may be Flac or MP3 or AAC but the files were usually created by recording a 196, 256 or 320 bps lossey stream from satellite radio or internet radio. The recordings are often very vivid and capture very worthwhile performances that are unavailable on CDs. When I listen to those recordings, I am enjoying access to the performance and unconcerned about the fact that the source was a lossey stream.

"Why would anyone want data compressed music files on a home system? Three reasons I can think of:
1. They don't know any better
2. They don't care
3. They don't have the option"

Sounds right to me.

"If you speak to an audio dealer who is still selling to newcomers, ask them what the big sellers in audio are today and the word 'Sonos' will keep cropping up. Not because it sounds good, but because it sounds good enough."

An interesting observation. I have seen other remarks (by industry insiders) that Sonos is doing very well and getting large as a company.

"We have compressed audio because content providers want single inventory and want you to be able to seamlessly download music to your phone or tablet while you are on the move, because by the time your get back to your main computer, you'll have forgotten what you were thinking of buying."

I agree with the observation. I think that the Kindle Fire will fuel 24/7 impulse buying for Amazon's store in a similar way.

Bill

 

[RBFC]

I've always said that Hendrix over my car radio is still a treat. I wouldn't avoid "available" versions of my favorites in lossy compression if there were no lossless alternatives.

Lee

 

[JackD201]

Some of his points resonated with me:

"The rank-and-file audiophiles switch off the moment someone dares to suggest lossy compressed versions of good recordings can be better than uncompressed versions of bad ones."

I've been collecting the music I remember from my youth (mid 50s through mid-60s mostly.) Much of that music is by "one-hit wonders". Even if I buy a CD by such a group, I may keep only one track from the CD. Downloading a single MP3 from Amazon is cost effective. Recording quality for such music was not great. Whether I buy the MP3 or a CD, the important thing will be to gauge the amount of compression of dynamics that has been applied in recent remasterings.

"Some recordings are great on LP, some are poor."

I had some great performances on LP but sound quality was not that great for most compared to remastered CDs.

" What happens if the next Kid Rock album or the one after that is:

a) Excellent, and
b) Not available on anything other than lossy download?

It seems you either download it and enjoy it for what it is, or avoid it on ideological grounds."

I agree that this scenario might happen.

"My view: If you have the CD, store it lossless. If you can get the FLAC files, get the FLAC files. If you can't, don't sweat it."

I agree.

"You only really notice the differences between high bit rate compression and lossless when you have something to compare against, anyway. Unless the compression is so heavy-handed it makes everything sound like a telephone call, I doubt anyone would be able to tell a track is 256 kbps VBR AAC simply by listening to it on its own."

Well, that'll raise some hackles. I don't feel that this assertion is essential to the main point but it has some truth to it.

I get a lot of recordings of live classical music concerts via the OperaShare and SymphonyShare groups. The files may be Flac or MP3 or AAC but the files were usually created by recording a 196, 256 or 320 bps lossey stream from satellite radio or internet radio. The recordings are often very vivid and capture very worthwhile performances that are unavailable on CDs. When I listen to those recordings, I am enjoying access to the performance and unconcerned about the fact that the source was a lossey stream.

"Why would anyone want data compressed music files on a home system? Three reasons I can think of:
1. They don't know any better
2. They don't care
3. They don't have the option"

Sounds right to me.

"If you speak to an audio dealer who is still selling to newcomers, ask them what the big sellers in audio are today and the word 'Sonos' will keep cropping up. Not because it sounds good, but because it sounds good enough."

An interesting observation. I have seen other remarks (by industry insiders) that Sonos is doing very well and getting large as a company.

"We have compressed audio because content providers want single inventory and want you to be able to seamlessly download music to your phone or tablet while you are on the move, because by the time your get back to your main computer, you'll have forgotten what you were thinking of buying."

I agree with the observation. I think that the Kindle Fire will fuel 24/7 impulse buying for Amazon's store in a similar way.

Bill

What bugs me is not that I can NOT sweat it, I've got 4,000 purchases on the iTunes store. What bugs me is that, in time, I might not have a choice.

I've always said I'll take good music anywhere I can get it but come on, how can one be happy about a future where only MP3s or AAC are available en masse and the rest is a smattering of 16/44 and Hi-Rez files of "tried and true, audiophile approved material"? Technology is supposed to make this better and by my definition, quality is just as important as easy access and user convenience. It's like LP going to compact cassette all over again and just when CD got really good......WHAM!

What made Gag make me gag was his broad assumptions about people that aren't satisfied with compressed music. It isn't snobbery, it's about quality. If nobody demands it, none of us are going to get it. So he can shoot his mouth of all he wants. If the record companies hear our voices, he's going to be a beneficiary. To me all he is saying is that we should just accept it lest we be painted as curmudgeons. It's like a kid in school telling the other kids they ain't hip if they don't smoke pot. Yeah, maybe so but since when was being hip better than being smart? Why settle when you don't have to?

 

[Old Listener]

What bugs me is not that I can NOT sweat it, I've got 4,000 purchases on the iTunes store. What bugs me is that, in time, I might not have a choice.

Yes, it is scary. I'm continually making my list, checking it twice and then buying a chunk of stuff that's available at a good price. I'm not waiting for Christmas and birthdays.

I've always said I'll take good music anywhere I can get it but come on, how can one be happy about a future where only MP3s or AAC are available en masse and the rest is a smattering of 16/44 and Hi-Rez files of "tried and true, audiophile approved material"?

We are currently in a time of unequalled access to music of the present and of the past with recorded sound that makes listening quite satisfactory. I have many CDs bought via the web that I never saw in a bricks & mortar record store. I would not take it for granted that this period will continue.

Technology is supposed to make this better and by my definition, quality is just as important as easy access and user convenience. It's like LP going to compact cassette all over again and just when CD got really good......WHAM!

Gag made a point about "good enough". I often think about the "pin drop" ads for Sprint long distance phone service many years ago. The selling point was that the sound quality was so good that you could hear a pin drop at the other end. A few years later, long distance service became a commodity item and people were using cell phones and saying "Hello, Hello" and "Are you still there, I can't hear you?" Now some people in the USA are giving up their land line phone and relying completely on their wireless mobile phone.

The lesson I took was that engineers get stuck thinking about endless improvements to existing functionality. Once consumers feel that some functionality is good enough, their interest turns to new and different functionality. A scary analogy:

A home stereo system is like a wired land line phone.
A iPod/Iphone/iPad as music player is like a mobile phone.

What made Gag make me gag was his broad assumptions about people that aren't satisfied with compressed music. It isn't snobbery, it's about quality. If nobody demands it, none of us are going to get it. So he can shoot his mouth of all he wants. If the record companies hear our voices, he's going to be a beneficiary. To me all he is saying is that we should just accept it lest we be painted as curmudgeons.

Gag did make his ideas more controversial by talking about audiophiles unwillingness to accept lossy compression at all. He did say that if the Flac version was available, he'd buy that.

It isn't clear what you intend to do to register your unwillingness. I've bought 36 MP3 files from Amazon so far. If a big chunk of your 4000 iTunes store purchases are lossy music files, you are a bigger enabler than I am.

Bill

 

[MylesBAstor]

The pie chart animation appears to be from the RIAA shipment database, page 7 "History back to the 70s."

As a percentage of the total, LP sales are shown as rising from -.1-0.2 back to about 1 % in 2010. Do you feel that LP sales are actually a much larger percentage of the total?

It is quite common for bands to sell CDs at venues where they perform. Those would be counted either. Sales made on performer's web sites might not be counted either.

Bill

This is for you and Frantz

Hey, no one expects vinyl sales to be anywhere near what it once it was OTOH, that it's still around when it was proclaimed dead in the water in 1980 is news. And not only is it still around, the numbers are increasing and it's not just us old farts music but the kids music that is being released on vinyl. It's the kids who are into vinyl that are the news! Also remember that in this day and age, the music industry as a whole is hurting and if someone shows a company that they can make money selling vinyl, and it's say 4% of the market, they'd take it. Still, people like Chad, Mike Hobson, Ying Tang, Joe Harley and Ron Hedrick, Robert Pincus and others are showing vinyl is around to stay.

 

[rbbert]

Well I think they can reach the 200,000 number simply by the number of jazz releases eg. the Blue Notes, Impulses, Classic Record leftovers, MMJs. They're probably was at least 50 titles of each say last year x 2000 copies and one can do the math

Anything's possible, I suppose, and most of the jazz titles are true classics (i.e., they might sell better), but given the current state of the jazz market, where selling 10,000 units is considered good, I'm a little doubtful.

 

[microstrip]

What bugs me is not that I can NOT sweat it, I've got 4,000 purchases on the iTunes store. What bugs me is that, in time, I might not have a choice.

I've always said I'll take good music anywhere I can get it but come on, how can one be happy about a future where only MP3s or AAC are available en masse and the rest is a smattering of 16/44 and Hi-Rez files of "tried and true, audiophile approved material"? Technology is supposed to make this better and by my definition, quality is just as important as easy access and user convenience. It's like LP going to compact cassette all over again and just when CD got really good......WHAM!

What made Gag make me gag was his broad assumptions about people that aren't satisfied with compressed music. It isn't snobbery, it's about quality. If nobody demands it, none of us are going to get it. So he can shoot his mouth of all he wants. If the record companies hear our voices, he's going to be a beneficiary. To me all he is saying is that we should just accept it lest we be painted as curmudgeons. It's like a kid in school telling the other kids they ain't hip if they don't smoke pot. Yeah, maybe so but since when was being hip better than being smart? Why settle when you don't have to?

Jack,

Can I point you this Sean Olive study about Lossy MP3 Music Over Lossless CD-Quality Formats?


http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-new-evidence-that-generation-y.html

 

[MylesBAstor]

Anything's possible, I suppose, and most of the jazz titles are true classics (i.e., they might sell better), but given the current state of the jazz market, where selling 10,000 units is considered good, I'm a little doubtful.

Certainly 10K is a good figure for jazz or classical nowadays. Since each of these albums is limited edition, they are numbered; ergo, I have seen at shows albums with numbers around 1500 for sale at different booths like MD, ED or AS.

The other thing is that you know Chad wouldn't be continuing to issue vinyl if he wasn't selling out. Look at all the jazz series of 25 that he's done now from Pablo, Riverside, Blue Note, Impulse, Storyville, etc.

 

[JackD201]

@Bill - I'm not an enabler. I'm a music addict! I buy lossy for portable use and as a sort of screening. The really outstanding music, I hunt down the LP or CD. The paradox is that some music actually benefits from compression but only in the respect that they can become more listenable. Some because they were done in the infancy of CD and the attendant production problems at that time and others maybe because they were optimized for the downloadable formats. Gary and I had a discussion on this a little while back. So when I say CD quality what I mean is CD at it's fulfilled potential. This is what will trump CURRENT lossy market offerings at its full potential. Look at it this way. The current offerings of the largest online download store tops of at 256 kbps. Broadcast play out servers top off at 320 kbps. What is the redbook equivalent? 1440 kbps or something like that? In my experience you get the music but lose much of the nuances that spell the difference between a good experience and an excellent one.

Yes it can be good enough for portable use. It's definitely good enough for background music. It is more than good enough for that quick fix. What it isn't good enough for is involved listening which our hobby is centered on. That is my context. So no, I do not dismiss lossy or thumb my nose at it. It has it's uses. I also know I'm not alone with this thinking. That's why I think Gag can shove it. He doth presume too much!

@Micro - I remember Sean's study well.

 

[Old Listener]

an article on vinyl

I started this thread with a link to information on sales of recorded music by format. I notes that there was some good news for vinyl fans. Here is a bit more good news for vinyl fans:

http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2011/11/back-in-the-groove.cfm

I think the idea that vinyl is a niche that will endure for some time is a reasonable characterization.

Bill

 

[Old Listener]

@Bill - I'm not an enabler. I'm a music addict! I buy lossy for portable use and as a sort of screening. The really outstanding music, I hunt down the LP or CD.

Yes it can be good enough for portable use. It's definitely good enough for background music. It is more than good enough for that quick fix. What it isn't good enough for is involved listening which our hobby is centered on. That is my context. So no, I do not dismiss lossy or thumb my nose at it. It has it's uses. I also know I'm not alone with this thinking. That's why I think Gag can shove it. He doth presume too much!

In an earlier post, you said

"If nobody demands it, none of us are going to get it. So he can shoot his mouth of all he wants. If the record companies hear our voices, he's going to be a beneficiary. To me all he is saying is that we should just accept it lest we be painted as curmudgeons. It's like a kid in school telling the other kids they ain't hip if they don't smoke pot. Yeah, maybe so but since when was being hip better than being smart? Why settle when you don't have to?"

When you buy MP3 (or equivalent AAC downloads), you are adding to the success of those products. Given enough success with lossy format downloads, music companies will not feel motivated to take risks on lossless format downloads. If audiophiles and others establish a sizable market for CD quality or better downloads, the companies are more likely to jump in. Those sorts of messages are far more powerful that what a tiny set of audiophiles say in their forums.

I think that Gag is quite right about audiophiles. He said

"The rank-and-file audiophiles switch off the moment someone dares to suggest lossy compressed versions of good recordings can be better than uncompressed versions of bad ones. "

Railing about the completely unacceptability of lossy formats on audio forums is a common pastime for many audiophiles. I don't see much subtlety in their arguments.

Bill

 

[JackD201]

You have something agains audiophile forums Bill? With as many posts as you have, it looks like you are enjoying at least this one right?

I laid it out as plainly as I could. I do not thumb my nose at compressed. It has its uses. There is no portable device on the market that can carry the titles of my library in uncompressed or compressed but lossless form. So why would I:

A. Be thumbing my nose at its existence just because I find the quality wanting

B. Want it to die at all

I just want to have the choice of better quality when I want it which as alluded to earlier, isn't always.

Why should that be mutually exclusive? I should thank you though because this has streamlined my thought process.

Now I can tell you what I REALLY want as it marries both utility and sonic imperatives.

A minimum of CD QUALITY recordings COMPRESSED at no sonic compromise.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

One of those sleepless nights ... I haven't read he whole exchange but it seems to me there is a strong unwillingness from us, audiophiles to accept the fact that in many cases mp3 can be indistinguishable from lossless. Without the knowledge that they are listening to an mp3 most audiophiles would be satisfied with mp3...
I will edge toward Jack's side and prefer to own the uncompressed version if at all possible.. While I don't lament the ultimate demise of Vinyl, not being convinced it to be the superior format ( Hi Myles ) I would feel very strongly about that of uncompressed music formats,especially that of hi-Rez.. Simply because the technology for uncompressed (CD quality ) and Hi-Rez is there and virtually cost the same as compressed ... My over 2000 CDs library occupy about 650 GB in FLAC, .ape and even some wav .. I will continue to buy music but I know that 2000 CDs are more CDs than I will ever listen in a lifetime ... Storage and processing costs will continue to drop despite the recent fluke, the recent rise of HDD price has been, so I am with Jack with

A minimum of CD QUALITY recordings COMPRESSED at no sonic compromise.