recorded music sales by format 1980-2010

[JackD201]

I don't think that's the future, Jack. iTunes switched from 128 kbps to 256, not because they have an audiophile audience who cares, but because they could. The bandwidth of most internet connections and the size of most hard drives made it a no-brainer. Will they stop at 320 where the overwhelming majority of people - even those who swear they can - cannot reliably distinguish from lossless? it could happen. Or bandwidth could get so fast, storage could get so cheap that it won't make any economic sense to even bother to compress the master for distribution in the first place.

In the meantime. I agree with pretty much everything in Old Listener's post. Especially the idea that the music/performance comes first. The recording of Bruno Walter's conducting Beethoven's 4th symphony is not great, but I'd own it, and listen to it, even if I could only get it at 128kbps. And I'd listen to Birth of the Cool, at 128, through the speaker of an iPod, before I'd give half a second to the navel-gazing atmospheric new age pablum (or just mediocre jazz) that is many audiophile recordings.

Let's not lose sight of the objective.

Tim

It is the foreseeable future Tim. I'm hoping that they won't stop at 1440. Like you said though, bandwidth is an issue and so is the market absorption capabilities for what would likely be higher prices for a 16/44 equivalent. If I threw back the question as to when they think the full migration to the next level up will be, would anybody even dare venture a guess? What level would that be? In the meantime the store still offers the old and the new they haven't fully migrated yet! Take the Uichida Beethoven Albums within one album you get three types between 192 and 256. Half of my purchased downloads are at 128. No surprise, I was in from the very beginning when Napster and other P2P sites were king. I have an iPod with a wheel that actually moves to prove it. If I want those 99 cent 128s to be of equal quality I have to purchase it again at 1.29 this time. You can understand the frustration here right?

Strangely enough, I don't seem to disagree much with what Bill says but DO disagree with that Gag fellow that Bill agrees with. The point I take most exception to is the part about how the so called rank and file audiophiles automatically shrug off anything that's compressed. It just isn't true. Like Bill, you and myself yes the music/performance comes first. Talk about stating the obvious, especially since I've categorically stated that I buy compressed files and hunt down better formats for pieces which I think deserve a better listen. Now what the hell could be wrong with that? I'm putting food on artist's plates for crying out loud. Save it for the pirates. THey are the ones killing the music industry not audiophiles. To put it bluntly they had better listen to me and those like me not because I consider myself an audiophile but because I am a customer that is willing to pay more for better quality. Chuck the label out of the window already. It's old and tired. You guys don't think they're tracking consumer behavior? Read the darned license agreements. They know exactly how many people are willing to buy itunes + over itunes standard. I'm willing to bet that the term audiophile is not associated with the group that does.

If you read between it's more of the same BS that audiophiles listen to sound and not music. Sure I know a handful of guys that are so obsessed about the sound they forget about the music. If I were a Disney cartoon character, I'd STILL have an extra finger if I counted them. Why so few? These are the types who burn out and move on to other hobbies. For the rest however, music does matter and if it matters so does friggin' quality. I offered myself as an example and suddenly I'm being accused of aiding and abetting the proliferation of compressed audio thereby killing the CD while being handed the double whammy of not being able to make a difference by just saying I want better on an audiophile forum. WTF?

So yeah that's why sanctimonious Gag makes me wanna Gag.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

SOmewhere lodged into the market is the recognition that, maybe just maybe, people care also about quality. I would take the recent proliferation of expensive, headphones destined to the "masses" as a point in case. I am not sure that people buy Dr Dre headphones just because their favorite stars don them, rather it seems that the difference they hear is substantial and eye/ear opening. I could see a marketing spin on that toward higher quality downloads too... More Bits by Dr Dre

I have done the same as Jack. Not to the same extent maybe as I have not purchased more than 50 albums or maybe 100 songs in mp3 ... Yet once I hear something noteworthy, I chase it and try to get the higher definition download or the CD ... So far I have been rather lucky ...

I slightly disagree with Jack, however on the subject of audiophiles outright rejection of mp3 ... Many would claim it downright un-listenable which to me is simply a bias and an encounter of poorly encoded and really low bits mp3. I am sure that these very fellow audiophiles can easily be fooled by bit rates so low as to be ...well embarrassing. There are differences when one listen for the differences and actually learns to, but it is not as obvious as many would like to think or boast...
I wishfully think there is a market for higher bit download, the bandwidth is becoming available ... even on mobile devices .. lossless compression can take a good care of the bandwidth issues. I am not too sure about the copyright issues and DRM though .. These could be serious issues to consider if and when high quality download were to be the rule rather than the exception . I tend to think that it a large part in the reluctance of the biggies to offer high definition downloads.

 

[microstrip]

Considering this thread addresses quantitative data, does any one know or estimate what percentage of MP3 music is sold in MP3 320 bit rate compared to the whole lot?

 

[JackD201]

Considering this thread addresses quantitative data, does any one know or estimate what percentage of MP3 music is sold in MP3 320 bit rate compared to the whole lot?

Fractional at best. I think only eMusic offers some music at 320. 256 seems to be the current standard. Apple, Amazon and Napster offer 256. Most other players (Virgin, MSN Music, Yahoo Music, etc) offer 192.

Baby steps, baby steps. As much as I like to gripe I'm not pessimistic, I'm just impatient.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I don't think that's the future, Jack. iTunes switched from 128 kbps to 256, not because they have an audiophile audience who cares, but because they could. The bandwidth of most internet connections and the size of most hard drives made it a no-brainer. Will they stop at 320 where the overwhelming majority of people - even those who swear they can - cannot reliably distinguish from lossless? it could happen. Or bandwidth could get so fast, storage could get so cheap that it won't make any economic sense to even bother to compress the master for distribution in the first place.

In the meantime. I agree with pretty much everything in Old Listener's post. Especially the idea that the music/performance comes first. The recording of Bruno Walter's conducting Beethoven's 4th symphony is not great, but I'd own it, and listen to it, even if I could only get it at 128kbps. And I'd listen to Birth of the Cool, at 128, through the speaker of an iPod, before I'd give half a second to the navel-gazing atmospheric new age pablum (or just mediocre jazz) that is many audiophile recordings.

Let's not lose sight of the objective.

Tim

Isn't the objective the best? (At least that's the title of the site.) The best includes sound and performance. Or has the world totally come down to the least common denominator? If the objective is otherwise, then I suggest listening to table or transistor radio.

 

[FrantzM]

MYles

An OT query in two questions:

There must be some albums/Artist/Performance you are lusting about and can't find in you superior analog formats. You find it but it's only in mp3. What do you do:

1. Download and listen/enjoy it?
2. Continue your search for the analog version without ever listening to the mp3?

 

[MylesBAstor]

MYles

An OT query in two questions:

There must be some albums/Artist/Performance you are lusting about and can't find in you superior analog formats. You find it but it's only in mp3. What do you do:

1. Download and listen/enjoy it?
2. Continue your search for the analog version without ever listening to the mp3?

Can't say that's happened Frantz I think that's because there's so much music still out there to be discovered on tape and vinyl

 

[amirm]

I slightly disagree with Jack, however on the subject of audiophiles outright rejection of mp3 ... Many would claim it downright un-listenable which to me is simply a bias and an encounter of poorly encoded and really low bits mp3.

What is poorly encoded Frantz? The gold reference for MP3 encoding is FHG's encoder. It by default rolls off the high frequencies at around 16 Khz at 128 Kbps. So putting aside anything else it does to music, it certainly is removing things that could be audible. Yes, there are encoders like Lame which relax this filtering but it does so at is own peril. There is a reason FHG filtered the highs at that rate: there was too much distortion otherwise in transients and high frequencies. So which encoder is the poor one here? FHG or Lame?

I can no longer find some of my old reports but studies showed that MP3 never achieved transparency regardless of its bit rate. Indeed, that was one of the motivations for AAC. I think a much stronger argument can be made with AAC than MP3.

Further, we have to be careful in characterizing performance of systems whose distortion is data dependent. Such is the case with lossy compression. A song could be transparent to the source 99.9% of the time but on one pluck of a guitar, have significant distortion. The general public tends to not be sensitive to such distortion but critical listeners are.

At lower distortion levels, low resolution detail is removed. That takes out ambiance and sense of space around instruments. Honest. This is one time these subjective terms apply . As the data rates go up, such an effect goes down.

But then the question becomes, why? Lossless compression has a 2:1 disadvantage over 320kbps lossy. That is not a whole lot of savings.

I am sure that these very fellow audiophiles can easily be fooled by bit rates so low as to be ...well embarrassing.

That is very much true. We actually conducted a large scale test like this. But what is also true is that if you run enough material through the test, you will then find samples that dispute this observation. As a whole, the stats seem majority of time they can't tell. But as long as they can tell some of the time, then for *this* class of audience, then it nullifies the point because we can't choose what we listen to.

 

[MylesBAstor]

What is poorly encoded Frantz? The gold reference for MP3 encoding is FHG's encoder. It by default rolls off the high frequencies at around 16 Khz at 128 Kbps. So putting aside anything else it does to music, it certainly is removing things that could be audible. Yes, there are encoders like Lame which relax this filtering but it does so at is own peril. There is a reason FHG filtered the highs at that rate: there was too much distortion otherwise in transients and high frequencies. So which encoder is the poor one here? FHG or Lame?

I can no longer find some of my old reports but studies showed that MP3 never achieved transparency regardless of its bit rate. Indeed, that was one of the motivations for AAC. I think a much stronger argument can be made with AAC than MP3.

Further, we have to be careful in characterizing performance of systems whose distortion is data dependent. Such is the case with lossy compression. A song could be transparent to the source 99.9% of the time but on one pluck of a guitar, have significant distortion. The general public tends to not be sensitive to such distortion but critical listeners are.

At lower distortion levels, low resolution detail is removed. That takes out ambiance and sense of space around instruments. Honest. This is one time these subjective terms apply . As the data rates go up, such an effect goes down.

But then the question becomes, why? Lossless compression has a 2:1 disadvantage over 320kbps lossy. That is not a whole lot of savings.


That is very much true. We actually conducted a large scale test like this. But what is also true is that if you run enough material through the test, you will then find samples that dispute this observation. As a whole, the stats seem majority of time they can't tell. But as long as they can tell some of the time, then for *this* class of audience, then it nullifies the point because we can't choose what we listen to.

Some interesting points Amir!

I guess I've always wondered why the MP3 sounds so bad and, at times utterly distorted or other times like it's cutting out in the upper octaves on something say like a cymbal crash.

 

[amirm]

Some interesting points Amir!

I guess I've always wondered why the MP3 sounds so bad and, at times utterly distorted or other times like it's cutting out in the upper octaves on something say like a cymbal crash.

The latter is another factor I forgot to mention . If the encoder thinks it is going to distort high frequency transients, I will resort to filtering it causing it to sound softer. The sum total is that you hear both filtering and increased distortion.

Best way to hear this effect is to first listen to it at lower bit rates and then you will also hear it at higher rates although obviously at lower levels.