Why are downloaded cd's so expensive? Is it a rip-off?

[still-one]

Kind of what I thought. I thought part of the joy of being a digit head is that you get to become a digital couch potato. Having to get up our of your listening chair and remove a CD from the CDP, put it away, find the next one you want to play, and inserting it in the CDP is so 1980s. Sheesh. I also thought we had something like a second cousin consensus (vs. a brotherly consensus) that CDs actually sound better when they are played back from a hard drive, but I guess not.

I don't agree that the SQ from a file is better than from that from a good disc player and if so IMHO it is negligible. That said the convenience of playing from a server wins out for me. It is much easier and faster for me to find music on my MDMS (Soolos) than to pull discs out of my very organized rack.

 

[microstrip]

Humans appreciate their rituals, that become part of the small pleasures of life. I enjoy and take pleasure selecting LPs or CDs from my bookcase's shelves. Most of the time when I switch on my system I am not sure what I want to listen. In about thirty seconds I sweep the shelves with my eyes, remembering my collection, and then focus on one section, often changing my mind after opening the case and looking at the liner notes. Usually I select a few recordings that I take to the system. Most of the LPs and CDs have an associated history - live performances I was able to be there, where and when I bought them, the people who advised me to get it, some are connected to great audiophile sessions, all these moments are part of my listening.

If I could have a music server that really sounded better than my CD transport, I would perhaps consider it. But unfortunately the best, really great, digital sound reproduction I have listened used physical media readout by a player. Surely all IMHO.

 

[MrAcoustat]

Humans appreciate their rituals, that become part of the small pleasures of life. I enjoy and take pleasure selecting LPs or CDs from my bookcase's shelves. Most of the time when I switch on my system I am not sure what I want to listen. In about thirty seconds I sweep the shelves with my eyes, remembering my collection, and then focus on one section, often changing my mind after opening the case and looking at the liner notes. Usually I select a few recordings that I take to the system. Most of the LPs and CDs have an associated history - live performances I was able to be there, where and when I bought them, the people who advised me to get it, some are connected to great audiophile sessions, all these moments are part of my listening.

If I could have a music server that really sounded better than my CD transport, I would perhaps consider it. But unfortunately the best, really great, digital sound reproduction I have listened used physical media readout by a player. Surely all IMHO.

+1

 

[merrillaudio]

The great digital swindle

I have a hard time justifying the cost of cd downloads, especially the hi rez stuff.
Compared to cd's there are:

No distributors
No rack jobbers
No jewel cases
No booklets
No transportation costs
No retailer mark-ups

Lets also say the administration costs vs the web delivery costs are basically the same ( I think really think they are lower)

So working off a $15.95 retail cd:

Why we are still being charged for the above costs that do not exist in the download format and then some for different resolutions.
Backing the above non existent costs out, a redbook cd download should be $3 or $4 dollars, with additional resolutions being $1 to $3 dollars more. The profit percentages are still huge for upgraded formats but at least the gross dollar amount seems fair.

I hate the feeling of being grossly overcharged for anything, especially music downloads.........

Your thoughts being echoed
http://thehighfidelityreport.com/pono-fiat-music/ - THE GREAT DIGITAL SWINDLE

 

[rbbert]

I was reminded today (when I purchased the 24/96 download) that some record companies are doing this right. Not only is the 24/96 download (with artwork) 25% less expensive than the CD, it is available now rather than not until May 27

http://cedillerecords.org/music/product_info.php?cPath=356_368&products_id=1391

 

[elcorso]

In my case I like better the SQ of a music server, but I believe it is a matter of taste. Then the facility & speed to find and play music from a music server.

The problem is I'm also a CD (and was LP) collector, then I finished with a large CD & LP collection and a large music library on my server, from rips and downloads!...

Going to the main topic: download price. Talking with a close friend in this industry, he said DL services (good & fast) are expensive, then, the called hi rez is not from rips, but from hard drive storage. The same from some of the Redbooks downloads, they come some from hi rez masters or the 16/44 master, if recorded in this resolution. They spend too much in huge servers, backups, etc. The last but not the least, they have to pay fees to the recording and producer industry, much bigger that the cost of a physical CD, where the physical CD has to pay also.

Roch

 

[merrillaudio]

In today's dollars the price of a CD when introduced in 1982 was about $40. So given the price of music today around $15 to $20. I would say we are getting a bargin, whether download or physical media.

 

[Cascais]

Humans appreciate their rituals, that become part of the small pleasures of life. I enjoy and take pleasure selecting LPs or CDs from my bookcase's shelves. Most of the time when I switch on my system I am not sure what I want to listen. In about thirty seconds I sweep the shelves with my eyes, remembering my collection, and then focus on one section, often changing my mind after opening the case and looking at the liner notes. Usually I select a few recordings that I take to the system. Most of the LPs and CDs have an associated history - live performances I was able to be there, where and when I bought them, the people who advised me to get it, some are connected to great audiophile sessions, all these moments are part of my listening.

If I could have a music server that really sounded better than my CD transport, I would perhaps consider it. But unfortunately the best, really great, digital sound reproduction I have listened used physical media readout by a player. Surely all IMHO.

I approach playing music in much the same way, sometimes changing my mind on the way to picking out the CD or LP, but then the same approach would apply to an iPad. One other point to do with costs is that my favorite record shop has specials, classical and jazz CDs for 5 euros or less. Yesterday I bought Quincy Jones Orch. on CD for 5 euros. I seldom spend what downloaded hi-rez would cost, get better sound (or at least as good), plus the joy of possession.

 

[rbbert]

... I seldom spend what downloaded hi-rez would cost, get better sound (or at least as good)...

??

 

[Orb]

I was reminded today (when I purchased the 24/96 download) that some record companies are doing this right. Not only is the 24/96 download (with artwork) 25% less expensive than the CD, it is available now rather than not until May 27

http://cedillerecords.org/music/product_info.php?cPath=356_368&products_id=1391

And they have some great quality recordings that make good use of hirez, this one comes to mind: http://cedillerecords.org/music/product_info.php?cPath=356_361&products_id=1239

Cheers
Orb

 

[Cascais]

??

i.e. buying CDs, taking advantage of some in-store specials, is often cheaper than the high cost of downloading hi-rez material, and the sound is at least as good.

 

[rbbert]

i.e. buying CDs, taking advantage of some in-store specials, is often cheaper than the high cost of downloading hi-rez material, and the sound is at least as good.

It's the "sound is at least as good" part that is open to much debate and disagreement. In my experience the sound of the CD is occasionally better (due to mastering differences), may in some cases be so similar that "the same" is a not unreasonable description, but in the vast majority of cases the hires download will sound better, sometimes by a lot (such as when the mastering is better, not common but not especially unusual)

 

[mep]

I for one have been disappointed overall with the sound of Hi-Rez files I have paid for and downloaded and I quit buying them.

 

[BlueFox]

It is already known that a music file can have jitter introduced into it as the bits are reconstructed due to slight timing errors in detecting where it transitions from a 0 to a 1. This has me wondering if a downloaded file will suffer the same fate. The packet will undergo a number of transitions such as electrical to optical to electrical as it travels. When it hits a router it will go from Ethernet to an internal format and back to Ethernet as it leaves the router. While the CRC will be correct it certainly seems like jitter can be introduced into the file.

At least that is my current thinking, but I have no idea how to test it. Maybe if there were a way to get the HD file on a USB drive and compare it to the downloaded version that might be a method.

 

[Cascais]

It's the "sound is at least as good" part that is open to much debate and disagreement. In my experience the sound of the CD is occasionally better (due to mastering differences), may in some cases be so similar that "the same" is a not unreasonable description, but in the vast majority of cases the hires download will sound better, sometimes by a lot (such as when the mastering is better, not common but not especially unusual)

I was keeping my remarks focused on the topic of cost and generalizing that my experience does not indicate an overall audible superiority of downloaded music over the physical format. Taking that point (admittedly subjective) into consideration plus the advantages of having a CD in your hands, the extra cost is not worth it, in my opinion, even if one has to get off the couch to acquire the music. (BTW, it's often possible to acquire CDs through online suppliers more economically than downloading the same products.) Last point, I spend too much time in front of a computer so it's beneficial to get out to a record store, if you can find one these days.

 

[Don Hills]

It is already known that a music file can have jitter introduced into it as the bits are reconstructed due to slight timing errors in detecting where it transitions from a 0 to a 1. ...

I suspect you're confusing two different scenarios.

The first scenario is when bits are being written to a file, for example after being ripped from a CD or downloaded. The timing of writing the bits to the file is irrelevant. All that matters is that each bit (the 1 or 0) ends up written correctly in the file. There is no place in the file to store any timing information, only the 1s and 0s. The same applies anywhere in the digital domain - so long as a bit doesn't arrive so early or late as to be mistaken for the one before or after it, any slight "jitter" can be ignored and/or corrected.

The second scenario is when the bits are later being converted from digital values to analogue voltage in the Digital-to-Analogue-Converter. It is important that the samples get converted at precisely spaced intervals. Imagine a musician playing to the beat of a metronome. It's important that the metronome tick regularly - tick, tick, tick, tick. If it were to start ticking irregularly - tick, tick-tick, tick...tick, tick - the music would sound quite odd.

In summary, the timing of the bits anywhere prior to the DAC will not affect the final sound, provided things are not so screwed up that a 1 might be mistaken for a 0 or vice versa.

 

[rbbert]

I for one have been disappointed overall with the sound of Hi-Rez files I have paid for and downloaded and I quit buying them.

Some for sure, almost all in the rock/pop genre, although not any more disappointed with the sound of hires than of most new CD's, but cost and expectations are greater with the hires files.

OTOH, I'd say my satisfaction rate with jazz, classical and other genres (like David Grisman's Acoustic Disc releases, which are also excellently priced) is at least 90%. But then you'd probably want or prefer LP's (when they are available) for much of that stuff.

 

[mep]

Some for sure, almost all in the rock/pop genre, although not any more disappointed with the sound of hires than of most new CD's, but cost and expectations are greater with the hires files.

OTOH, I'd say my satisfaction rate with jazz, classical and other genres (like David Grisman's Acoustic Disc releases, which are also excellently priced) is at least 90%. But then you'd probably want or prefer LP's (when they are available) for much of that stuff.

Amen brother. The sound is essentially the same to me.

 

[Joe Whip]

Just a thought but I was wondering whether the fact that audiophiles are willing to spend what they are for new vinyl has any effect on the pricing model for high rez downloads?

 

[Cascais]

Just a thought but I was wondering whether the fact that audiophiles are willing to spend what they are for new vinyl has any effect on the pricing model for high rez downloads?

I can't see a connection. An LP is an artifact, a real object which is difficult to manufacture in relatively small numbers, with tools that are in short supply: those cost factors determine the price which isn't so high compared to the early price of CDs and about the same as new digital classical releases. Classical LPs are more expensive in Europe because of even smaller demand.