Vinyl records outsell CDs for the second year running
Vinyl records outsell CDs for the second year running
Some people will never give up a spinning disc.
You're viewing a single thread.
CDs are just digital files plus waste. Vinyl is a musical ritual.
CD is still the only way to buy a digital popular music in most countries.
Don't forget digital music stores like Qobuz and www.bandcamp.com.
Artists get more money when you buy their music outright instead of stream it.
Bandcamp was bought by Epic Games, who fired half the staff and sold off the remainder to some kind of nebulous music licencing platform. I wouldn't cheer them on much longer, I see dark days ahead.
Seriously? Fucking hell, that's depressing.
It isn't owned by epic games anymore, it was bought by Songtradr. https://www.songtradr.com/blog/posts/songtradr-bandcamp-acquisition/
Yup that's the "nebulous music licencing platform" I was referring to
No it's not. The iTunes Music Store is available in the majority of countries in the world. Plus there are other services that cover some of the other countries. Vanishingly few people can choose only a CD.
You don’t own the music you license through iTunes though.
Pretty sure it's DRM-free.
Only since 2007…
EMI was the first domino to fall after Job’s famous Thoughts on Music open letter.
The other labels followed suit shortly after.
That open letter will be old enough to vote in less than ten months.
No, I'm certain 2007 was just six or seven years ago, right? Right?
You don't own the music you buy on a CD either. You are buying a license to the music and physical storage of it. If you want you can burn your iTunes songs on a CD and you're in the same situation.
You own a copy of a copyrighted material. The copy is yours. No DRM, no remotely removing your ability to use it.
You own your own hard drive. That copy of an iTunes song is yours. No DRM, no remotely removing your ability to use it.
No DRM, no remotely removing your ability to use it.
Yet.
How is that different from iTunes?
You do know that the content in the iTunes Store isn't the same in each country?
I am aware, but unless you're saying iTunes doesn't sell pop music in most markets, it's not really relevant.
Many people don't listen to local music or pop music. It's very relevant if you can only get real music on a physical medium.
And out of everything available iTunes is your first choice too?
Soms people here on Lemmy are even more insufferable than any other social media.
Don't you dare buy a cd with the music you like. BUY FROM ITUNES, while in the next thread they say FUCK APPLE.
You completely missed the point of what you are replying to. The point isn't that you SHOULD buy music from online sources instead of CDs. The point is that CDs aren't "the only way to buy a digital popular music in most countries." They are directly contradicting a point someone else made by saying CDs are not the only way to buy digital popular music in most countries. They even specifically said popular music, not whatever niche music some random person is into. They also mentioned iTunes because it services 119 markets, which directly counterpoints the statement about being available in most countries. They never advocated for iTunes like you imply.
It's almost like you lack reading comprehension. "Soms people here on Lemmy are even more insufferable than any other social media."
Many people don’t listen to local music or pop music.
I was responded to a comment about the availability of pop music.
And out of everything available iTunes is your first choice too?
Yes, the largest digital music store is, naturally, the first one I searched for availability numbers for (119 markets).
I don't really understand the rest of your rant.
I think you can use iTunes as a catch all for sales of digital files, including bandcamp. As opposed to a physical disc or a subscription. FWIW I was just looking this up on the RIAA website and you can run reports by year or year over year comparing media options. It’s really interesting to see which year each format peaked. Eg 8track 1978, cassette 1989, CD 2000, digital file 2012. It doesn’t include limewire /napster (non-revenue) so the unit counts are a bit depressed. I wish it included pre-iPod mp3 players and blank CD sales.
Internet access and existing devices would also play a role, but I don't know a region like that to comment further
The music on iTunes is compressed and doesn’t sound as good as a CD does.
Not to mention they can revoke your access to your music on iTunes. No one can take away your CD unless they break into your house!
Even a human with very good hearing and knowledge of how a song is supposed to sound cannot tell the difference between CD quality audio and 256k AAC like iTunes uses.
Don't believe all the nonsense audiophiles keep spewing out. Human ears suck. If we hadn't had our giant brains to compensate, we'd be practically deaf.
This. People assume that because it's "compressed" it must sound flatter, less dynamic, or just vaguely worse than uncompressed audio, despite the fact that audio compression specifically uses psychoacoustic models to remove the bits of data that our human ears and brains cannot hear to begin with.
Expectation bias is a helluva drug.
Even FLAC is compressed. Which is how I procure my music because I have the storage space.
Yup, although that doesn't stop some weirdos out there claiming that CDs sound better than FLAC.
FLAC is compressed, but unlike lossy codecs like AAC and MP3, FLAC is fully lossless. Lossy codecs delete information the authors believe you won’t notice, lossless compression keeps all the data and just tries to fit it in a smaller space. The original recording can be perfectly reproduced (taking into account sample rate and depth).
psychoacoustic models
Sometimes they mess up. Actually only ever noticed it once and that was years ago CD vs. ogg vorbis at full quality level, this track. Youtube version is even worse, it seems (from memory): The guitars kicking in around 30 seconds should be harsh and noisy as fuck like nothing you've ever heard, they're merely distorted on youtube.
Then lossy codecs are a bad idea for archival reasons as you can't recode them without incurring additive losses -- each codec has a different psychoacoustic model, each deletes different stuff. Thus, FLAC definitely has a place.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Killer samples do happen, sure but vorbis at Q9? I'm highly dubious. That track in particular just sounds badly recorded to begin with. If you have that same version in FLAC i would be interested to see some ABX test results or test it myself.
For archival purposes, though, I agree FLAC is the way to go.
Killer samples do happen, sure but vorbis at Q9? I’m highly dubious.
Back in 2004, when the album released, the encoder was barely past version 1.0. Though after 20 years I could misremember "full quality" as "whatever people said wouldn't degrade quality".
That track in particular just sounds badly recorded to begin with.
Heresy. Next thing you're going to tell me is that Sunn O))) should move the mics away from the amps so the sound is cleaner. Granted, though, Sunn O))) does that live, blackmail live is quite different because they can't layer a gazillion tracks for the mix. But yes the deliberateness of just how much noise is in those guitars doesn't get conveyed after getting mangled by ten year old youtube compression.
Lol, I'm not saying that brickwalling the mix to achieve a certain effect isn't a thing, but at the extreme levels of compression and clipping apparent on that track, it's unlikely that a FLAC would sound even remotely different. Apparently the band agreed - in 2020 they issued a remaster which seems noticeably less crushed:
Incidentally, I saw Sunn O))) live once. I can still feel my bowels shake.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Sunn O))) should move the mics away from the amps so the sound is cleaner
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I would guess that the fact that people aren't all using some kind of standard-response reference headphones is probably going to have a considerably-larger impact on the human-perceivable fidelity of the audio reproduction than any other factor.
This is true. That said, I've seen people claim that nobody can tell the difference between lossless and 128kbps mp3, but that's complete bullshit.
Though once you get above 192, it's pretty indistinguishable.
Would really depend on the version of MP3. The first versions had some major issues with artifacts being introduced. People probably listened to that and concluded all compressed music must be shit. Later versions were much better, even though I would think 128k is probably too low and would be noticeable with some effort. I agree, starting at 192k and people can't tell anymore.
Does anybody use MP3 anymore? I don't really know to be honest.
Not to mention they can revoke your access to your music on iTunes.
iTunes got rid of DRM a decade and a half ago.
Sure but if you don’t have the song downloaded on your PC and they remove it from your library you can’t redownload it.
Most people aren’t backing up the songs they buy on iTunes.
Thank goodness they’ll let you redownload your CD if it gets damaged…
I don’t agree. It depends how the song was ripped and how the original was mastered. I did so much A/B testing at the time and found I couldn’t tell the difference between VBR 256 AAC and the CD. 128k mp3 sounded worse, 320k mp3 is pretty safe, but there were a lot of improvements to LAME over the years so newer files sound better. The biggest difference is the mastering. Generally 1980s reissues of 1970s analog masters sound worst, 1990s is best, 2000s everything got remastered to make it loud and crush dynamic range. The only real innovation since is Dolby Atmos on Apple Music which really brings alive the promise of 1970s quadraphonic.
iTunes music store is not available in mainland China, which is 1/5 of the world's population
Yes, but this is about what is available in most countries, not what is available in all countries. That still leaves 119 markets and 80% of the world's population being available. Pretty sure that counts as "most."
Also, the point isn't about iTunes, it's about alternatives to CDs for digital music. China likely has some online store to buy music, but I have no idea.
To make the claim 80% of population has it you have to have the numbers, since South Korea doesn't have it, a lot of African countries (just going down the list, Algeria, Angola, Benin, etc) don't have it
It looks like half of the world doesn't have iTunes music purchases
They do, maybe, but the streaming services often can't get the original master so they play rerecordings of the songs
I just pirate it
vinyl is cool, but cd is the digital recording, mastered in a known manner, to a high degree. It's the most consistent form of product you will get from music. Plus it's a physically collectable thing. And it's cheap.
I'm not made of money over here.
I’m not made of money
Capitalism: "Oh, yes, you are."
Permanently Deleted
the thing that capitism doesnt understand about me, is that i don't care about money.
If you're going for quality, you'd just buy the flac file though
If you're going for quality, you'd just buy the flac file though
Audio CDs are also lossless, often cheaper than buying the FLAC files, and can be extracted to FLAC files. Only reason to buy FLAC is if you want the convenience of not buying a physical product and the quality of said physical product.
Maybe I should have written a longer comment to elaborate on what I meant. What I meant to say is that if your primary concern is sound quality rather than the experience physical media gives you, I would assume a flac file would be a more popular option due to its convenience.
CDs often ship WAV audio to my knowledge. Doesnt really make sense to encode anything down anyway. Unless you're shipping a box set in a CD maybe? Even then 320kb MP3 is basically imperceptible to even the most astute listeners.
I didn't mean to imply CD stores sounds files of worse quality, only that if you aren't after the experience vinyl provides, digital files is a more convenient form of media.
i mean yeah. But if you're buying an album already. CDs are really easy to find used for like 10 bucks or so. You can buy them new for only a few bucks more than the digital price. It's a great option if you want something physical.
You can still rip CDs straight to wav and dump em to a media player in like 12 minutes though. It's basically free.
Vinyls break easily and sound kinda meh, even with decent equipment. CDs have fairly good quality and are easy to store and handle. Honestly I get why people like vinyl, big discs are fun and tinkering with analog stuff is its own hobby, but when it comes to collecting I prefer CDs.
I like old vinyl because these are my grandparents' and parents' records which I have heard myself a few times in my childhood.
I don't get recording digital data, then writing it to an analog medium which is then sold 15 times more expensive than it historically was.
No one can take the music on your CD's from you. I bought loads if sings and albums from Google Music and they are all gone now
This is a reason to avoid DRM, not digital files in general.
(My condolences for being bitten, though.)
Google Music had DRM free downloads, so the DRM wasn’t the problem - it was that they didn’t download them before Google Music was shuttered.
No one can take my flacs either. 🐷🧇
RIP
🐷🧇
😢
I'm glad I saved my CDs, as I was able to rerip them to FLAC and undo the mistake my juvenile self made of ripping to WMA. I still keep the CDs to play in my car from time to time
CDs are digital files plus ownership.
Once you download a music file, nobody is taking it away from you.
And CDs can have DRM just like any other digital media.
No, a CD that carries the actual CD logo cannot have DRM. It is true that the music industry has often pushed 'enhanced' formats that look like CDs that do; SACD, for example.
Ownership is different to possession, and I want to actually own my music, not just possess the files.
No, a CD that carries the actual CD logo cannot have DRM.
Is this true? If so, I'm guessing it's purely due to limitations in the hardware, rather than lack of will? I can't imagine CDs coming out these days and not having some sort of DRM.
Nintendo was able to figure it out with GameCube games...
You can definitely put DRM-protected content onto the physical CD media - that is exactly what SACD is. But then it isn't an audio CD, even if it will play on a regular CD player. Search for "nonstandard or corrupted" on the Wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio .
It's my understanding that only conforming CDs can carry the CD logo. It's usually on the case, not the disc itself, and it isn't always there, particularly when the case isn't a jewel case. All the same, I think that most things that look like CDs are conformant.
Yeah, but I imagine that CD logo is a "stamp of quality" of sorts that tells you that the disc inside fits an agreed upon, unified set of standards. And one of those standards is "no DRM."
Point was, if that standard was created or updated today, there's no shot that they wouldn't require DRM.
Maybe I'm wrong though and that's not at all what the CD logo means.
That's true, but they did already try it and it didn't catch on. There's a section about it on the Wikipedia page ("Copy protection").
That section also mentions that Philips stated that these discs couldn't have the CD logo on them. Since Philips was behind SACD, together with Sony, you'd think they wouldn't have imposed that restriction on themselves if they had the choice.
I know GameCube discs had a sort of copy protection built in (don't remember exactly how it worked, but it was pretty creative if I recall). I don't think they had the CD logo on them though.
I download my MP3 and FLAC files and then I own them and play them on any device I want.
There certainly are some services where you can legally download MP3 and FLAC files. Bandcamp, for example. If you download your music like that then, yes, you do own it.
But I'm not aware of anywhere you can get music from the major music labels nowadays (Amazon used to sell MP3s and so did Google Play Music, but neither does any more). If you do, I'd love to know.
On the other hand, you can still - although it's getting harder - buy CDs for major label artists and then you own the music (that copy of it).
True, CDs are the most reliable way to get the digital file.
7digital is a site where I've bought major label music and get the files. If it's not on bandcamp it's often on 7digital. They don't have everything though.
Thanks for the tip - they do seem to have a lot. I had assumed that the labels had made it unprofitable for that type of service to exist. I guess maybe it's simply that there is more money to be made from streaming.
Amazon does still sell digital music files, you just need to find the "digital music" section in Movies, Music and Games if that link doesn't work for you.
But you're right about google music, it got turned into youtube music and I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow purchasing and downloads. I'd imagine apple also still lets you buy music, but I've never actually used them before and don't plan to start now.
While I agree with you, I still want to be able to buy CDs.
I do miss caring about my CD collection. I still have them but I have nothing to play them on.