Download pricing getting bit silly

I suggest the word 'getting' is a tad superfluous in the title. I think download prices have always been ridiculously high. I guess it's difficult to judge demand. Would lower prices attract sufficient demand to justify the lower price? Does Joe Public really want to own recordings anymore? Is the demand for music what it was when we were younger?

I'm starting to feel depressed now. I'd better go and play some music!

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

New Band Of Horses album prices. All the same tracks.

Quboz £18.88 24bit high res, £14.03 CD quality.

7Digital high res £21.99, £11.99 CD quality, £5.99 MP3

Amazon CD. £9.89 (includes free MP3 download too of course)

As CDs become a 'forgotten' medium they are becoming better value, at least in comparison. Over double for high res is not going to tempt me unless it is something quite special, but even the standard CD quality price is drifting up it seems.

Bruce

Hi Bruce,

If you switch to Qobuz sublime you will see a different picture. Then all of the high res stuff is going to be a couple of euros cheaper than a cd. Of course it means an investment of over 200 euros, but if you buy regularly music it's a good investment. In general I agree however with your sentiment that high res is rather expensive.

Hiresaudio.com = £12.00 for 24/96.

It still pays to shop around, however agree that some of these folks are having a good laugh at our expense.

ATB. George.

DSD titles makes these prices look cheap. I have seen no explanation for the massiv overpricing for dsd titles.

Claus-Thoegersen posted:

DSD titles makes these prices look cheap. I have seen no explanation for the massiv overpricing for dsd titles.

 

If companies can get away with it they will. Perceived or implied value add no doubt.

Relatively, Hi Res downloads are cheaper than any of their antecedents at this stage of their lifecycle. Equally, I will never buy a 16 bit recording of something which is available in 24 bit. 

As to whether 'owning' a recording makes sense anymore, I think it does. We are a long way from being able to stream precisely the recording we want, whenever we choose, from our own 'collection'. This applies particularly with Classical but really for any genre. 

If you want the best, make sure you get it. Price is secondary, and a good digital download will truly last a lifetime, so long as you have a backup!!

My beef with hi-bitrate files is when the dynamic range isn't used. The loudness wars are far from over.

I was not just highlighting the cost of high res, but that CD resolution downloads were a lot more than the physical CD. Paying for convenience?

Bruce

After years of bouncing around between formats and bit rates i am finally clear. If the recording is not using an expansive dynamic range its not worth space it occupies. Formats don't matter. I have heard badly ripped CDs that sound better than their 24 bit (loud) remastered High res downloads. Some of these engineers and producers just don't get it.

Harry Thind posted:

Some of these engineers and producers just don't get it.

In defense of the engineers and producers, there is some level of marketing involved in the distribution chain. I think the bean counters are more the culprits here.

I Agree. But I am not spending any money any more on an album just cos its labeled Hi Res or is on Vinyl or...

Life's too short for bad recordings.

David O'Higgins posted:

Relatively, Hi Res downloads are cheaper than any of their antecedents at this stage of their lifecycle. Equally, I will never buy a 16 bit recording of something which is available in 24 bit.  

Relative to what?  As I recall ... when CDs were first out they were perhaps £15 vs the Vinyl or Cassette at £10 - £12 (I'm talking mainstream releases).  So relatively thats a 50% increase.

Now HiRes downloads are 2 or more times the cost of buying the CD.

I have not heard anything on any format lately that warrants current pricing levels. I pay 20 quid a month for tidal which granted isn't always the cd quality it claims but it is okay for background the last few albums I have bought have been older 2nd hand vinyl. Some Internet radio stations are reasonably good quality aswell but when I want to sit down and enjoy an album it is usually on record. 

David O'Higgins posted:

I will never buy a 16 bit recording of something which is available in 24 bit. 

It's worth keeping in mind that many 24-bit recording are simply up-sampled from 16-bit sources, often the the CD master. Unfortunately it can be quite tricky to ascertain the authenticity of a recording without running it through Audacity/Logic etc.

GregW posted:

David O'Higgins posted:

I will never buy a 16 bit recording of something which is available in 24 bit. 

It's worth keeping in mind that many 24-bit recording are simply up-sampled from 16-bit sources, often the the CD master. Unfortunately it can be quite tricky to ascertain the authenticity of a recording without running it through Audacity/Logic etc.

Have you first hand experience  of albums that this has happened to?

And do tell us what they are?

SJB

There are many, examples but some recent examples of music sold as 24/96 or 24/192 include:

Bob Dylan, Shadows In The Night, Qobuz
Beck, Morning Phase, HDTracks
Alanis Morissette, Most of her collection on HDTracks

Personally I bought the Beck and Dylan albums.

In the case of HDTracks, they have now alerted customers to up-sampled material when they are informed about it. For example most of the Alanis Morissette material states that it has been up-sampled.

It’s not well known or understood that much of the music recorded in the 80’s, 90’s and early 00’s was recorded when samplers and Digital Signal Proccesing systems only operated at 44/48kHz.

Eloise posted:

David O'Higgins posted:

Relatively, Hi Res downloads are cheaper than any of their antecedents at this stage of their lifecycle. Equally, I will never buy a 16 bit recording of something which is available in 24 bit.  

Relative to what?  As I recall ... when CDs were first out they were perhaps £15 vs the Vinyl or Cassette at £10 - £12 (I'm talking mainstream releases).  So relatively thats a 50% increase.

Now HiRes downloads are 2 or more times the cost of buying the CD.

Relative to the cost of buying the alternative at the time. Hi Res recordings are virtually the same price as CDs were back in 1988. So the real price of getting the best quality has fallen significantly, The downside is that income for artists has also fallen and we need that to change to preserve a decent quality of life for the performers.

GregW posted:

David O'Higgins posted:

I will never buy a 16 bit recording of something which is available in 24 bit. 

It's worth keeping in mind that many 24-bit recording are simply up-sampled from 16-bit sources, often the the CD master. Unfortunately it can be quite tricky to ascertain the authenticity of a recording without running it through Audacity/Logic etc.

Greg, I have bought 400 + 24 bit recordings in the past 2 years, mostly of CDs which I already owned, and almost all of them have been worth it. Yes, there are some duds, but it's the same as when we bought LPs and CDs, we only found out when we got them home if we had a lemon.  If a label consistently disappoints, it will disappear. 

Download pricing is completely outrageous - compared to cds with production, materials, transport, stockholding and wholesaling/retailing costs, downloads pretty much only incur hosting and web transaction costs. The marginal cost of extra sales is close to zero. Of course the artists need to earn a living and if I buy any music (very rare now that I am a Tidal subscriber) I buy it direct from the artist, usually at gigs. I would pay more for better quality but I have been unconvinced by my few hi-res purchases.

I remember when cds were £15 almost 30 years ago - the record companies were thieving bastards then and they are thieving bastards now (they also take of 70% of streaming royalty payments). I hope that eventually all artists will deal directly and cut out these parasites.