Cost of hi def / res tracks
Posted by: Sloop John B on 13 January 2014
I feel I am being conned similarly to when CDs first came out that they were dearer than the equivalent of vinyl or cassette.
Surely the most costly part of an album is the actually recording of it and isn't it recorded in high resolution anyway and then downsampled for CD and other formats?
I wouldn't mind paying current CD prices for a high resolution album that I already have on vinyl and CD with possibly two or three masters of it on CD but it really frosts my bum have to pay a premium of 2 to 3 times the cost of the CD for the higher resolution file.
I would be interested in someone from the Naim label explaining to me if I am wrong and if there is such a huge cost involved in a high resolution download comparatively to the whole recording process.
Let's say I own a vinyl copy of an album. Does that entitle me to posses an MP3 on my ipod or computer, assuming the vinyl predates the digital age? And no, the MP3 is not a copy made from the vinyl.
According to the RIAA, it would not. That is, assuming you had no legal right to download the copyrighted music at the time you did so. The copy was then, and still remains illegal. How would buying the vinyl record absolve you of having made an illegal copy? The only way out would be to tell a lie, and that is that you created the digital copy from the record, and strictly for personal use.
Please understand that I am merely speculating on how I think RIAA would interpret copyright law. Based upon what I read on their web site, I believe their interpretation would be as strict as humanly possible.
Sorry Hook, I got that around the wrong way. Yes, it is naughty and it's an illustration of why there is so much static beaming about. The lines are not blurred but they may appear to be when everybody wants to bend them.
Mind you, look at our role models. In the UK we've even got a Prime Minister who embezzled expenses. But because he paid them back (and escaped further accountability or scrutiny), this makes him honest and unimpeachable. Seems like there's an awful lot of blurred lines in society and we accordingly get the mess we deserve.
Amazon sells cds with auto-rips -> They'll give you accesss to the mp3 version of the CD. Now, if I sell the CD, there's not much I can do about it. I still have the mp3s in the cloud. Do I become a criminal if I accidentally click on the mp3?
And haven't heard back from hdtracks yet.
Having said that, the RIAA is on par with some of the nastiest organization in the world. Wouldn't want to mess with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...sociation_of_America
FWIW, I don't own an ipod or listen to MP3s. When I bought the vinyl copy of McCartney's "New" LP it came with a code to download the MP3. I had to chuckle at that. Redbook, at the very least would be nice if not a physical copy of the CD as some artists do. When I bought Joe Walsh's "Analog Man" LP, it came with a code for 24/96 download. That's nice. The letter of the law is one thing, but if I own the vinyl and wanted to download it as a MP3 for an ipod I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
Let's face it, the record industry fu**ed-up royally when they made the ill-fated decision not to include copyright protection on CDs. They created an irreparable mess for themselves from that point forward. Unfortunately, the artists are the ones that really suffer.
Let's face it, the record industry fu**ed-up royally when they made the ill-fated decision not to include copyright protection on CDs. They created an irreparable mess for themselves from that point forward. Unfortunately, the artists are the ones that really suffer.
IMO things were f€&@d up when copyright was made transferable from the original creator of the music. It should have been non-transferable and only valid during the lifetime of the creator.
record companies should have been working on a fee-basis for the project and on item-prices for the production of the music carriers.
cheers
Aleg
Wat? Recording vinyl onto cassette tapes was killing music?
From my experience folks were taping LPs to play on their tape decks in their cars, and the quality of the copy was invariably inferior. I can't imagine that had much of an effect on historic vinyl sales.
With CD an exact copy could be produced from the original or any subsequent copies, endlessly, with no loss of fidelity. Furthermore, these copies can be produced and transferred with no physical interaction as required with a tape.
Of course it isn't - and I'm surprised no one has caught on that I'm only half serious... 
Mmm... backtracking?
Ah, being judgemental again
Not being judgemental, merely making an observation based on the available evidence.
According to definition, the utilitarian approach isn't philistine...
Whose definition is that? Furthermore, I didn't say THE utilitarian approach was philistine, I said YOUR utilitarian approach was philistine. Do keep up.
Let's face it, the record industry fu**ed-up royally when they made the ill-fated decision not to include copyright protection on CDs. They created an irreparable mess for themselves from that point forward. Unfortunately, the artists are the ones that really suffer.
IMO things were f€&@d up when copyright was made transferable from the original creator of the music. It should have been non-transferable and only valid during the lifetime of the creator.
record companies should have been working on a fee-basis for the project and on item-prices for the production of the music carriers.
cheers
Aleg
I think the real problem was that the record companies tried to criminalise their own customer base, rather than persuading people that it was worth paying for music, and that it was morally good to do so. They had years to sort this out, knowing from the very beginning that would eventually be possible to make perfect copies of CDs, and did nothing, having grown fat and complacent on the back of the CD boom of the 1980s and 90s.
FWIW, I don't own an ipod or listen to MP3s. When I bought the vinyl copy of McCartney's "New" LP it came with a code to download the MP3. I had to chuckle at that. Redbook, at the very least would be nice if not a physical copy of the CD as some artists do. When I bought Joe Walsh's "Analog Man" LP, it came with a code for 24/96 download. That's nice. The letter of the law is one thing, but if I own the vinyl and wanted to download it as a MP3 for an ipod I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
I've never actually bought a download as far as I can remember. If I buy an LP and it comes with a download code I will use that so I can put it on my iPod. But mostly my iPod is full of podcasts from the BBC and elsewhere, as that's what I like to listen to on the move; and a few favourite albums from the likes of Goldfrapp, Led Zep, Fabs, Floyd, Can, White Stripes etc taken from my CDs.
I prefer to listen at home, on vinyl if at all possible.
And giving away CDs with newspapers really added to the perception of music as a valuable commodity. I remember a HDCD Tubular Bells given away with some paper. I'paid €16 for it, was I bitter?
so if I'm allowed derail a thread back to the op -
can an it be justified that a 24/192 file is twice the price of a 16/44 ?
for me the answer is no, and I feel such rip offs will not discourage sharing of these files
SJB
And giving away CDs with newspapers really added to the perception of music as a valuable commodity.
SJB
Spot on SJB. Ironically, it didn't really produce any long-term benefits for the newspapers either. One-off or short term sales spikes certainly, but no long-term growth. Same thing happened with magazines.
If you think they should be cheaper, doesn't it follow that hires files should be more expensive?
They are resellable
Physical medium possession
Both of which are silly arguments.
Originally posted by Mangomonkey:
Back to the thread - are you willing to pay the same price for 256kbos mp3s as for CDs?
If you think they should be cheaper, doesn't it follow that hires files should be more expensive?
Only if they are better, and the jury is definirely still out on that one.
ATB from George
To me it's not, so I prefer to buy CDs and rip them.
I'm so glad my system isn't 'resolving enough'. I have all the music in the world at my fingertips and it sounds great!
By the way when are you going to try the new Signature series amplifiers?
Oh - I think I'm going to try making these at home. Seems like it's simple enough - just take a acrylic cutting board and stick it between your Preamp and PSU.
Actually take that as a complement -
Let's tread lightly here. Next thing you know the Philistinians will be in a stand-off of political correctness with the Unitarians. I don't think any of us want that.
I think the real problem was that the record companies tried to criminalise their own customer base, rather than persuading people that it was worth paying for music, and that it was morally good to do so. They had years to sort this out, knowing from the very beginning that would eventually be possible to make perfect copies of CDs, and did nothing, having grown fat and complacent on the back of the CD boom of the 1980s and 90s.
This bandwagon was rolling already. Home taping is killing music and all that. The more you treat people like criminals, particularly from a position of immense wealth, the more trouble you are saving up for. And all of us who play straight are criticised more, because we are visible. It's not my fault that most modern recordings are rubbish and not worth buying.