Paying for compressed music : I still can't accept it

[Drealm]

I've talked about it a while ago and still, the concept seems completely unacceptable to me.

From the beginning of recording, we always had access to the music in it's "best unaltered sound" via vinyl records, cassettes and CD.

But now with internet, iTunes and other online stores, music becomes available in a compressed form, meaning lowered quality standards. But we still pay for it.

It never happened to me yet, but if an artist I really enjoy, like Mike Oldfield, would release his next album only online, no CD at all, I would be very upset.

It would mean that now, you can't have full quality anymore. Even if the artist achieved his music with, I presume, a full quality .WAV, I can't access it, the only option being probably MP3 and M4P 256, not even 320.

So now is the time of burning to disc at home from compressed form. I just can't imagine my CD collection with the new Mike Oldfield album being just a blank case with a burned CD inside knowing it came from a "compressed" form that I paid for.

Even if the new generation of people don't want a physical support anymore (CD becoming obsolete), the problem of quality is still a debate. There will always be some people that actually care about quality of sound, and not accepting compressed form as the only solution.

Something must be done.

PS: As I hate paying for compression, I did not buy a lot of music online. Maybe there's a way to obtain music online in full quality that I don't know about. If so, please inform me immediately.

[FONT=&quot]PS2: I just had another thought: I've always wondered, when they put a song in a movie, where they take the song? Did they paid for the rights to use it and then just took it from the original CD that someone from the movie team just bought at the store? Or probably the company from which they bought the rights just send some kind of master of the song to the movie studio? So now, if the only option is compression, they put the song in the movie in full 5.1 quality from a compressed source? That sounds very unprofessional to me. But now, maybe the movie studio have access to full quality because they contact the music company directly and pay the rights? Meaning everyone else just have to accept the compression age?[/FONT]

[Tiggi]

I know exactly how you feel Drealm, I had the same experience when vinyl started to disappear. IMV vinyl is technically superior to CD, but it was becoming increasingly difficult to source the vinyl I wanted. Had to splash out a lot of money to play CDs at an acceptable quality.

The same may well happen with CDs, but hopefully uncompressed files will become more readily available.

I share your concern, but doubt there's much to be done about it...

[gryphon]

This always leaves me in two minds..................When I look at the time and effort put into a recording and getting it to "sound right" ...........I want to reproduce all that is on the recording .................This is the Hi Fi person................and I spend a lot of effort here!

On the other hand I have to realise that we live in a real world and that I will only get my music on a medium ( unless I can get it live !!!)

Now the medium will have an effect ! The closest I have come to the "Best sound " is a direct cut vinyl album played live into the mixing desk and cut live as the music is being made. Costs lots , it is limited and when they are sold out they are sold out................Hey I have some great vinyl pressings that come close and so you can get a good result here.

CD/SACD are both compromises to some extend because I will not get the analogue complete sound I'll get a sampled sound. However, there oes come a point where it is hard to tell what is missing.

MP3 etc is lower level than this and there is more compromise going on down the byte rate.

BUT when we had 78, 45, 33...............tape etc I still accepted the medium , it was the music that counts and what the music makes me feel..................

So I guess that I am still no nearer and answer........it's just that I an tell the difference ....................................

The last point..................They do have to pay for he right to use the material but as to how they obtain it depends...............mostly the reputable use he best source they can but it not always the best that can be obtained...............IN theory you should not tamper with it as it is not fair but what is tampering?????????????
Usually the artits if they can will help but they don't always get to know ! Reference The Beatles Rock and roll music albums UK vs US ones !

[Jerome]

I've talked about it a while ago and still, the concept seems completely unacceptable to me.From the beginning of recording, we always had access to the music in it's "best unaltered sound" via vinyl records, cassettes and CD.But now with internet, iTunes and other online stores, music becomes available in a compressed form, meaning lowered quality standards. But we still pay for it.It never happened to me yet, but if an artist I really enjoy, like Mike Oldfield, would release his next album only online, no CD at all, I would be very upset.It would mean that now, you can't have full quality anymore. Even if the artist achieved his music with, I presume, a full quality .WAV, I can't access it, the only option being probably MP3 and M4P 256, not even 320.So now is the time of burning to disc at home from compressed form. I just can't imagine my CD collection with the new Mike Oldfield album being just a blank case with a burned CD inside knowing it came from a "compressed" form that I paid for.Even if the new generation of people don't want a physical support anymore (CD becoming obsolete), the problem of quality is still a debate. There will always be some people that actually care about quality of sound, and not accepting compressed form as the only solution.Something must be done.PS: As I hate paying for compression, I did not buy a lot of music online. Maybe there's a way to obtain music online in full quality that I don't know about. If so, please inform me immediately.[FONT=&quot]PS2: I just had another thought: I've always wondered, when they put a song in a movie, where they take the song? Did they paid for the rights to use it and then just took it from the original CD that someone from the movie team just bought at the store? Or probably the company from which they bought the rights just send some kind of master of the song to the movie studio? So now, if the only option is compression, they put the song in the movie in full 5.1 quality from a compressed source? That sounds very unprofessional to me. But now, maybe the movie studio have access to full quality because they contact the music company directly and pay the rights? Meaning everyone else just have to accept the compression age?[/FONT]

CD is not the best unaltered sound by the way. ALL CD's end up as 16 bit at the end of the day, whereas the wave flies they are generated from might be 96KHz, 24-bit or 32-bit floats. In order to overcome the 'edginess' of the samples a small amount of white noise (dithering) is introduced. Most people can't hear this anyway and also as you get older your ability to hear the 20KHz range deteriorates as well. Vinyl is the purest source - absolute analogue, but I could always hear the inevitable noise from what is essentially two surfaces scratching together. I welcomed CD's with open arms and dumped vinyl the minute it arrived on the scene foregoing the warmer sound in favour of the noiseless one. I do not like MP3's or so-called lossless FLAC and other forms. They are all a compromise on the source material. What I really miss are the gatefold covers.

[CRAZY-HORSE]

there has begun a slump in cd sales over the last decade due to these so called compressed sounds and music but cd's WILL NOT cease to be, just as vinyl has not ceased to be!....true music lovers will always be able to find their music in both of these formats.

[TraceNspace]

I contribute to the problem quite a lot. I am one of those impatient people who enjoys having my music as soon as possible and so I download it. I also enjoy the convenience of an iPod. There are still things I buy on CD, I still buy vinyl when I find a good deal but mostly I'm a download junkie now. My apologies.

[SteveO]

Recorded music began on 78 rpms which sounded a little tinny or thin and the record grooves were probably split apart after several plays due to the fact that the stylus being used was similar to the appearance of a nail ! The disc itself was thick yet very durable....almost to the consistency of rock or stone.

Then came the 331/3 rpm(album) and 45s(singles). The 45s took off like gangbusters because the consumer was buying the Hit and cost considerably less than the album. With a respectable stereo system it produced a very good sound both on albums and singles. With a good sound system it was better sounding or just as good as the Compact Disc. I can't tell the difference but I am no audiophile !

Of course 8 track tapes and cassette tapes also came into vogue around the late sixties and for the most part offerd a good sound reproduction. The poor old 8 track was doomed from the beginning because of poor construction - too large and problems with tape unravelling...etc.

Today along with the CD we have the Age of the Download....an invisible code of digitized music bytes.

I have talked to a few local musicians, in fact one about an hour ago, and their response is that Yes the CD will go away and if the music fan downloads ... who cares...they'll hear our music and come see us play!!! You see the bucks are in the live shows these days ! There are so many artists out there that the average Joe cannot possibly buy a lot of CDs ! Some musicians have told me that they have boxes upon boxes of unsold dust collecting CDs. Hence another problem arises....the lack of venues to play live in !!!! I thought it was an interesting, frank and depressive perspective from a musician's standpoint. When will this happen ?...who knows...perhaps the CD is here forever but I am sure some form of music media will replace it at some point in time.

I ,like Jerome, miss the spread out album covers ! I wish the CDs would come packaged that way today with the beautiful album cover layouts !

[bjgeiger]

I want it and I want it NOW. So I download. I use an iPod with good ear phones or play on my big computer with big speakers with the nice woofers and tweeters.

[Drealm]

Your answers are very interesting.

I'm not the most purist, by the way. I don't even have a proper sounding system to 100% enjoy the full quality of my CDs (the reason is that I don't have a lot of money, I still dream of my future great sounding system that I will buy someday...). I even ripped my entire CD collection into MP3 (I made them 224, it was the best compromise for space and I don't really hear a difference from my portable cd player) for the convenience of my mp3 player. Half my listening time is made through my MP3 player with Sony 15$ earphones. And that's ok for me, I can't really complain about the sound.

I am mostly concerned about the principle of quality. It's just that it's unacceptable for companies to sell compressed music. As someone said here, so much attention is made in the recording studio to make a great sound, only to end up being sold as a compressed form. That's lacking respect to the artists involved. I don't care if CD become obsolete, as long as the next form is full quality. We are evolving, aren't we? Doesn't that mean going toward better in everything?

[Tiggi]

The head of HMV in the UK has gone on record today stating that he believes that CDs will be virtually obsolete within five years.