[Edil]

I don't know how many people know about Jose Feliciano the singer/composer (www.josefeliciano.com), possibly not much. Probably only a few know that he compose very good instrumental music, specifically for the acoustic guitar.

I was looking for one of his most recent instrumental albums, "Six Strings Lady"; sadly it wasn't available at Amazon, Ebay or Froogle so I tried at his official web site. I was happy to see it available there but the happiness didn’t last for long. The album was available for download in MP3 format encoded at CBR 128 kbps but you can not order an audio CD.

I wrote an e-mail to the web admin asking if the album was available in standard CDDA format or if they could provide the files in a lossless compression format and I was told by them that CBR 128Kbps encoded MP3 files provide an excellent audio quality (even for critical listening), and that it was the standard used at the iTunes store!. Of course I replied telling they were wrong but I don't think that they even care about what I explain.


Then I realize that more and more people are getting used to listen to music in lossy encoded formats and they don't realize that they are not getting the best audio quality. Ok, I know, they are the masses and the masses are the ones that control the market. Just take me as an example, I still don't have a DVD Audio or SACD player so why they should care about sound quality when they can conveniently download music from iTunes or other online music store?

Well that’s fine with me, but as long as you have a choice and the problem is that Jose Feliciano’s web site is only one of the many other sites that are following the same tendency, so you never have the chance to get that music in an acceptable audio quality format.

Now, if a tree falls in the middle of a remote forest and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? So I ask you, If CBR 126Kbps is the only way that a particular music is made available should I care?

 

[Denim]

It's easy to read this and follow a path where most music in the future is only available as 128 CBR. I think you need to stand your ground and let them know that this format and bit rate is not acceptable. If they hear it enough, that could sway them. The sad truth is that they will probably have enough sales of the MP3's, that the occasional whiner will never get noticed.

I'd ask when the CD will be available again, and see if they will put you on a waiting list.

 

[Rempert]

For the independent, self-publishing artist or the very small private label, it may come to this. It's such a cheap, easy way to mass-produce and mass-distribute music...no big risks or upfront costs. For the commercial industry, I don't see it happening. They will want people tied down to physical formats, going to the brick and mortar store and paying retail markups. They will not want everyone buying (or pirating) a digitally downloaded single and then never having a reason to get the album. You could offer compressed content on CD or DVD (or whatever the future holds), but what would be the point? It's not like an artist wants to make 600 songs for his debut album. The CD already holds sufficient content, and when there is too much length for a single CD it is still a win for the industry as they can greatly increase the price for a double CD.

Storage space will only get cheaper and bigger. The only time compressed sales will make sense is if you are relying solely on the internet for distribution, where bandwidth becomes an issue. That's my take on it, anyway.

 

[Aman]

Rempert: It doesn't make any sense that independent or small labels would find MP3s desirable. In fact, quite the opposite - there are many more independent labels distributing lossless music and vinyl over major labels. Major labels, which sell so much music per month, would find lossy music helpful because, as you said, it is an easy distribution method, cheap, and efficient. Sure, the quality sucks, but neither the companies nor the consumers seem to care.

 

[Piffles]

From my experience, I find more and more lossless audio files in online stores (particularly Flac). Having said that, MP3 is still the most widespread format, but I find that the majority are now using Lame VBR Standard instead of the traditional crappy 128 CBR.

BTW and OT, why the hell did mp3 marketting guys ever push us to use 128? 256 is only marginally bigger, still much smaller than wav and dramatically better quality than 128. It was a big mistake in my opinion. There would be less crap audio quality around now if they hadn't done that, and mp3 and lossy in general would enjoy more credibility in the audio scene.

Concerning your experience: the distributor for the artist you mentionned is an isolated and particularly THICK idiot. I don't think his case is representative of the trade.

 

[cribeiro]

I would say (or hope?) that as long as artist care about their work, we will get music with outstanding quality...

Can you imagine a painter selling thumbnails of his paintings through internet, so that you can print them at home and hang them on your wall?? Or theater actors playing next to a highway?

For some, money is not all that matters, and for some, it will remain like that.

 

[FalconP]

I'm more hopeful in this matter: I think bandwidth will determine everything. Now that 24/96 resolution is almost the norm for digital recordings, there is little reason (bandwidth nothwithstanding) not to distribute recorded music at their native resolution -- in other words, when the next-generation high speed internet becomes a household item, so will better-than-CD-quality music.

 

[Bosk]

I think it's an excellent question.

But although one could argue that 128kbps MP3 files are only a temporary thing until broadband gets faster, hard drives (and flash memory) gets bigger and cheaper, and so on, it's worth considering that most audiophiles recognise that Vinyl offers superior fidelity over CD and yet look at which is more popular! That to me is proof that the majority of consumers either don't care about fidelity or aren't willing to pay extra for it. Further proof is the lack of success of the SACD format.

128kbps MP3s will probably be around until mobile phones offer much larger amounts of storage, and broadband is installed in more households I think.

The thing is though, even now it really doesn't cost a great deal to put together a very high resolution speaker or headphone system, particularly if you can DIY - yet most people still buy cheap audio junk from Wal Mart when for a bit extra they could be getting MUCH better sound.
Personally I put part of it down to lack of education - most of them don't know what they're missing out on.
What we need is Audiophilia being taught in schools!

 

[jefemeister]

In my experience if something is available in FLAC most people will complain that it's too big, they don't know how to play it, and the flac creator gets called an idiot that's out of touch with reality.

However, I find that almost everyone appreciates VBR or 320kbps mp3 over the lower bitrates. The average user is getting smarter about this, they're just not willing to get nutty and use flac which necessitates at least 3 times the storage and download time as the highest quality lossy encodings. Can't really blame them. On mass-market stereo equipment it is essentially impossible to hear the benefit of anything past this. You have to find the middle ground and I truly believe people are converging on it quickly.

We live with compression every day. Jpeg photographs, MPEG-2 video, etc. As a whole everyone is basically happy because of the convenience it provides. There is always the small segment of purists who take objection (for example videophiles' hatred of macroblocking in DVD video) but the vast majority are perfectly happy.)

I know I have been exposed to much more cool music than I knew existed because of mp3 and I couldn't be happier. I still like to get the real CDs of music I really like because I do appreciate the sound quality. But there's no way I could want to purchase every album just to "check it out."

 

[Edil]

Just to let you know that I summarized your comments and sent them another e-mail. I got another reply saying that there are plans to release the album next year. For the moment I will not buy the MP3 files, those are .99 cents each but I will wait for the album. Lets see what happens.

 

[NiceCans]

I am sorry, but there is no way I would pay for 128 mp3. But I am concerned as to where the market is headed.

One of the things I see happening more today is companies dictating to consumers, rather than trying to attract us (and our money) with good service, better products, etc. Instead they reduce service and quality, but never costs. They 'outsource' jobs to save money, but only to increase profits.

Unfortunately most peope are sheep. These 'sheeple' (sheople) will simply follow the herd as the corporate herding dogs nudge them along into line.

This is the trend, and as it becomes more blaringly rampant and apparent, hopefully people will take notice. But in the meantime the mentality has changed. No longer is the customer 'always right'. The voice (and power) of the consumer (and his/her money) has been silenced to a mere whisper in the winds of consumerism. We have become so well inundated by advertising hype that we buy-into what they tell us we need, while we forget that we as the consumer drives the market.

So, go ahead and buy lossey, but do not be surprised when that is all they offer.

/rant off

 

[JaGWiRE]

I think the problem is that their isn't one lossless format to choose. Their are so many now, and most probably will never be given a chance if companies do decide to go with lossless. The ones that would probably end up being used would be ALAC (by Apple) and the Windows media lossless format that somebody opened another thread about. I doubt they would ever use flac in stores.

 

[jefemeister]

edit: not relevant

 

[donunus]

charging for 128 mp3s is just another encouragement for piracy

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus charging for 128 mp3s is just another encouragement for piracy

Not true at all. Illegal music downloading decreased significantly when iTunes became popular.

You must remember that most people don't know or care about what encoding rate the files are set at. They just want to hear a track in its entirety. Unless there is incredibly noticeable (to any sound gear) popping, clicking, fuzz, et cetera, the majority of listeners will not care. Now that one could BUY music for their computer, at this point in time, it was the kind of thinking like "Oh, I can get this music in this format, but now I can get it legally for a cheap [I know, but this is what people think!] price."