[castleofargh]

doing backups should be taught and explained every time somebody buys a computer or a cellphone. it sucks that we almost all had to learn the hard way after losing important stuff(pictures, music, work, porn stash...).

 

[goodyfresh]

  doing backups should be taught and explained every time somebody buys a computer or a cellphone. it sucks that we almost all had to learn the hard way after losing important stuff(pictures, music, work, porn stash...).

That last being the most important of all!!!!!

 

[OddE]

  doing backups should be taught and explained every time somebody buys a computer or a cellphone. it sucks that we almost all had to learn the hard way after losing important stuff(pictures, music, work, porn stash...).

 
-Thankfully the Internet serves as a giant backup service for such materials.
 
(I remember back in the day when peer-to-peer file sharing was just taking off, and we (a couple of fellow students and I) tried out what we called hardcore backup. We encrypted, tarred and gzipped an archive, renamed it 'BritneySuckingAndF***ing.mpg or something to that effect, then proceeded to upload it to some filesharing service - probably Napster.
 
Result? Lots of copies floating around; people downloaded, found they didn't have a codec to view it, shrugged and let it stay on the disk to improve their share ratio...)
 
Heck, we should be able to sue anybody holding a patent on cloud-based backup on grounds of prior art...

 

[sonitus mirus]

  doing backups should be taught and explained every time somebody buys a computer or a cellphone. it sucks that we almost all had to learn the hard way after losing important stuff(pictures, music, work, porn stash...).

I have taken the cloud route with just about everything.  I still have a few thumb drives around that I move folders of stuff onto every now and then, but mostly I'm all offsite and remotely saving everything.
 
I've been streaming music for several years now.  My photos are saved and accessible online.  Games are connected to my Steam account and available to download to any computer.  Important documents are similarly saved and made available on the cloud.  Videos are on YouTube account.  Movie collection is available online via Vudu or M-GO.  Even my browser settings and favorites are saved and instantly available.  
 
I could toss my computers into the ocean and build/buy new ones and be right back where I am today in just a few hours.  I made specific choices so that I could make this possible.  It has been wonderful.  Unless the infrastructure goes down, I'm good, though if that ever does occur, I'll be concerned with other things.
 
Back to our regular bickering about 24-bit audio, which is mostly useless with regards to audio quality improvements.

 

[goodyfresh]

   
-Thankfully the Internet serves as a giant backup service for such materials.
 
(I remember back in the day when peer-to-peer file sharing was just taking off, and we (a couple of fellow students and I) tried out what we called hardcore backup. We encrypted, tarred and gzipped an archive, renamed it 'BritneySuckingAndF***ing.mpg or something to that effect, then proceeded to upload it to some filesharing service - probably Napster.
 
Result? Lots of copies floating around; people downloaded, found they didn't have a codec to view it, shrugged and let it stay on the disk to improve their share ratio...)
 
Heck, we should be able to sue anybody holding a patent on cloud-based backup on grounds of prior art...

LMAO you're hilarious dude.

 

[hogger129]

I'm happy with a CD.  I would like to see online retailers like iTunes, Amazon and Google start selling CD-quality lossless downloads.  The storage space is available for most people and the bandwidth is there, unlike 10 years ago when lossy downloads came on the scene.

 

[RRod]

  I'm happy with a CD.  I would like to see online retailers like iTunes, Amazon and Google start selling CD-quality lossless downloads.  The storage space is available for most people and the bandwidth is there, unlike 10 years ago when lossy downloads came on the scene.

 
The probably don't see much need for that:
.From a sound standpoint there is little-to-nothing to gain from moving up from 256aac or 320mp3 to FLAC
.From a bottom-line standpoint, any audiophile desire is really a niche market compared to the latest Taylor Swift release
.From a control standpoint, they probably prefer to not let you download the original file content
 
What I'd like to be able to do is pay a bit more for extra content: album art, album notes, scores, etc. Music is losing so much of its context by just being dumped into huge online libraries.

 

[KeithEmo]

I think this subject does actually tie in to the main subject of this thread... and that tie is is through the very basic question of whether, when you "buy" an album, or a CD, or a download, it seems somewhat vague exactly what you are in fact buying. Back in the vinyl days, before tapes were even very good, it was clear that you were buying a piece of plastic with music on it... and the two were inextricably linked. That all changed once tape recorders became good enough that you could actually make a listenable copy of an album. (And all of this has remained pretty much the same, but simply become more relevant, as copying has become more perfect and so much easier.)
 
First, let's get one thing out of the way: The actual physical cost of a download is a few cents (by which I mean - what it costs when you divide the cost of the server space holding the file by the number of people that download it, then add the cost of the bandwidth each download costs), and I can easily have CDs mass produced, with labels and jewel cases, for about $1. So this is the actual physical cost of music distribution.
 
So, let's try and figure out where the "value" of that album lies.... Let's assume that I bought my favorite album in vinyl - which probably cost me somewhere around $15. Now, I decide I really want it on CD; so I pop down to the store and buy a CD. Oddly, even though I've already paid for both a plastic disc, and for the music recorded on it, they expect me to pay exactly the same price for that CD as some other guy who hasn't already paid for either one. I don't seem to be getting any sort of discount "because I already own the music, so all I'm paying for is the plastic". And, if I buy it as a download, for yet a third round, again they expect me to pay full price. It sort of seems like I'm paying over and over again for the right to listen to the same piece of music, doesn't it. (Or like they're saying that the right to listen to the music is worth pretty much nothing. After all, if the right to listen cost $13 and the plastic disc was $2 then, if I broke the CD, I could sweep the plastic shards into an envelope, send it in to prove that I already owned the right to listen, and have them send me a new piece of plastic to store it on for some reasonable price - say $2.) However, if the plastic breaks, now they're telling me the license to listen to that music was worth nothing - because they don't let me "transfer" that license to a new piece of plastic.
 
What's really funny is that, even though - for all of that paragraph - they seemed to be telling me that it was the plastic that "held all the value", if I buy a download, they seem to expect me to pay for it all over again; and if I were to "steal" a copy by copying the data, or give a copy to a friend, they act like the right to listen to the music, which they seemed to value at nothing a few seconds ago, is now the biggest part of the value. Wouldn't it make more sense if, once I paid for the right to listen to that particular music, that was considered to be a separate item... in which case, if I already owned the CD, or even the vinyl album, I should be able to trade in that particular piece of plastic for a different one for only the difference in cost, or trade it in for the download for nothing....
 
It really seems like the FAIR way to do this would be to simply count the two items involved separately. If I buy a download for $12, I should get a certificate (or my name should be entered into a database somewhere) that says I paid $10 for the "music album" itself, and $2 for the download service. And, if I buy a CD, I get a certificate for the $10 "music album", and a receipt for the $5 piece of plastic. But, and here's the difference, if I already own the "music album" because I bought it as a download, then I should be able to present my proof of ownership, and get a new copy on CD for that $5 "service charge", and, if I break the CD, I should be able to replace only the plastic, again for a reasonable service charge. 
 
Now, to bring all this "home" to this thread, if music was treated like this, then the cost of "upgrading" to a high-res version of an album you already own would be much more reasonable, which would make a huge difference in terms of "whether it was worth it". For example, assuming that I paid $15 for my CD, and $10 of that was for the actual license for the "music album", then $5 would be a reasonable service charge for selling me a different copy of the music I already own. And, if the music was remastered, considering that the same master tapes were used, and the artist presumably got royalties or payments at the point where I originally bought it, it would also be only reasonably to charge me only for the service of remastering the album. (So, maybe, if the original album actually cost "$5 for the music; $5 for the mixing and mastering, and $5 for the piece of plastic", then it would be fair to pay an additional $5 for the NEW mixing and mastering, and another $5 for the SERVICE of packaging and delivering that music in a new high-res format.) If the industry followed this idea, then buying a "simple high-res reissue" of a CD or download you already own might cost a very reasonable $5, and buying a "remastered version - in high-res" - might cost $10... and I think that, if the prices were that reasonable, most of us here wouldn't even be arguing about whether the extra cost was justified.
 
(And, of course, another benefit would be that you would always have that upgrade path - you could always decide later to pay the "extra bump charge" to "upgrade" your CD-quality download file to a high-res version later if you decided to. Personally, I suspect that doing it this way could in fact be very profitable to the music industry overall - just imagine how many more people would be willing to pay a reasonable upgrade fee than are now willing to buy a lot of music over again... and imagine "five packs of upgrade coupons" for "stocking stuffers", and special promo deals where you get "1 free album upgrade to high-res when you buy five regular albums".)
 
  Quote:

-I don't agree, actually. I've bought it, and should be expected to look after it - after all, if I'd lost the actual CD, very few people would expect the record company to give me a new one (though that is exactly what GD Music does, or at least did - I once lost a Dick's Picks CD and got a new one for a token fee.)

Arguably, the download deal leaves me better off (if I wasn't such a sucker for shelves full of music, that is!) - I can lose the file four times, and still the seller will give me a new copy, even several years after original purchase!

(Note that the files in question are DRM-free, so I can have a gazillion backup copies if I like.)

Anyway, I've managed to derail this thread from its most recent derailment; perhaps we should start a new one titled "DRM: Spawn of Satan" or something like it...

 

[KeithEmo]

I agree entirely... Back "in the beginning", a lot of customers had dial up connections, so the amount of time they saved by downloading an MP3 instead of a FLAC was significant, and nobody would have wanted to buy a $400 iPod classic that held "100 albums" ("10,000 of your favorite songs" sounded a lot more impressive). Also, to put it bluntly, nobody cared (so, if Apple could save 2 cents a song by using AAC 128 instead of FLAC, it still added up to a few bucks - and, I assume, somebody did their homework and figured out that most of their customers at that time really didn't care one way or the other... and, let's be honest, most of their customers still don't care.)
 
However, this late in the game, a lot of the problem has almost certainly been the simple fact that, once someone like the iTunes store has millions of songs already selling in a certain format, going back and reissuing all of them is a major single effort - and, as such, quite expensive. (Don't assume that it's as simple as doing a batch conversion - someone has to manage the process, update all those files, dig out all the original masters and make sure they're good enough not to embarrass themselves in the new format, and update all those shopping cart items. Spending $5 a song adds up if you're talking about 1,000,000 songs. And, collectively, the storage space and bandwidth do add up as well. Remember the story about the guy who saved his company millions by suggesting that they put one less olive in each of the millions of jars of olives they sell...)
 
(I still find it rather sad that iTunes took the time and effort to go back and reissue a lot of music in a higher-quality format, but still used AAC256 - instead of "taking the step" and going to lossless. It's also somewhat interesting to wonder what their future plans are.... If you look at the "guidelines for mastering content for the iTunes store", they still recommend doing so at 24/96...
hmmmm.... )
 
 
Quote:

  I'm happy with a CD.  I would like to see online retailers like iTunes, Amazon and Google start selling CD-quality lossless downloads.  The storage space is available for most people and the bandwidth is there, unlike 10 years ago when lossy downloads came on the scene.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Part of the reason Amazon only offers MP3 downloads is because they do not want to cannibalize their own CD sales.  They have warehouses filled with CDs, as they take up very little space and can be delivered the same day or overnight for pennies.  When you purchase a CD, the MP3 files become immediately available for download and use.   
 
The other reason is the record labels' refusal to allow lossless versions to be sold at the same quality level as the CD.  They will make HD versions available to be sold at a premium cost for select vendors, but you won't see a lossless copy made available for many of the major music labels.  At least they are not going to allow it without implementing some form of DRM to control distribution and to create an artificial revenue stream just because they can.

 

[interpolate]

All good points well stated.

 

[Joeybgood]

My uninformed butt is trying to understand something. HighRes DL sites(HDTracks specifically) offer all these classic cds that were recorded in the 50s,60s 70s at different levels of 24bit. Since these albums were not likely recorded in 24bit, how could upsampling/inflating  them to this resolution level make any bit of difference? I mean, all this space is filled with what? Certainly not actual music data that originated from the artist when it was recorded. correct? Is it just meaningless filler that they are adding and then asking much higher prices for them? Please be so kind as to help me understand what it is that these sites are offering here. Regards, Joey

 

[RRod]

  My uninformed butt is trying to understand something. HighRes DL sites(HDTracks specifically) offer all these classic cds that were recorded in the 50s,60s 70s at different levels of 24bit. Since these albums were not likely recorded in 24bit, how could upsampling/inflating  them to this resolution level make any bit of difference? I mean, all this space is filled with what? Certainly not actual music data that originated from the artist when it was recorded. correct? Is it just meaningless filler that they are adding and then asking much higher prices for them? Please be so kind as to help me understand what it is that these sites are offering here. Regards, Joey

 
If you truncate these tracks down to 16 bits, pad back to 24 bits, and do a difference, all you'll have left is whitish noise. So they're selling noise, basically. Below is the difference spectrogram for a 24-bit test track, truncated down to 16bits and padded back up. As you can see, mostly noise at about -115dB, with a little burst of stuff at the end around -110dB (file peak is -6.74dB).
 

 
And this is a classical track actually recorded at 24-bits. Stuff from back-in-the-day will just have louder noise. What they'll try to sell you on is that since 24-bits has less rounding error than 16 bits, you'll hear "micro-details" in the music better. I guess noise counts as detail these days.

 

[Joeybgood]

   
If you truncate these tracks down to 16 bits, pad back to 24 bits, and do a difference, all you'll have left is whitish noise. So they're selling noise, basically. Below is the difference spectrogram for a 24-bit test track, truncated down to 16bits and padded back up. As you can see, mostly noise at about -115dB, with a little burst of stuff at the end around -110dB (file peak is -6.74dB).
 

 
And this is a classical track actually recorded at 24-bits. Stuff from back-in-the-day will just have louder noise. What they'll try to sell you on is that since 24-bits has less rounding error than 16 bits, you'll hear "micro-details" in the music better. I guess noise counts as detail these days.

 

   
If you truncate these tracks down to 16 bits, pad back to 24 bits, and do a difference, all you'll have left is whitish noise. So they're selling noise, basically. Below is the difference spectrogram for a 24-bit test track, truncated down to 16bits and padded back up. As you can see, mostly noise at about -115dB, with a little burst of stuff at the end around -110dB (file peak is -6.74dB).
 

 
And this is a classical track actually recorded at 24-bits. Stuff from back-in-the-day will just have louder noise. What they'll try to sell you on is that since 24-bits has less rounding error than 16 bits, you'll hear "micro-details" in the music better. I guess noise counts as detail these days.

Pretty much as I expected. thanks much!

 

[icebear]

  My uninformed butt is trying to understand something. HighRes DL sites(HDTracks specifically) offer all these classic cds that were recorded in the 50s,60s 70s at different levels of 24bit. Since these albums were not likely recorded in 24bit, how could upsampling/inflating  them to this resolution level make any bit of difference?....

Hilarious, LOL

.... it's very simple:
After high rez marketing hype made a lot of consumers buy new DACs capable of 24/96 to 192 or even 32/384, DSD 1234 xyz or what have you, there had to be software on offer to feed all these new gadgets and make the respective LED's light up or displays tell the resolution. And then people were hearing that they got their money's worth

.
 
The classic recordings you mention do sound spectacular already on CD (living stereo, living presence etc.). These are analog recordings and given the age of the tapes, the sound that was captured is just astounding. Unless the orig. master tapes are newly A/D transferred with a higher resolution, then the old "CD master" are just upsampled to make the DAC display say 24/96. Everybody should be able to decide if that's worth paying for or stick with "lowly RB" at 16/44. The age of these tapes makes it very questionable if renewed transfer will give better result than what has been done 20 or 30 years ago. A new mastering of the orig. transfer files might help in certain cases when producers have been over eager to make the CD sound "obviously better than analog". The age of early digititis

. The tapes don't really improve with age. At some point another playback will destroy them completely. What hasn't been archived into a new format already, might be lost at some point.