[wnmnkh]

I mean a store with at least more than four major labels.

There is none, other than one semi-legal (or not) russian site... I mean none.

Am I missing something?

 

[Hsiu]

because 99% of the listener use crap to listen to their music and cannot tell or care for the differences between lossless and 128kbps. not to mention most of the consumer mp3 player don't support lossless audio. most people use iTune , WMP for sorting and playing their music which mean only one lossless format if anyone really try to use it. MP3 is standardized while there are too many lossless format and it will be PITA to store same song is different format. there are few site offer music in lostless but for place like Apple or Amazon to offer titles in lossless. hardware and mind of consumer has to catch up to generate enough demand.

 

[Henry Flower]

Every CD shop is a lossless store!

Seriously, the advantage of downloading music is that it can be done with no effort. The few who are interested in losslessness (nice word, if it exists) take their music relatively seriously; they're more likely than average to be able to drag themselves out of bed and into a shop, or to wait a couple of days for a CD to be sent to them.

Oh yes, and (depending on the quality of your internet connection) downloading lossless files is not quite as quick and convenient as mp3s; I bought a couple of albums this week for flac download and found that most of the downloads didn't complete successfully. I'm sure there are ways it can be done effectively, but I'm not going to repeat the experiment any time soon.

 

[Justin Uthadude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henry Flower /img/forum/go_quote.gif Every CD shop is a lossless store! Seriously, the advantage of downloading music is that it can be done with no effort. The few who are interested in losslessness (nice word, if it exists) take their music relatively seriously; they're more likely than average to be able to drag themselves out of bed and into a shop, or to wait a couple of days for a CD to be sent to them.

Henry-
You get my vote for post of the week.
.

 

[krmathis]

I hear you!
In regards of online stores selling lossless music, which you can instantly download, that is. Like iTunes Store...

I bet there are several reasons:
* Low demand. I bet average Joe is perfectly fine with 128 or 192kbps lossy encoded audio.
* Restrictive record labels (not long ago since most of them dropped DRM protection).
* Bandwidth requirements.
* MP3 simply is the de-facto standard for computer audio. Have been for years.

 

[RamJaxed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hear you! In regards of online stores selling lossless music, which you can instantly download, that is. Like iTunes Store... I bet there are several reasons: * Low demand. I bet average Joe is perfectly fine with 128 or 192kbps lossy encoded audio. * Restrictive record labels (not long ago since most of them dropped DRM protection). * Bandwidth requirements. * MP3 simply is the de-facto standard for computer audio. Have been for years.

I think there's a number of problems.

Going to FLAC would mean a huge increase in storage/backup/DRM for the content deliveries, increasing costs, more infrastructre more bandiwth.

Which means the cost would have to be put on to the public.

Trying to find a sweet spot the way it's priced now would be very diffucult

it could end up costing more than buying an album in a store.

As storage gets a lot cheaper and fast BB connections become more wider available it's still difficult to see the move as you said mp3 is the defacto

There's just not enogh audophiles to create the demand imo

 

[rawrster]

its quite simple as others above me have mentioned.

the demand for it is low. theres no point to increase the bandwidth, server costs, etc if the majority which is probably high 90% could care less if its 128kbps or not. It would be great to have a choice of lossy and lossless tracks to choose from but I highly doubt that will happen anytime soon. Although it's not as convenient and easy as downloading buying CDs for cheap from amazon, half.com, etc isn't too bad either. It may be time consuming at first but at the end its worth it and if you ever happen to have a hard drive crash you got the physical CD to back it up.

 

[salannelson]

we are not a target market.

seriously, we are a very small fraction of music listeners. it's simply NOT worth their effort and i understand that. just get off your ass and go to a CD shop or wait a few days for a CD to come in the mail.

 

[davidhunternyc]

I have not downloaded even one song in my entire life. If I like a song or an album, I take the plunge and buy the CD. My entire music collection on my iPod was ripped with lossless from CD's.

 

[InFn-0]

Looks like i have a future in opening up a website which will sell lossless music

 

[Cianyx]

It's not very convenient for Australia, considering that we have a download limit and all.

 

[SirDrexl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif * MP3 simply is the de-facto standard for computer audio. Have been for years.

And yet, Apple uses AAC instead, and some sites use WMA. But, I think you really mean that there isn't a ubiquitous enough standard for compressed lossless. Windows Media Player or iTunes, out of the box, won't play FLAC, and Apple Lossless is too, well, Apple-centric to be universal. It's the same deal with WMA Lossless. The only truly universal lossless codecs are WAV and AIFF, and they impose more bandwidth than needed. Then again, they could easily add FLAC to these media players if they wanted.

I'm not sure I accept the bandwidth argument though. After all, for around $10 they'll sell you a movie that takes up a lot more bandwidth than a lossless album would. Renting a movie uses even more bits per dollar spent, of course. If NetFlix can give me unlimited streaming on top of the disc-by-mail rentals for under $20 a month, it seems odd that bandwidth is cited as a problem for music.

I guess the real point, and this is exactly what I fear about most digital distribution, is that they'll give you as low of a bitrate as they can offer without too many complaints.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirDrexl /img/forum/go_quote.gif And yet, Apple uses AAC instead, and some sites use WMA. But, I think you really mean that there isn't a ubiquitous enough standard for compressed lossless.

Nope, I meant what I said. That MP3 simply is the de-facto standard for computer audio.
Ask any person on the street and most of them have heard about MP3, but few have heard about AAC, Vorbis, Musepack. Let alone have they heard about FLAC, WavPack, ALAC, LA, ..

iTunes Store use AAC, but I also bet many of those who buy there have not idea about it. For them it could be any kind of encoded music.
We, the so-called "audiophile" who know out ways around computer audio, is clearly in a minority.

 

[lwells]

Here in Detroit, most people listen to their music through the internal speaker on their Motorola. Seriously... the speaker that is used for the ring tone.

That way they can rap along out loud.

 

[wnmnkh]

1.) some CDs are discontinued, and unable to get them anymore (one of reason why Linn opened their own store)

2.) from 1. issue, quality problems getting used CD (and some cases they are quite expensive)

3.) I am already getting buried by a pile of CDs already....

If you have not noticed like 90%+ of portable players support lossless format(s), such as ipod, Zune, and so on. Really only some crap players cost less than 40 bucks (wait, even Sansa Clip supports FLAC.) And format change among lossless files have zero degradation effects while mp3 to something else (and vice versa) always bring quality loss.

Well, I think I stick to that russian site for a while, then.