Author Topic: Physical vs. download  (Read 6306 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jnb

  • Concert Hall Hasbeen
  • ****
  • Posts: 223
  • Good Vibes 3
  • 91°N, 212°W Lost again!
    • The Fat Cafe
Physical vs. download
« on: March 17, 2010, 10:20:55 am »
Seem to cost exactly the same. So who gets the extra money if I buy a download rather than a physical copy? (I guessing that it's not Justin!)

Offline justinguitar

  • Administrator
  • Stadium Superstar
  • *****
  • Posts: 3440
  • Good Vibes 163
    • justinguitar.com
Re: Physical vs. download
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2010, 05:25:06 pm »
CD's don't cost much to make, well 50p to be exact...

I get about the same for both - I think. Will tell you at the end of May when I get statements in!
"You can get help from teachers, but you are going to have to learn a lot by yourself, sitting alone in a room." Dr. Seuss

Offline EVK

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 7
  • Good Vibes 0
Re: Physical vs. download
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2010, 07:00:25 pm »
What about Payloadz?

Offline justinguitar

  • Administrator
  • Stadium Superstar
  • *****
  • Posts: 3440
  • Good Vibes 163
    • justinguitar.com
Re: Physical vs. download
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2010, 10:01:37 pm »
Payloadz I get 100% less paypal fee...

I think with iTunes I get about 4.20 of the 7.99 so a bit over half...

Sounds bad, but in the old "record company" days you would get less than a pound... but for digital releases I think companies like iTunes take far too much.
"You can get help from teachers, but you are going to have to learn a lot by yourself, sitting alone in a room." Dr. Seuss

Offline Xaromir

  • Stadium Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2904
  • Good Vibes 22
  • Coolthulhu
Re: Physical vs. download
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2010, 03:57:28 am »
Sounds bad, but in the old "record company" days you would get less than a pound... but for digital releases I think companies like iTunes take far too much.

Considering that they have very little cost compared to a good ol' record store it's outrageous,
imagine what it would be like if there would also be a record company in the middle, etc. :)

I don't want to be rude, but since it's about money:
Do you think the album will have payed for itself any time soon?
Persona non grata.

Offline Kane

  • Concert Hall Hasbeen
  • ****
  • Posts: 245
  • Good Vibes 1
Re: Physical vs. download
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2010, 08:32:42 pm »
Servers and an infrastructure good enough to provide acceptable download speeds to large numbers of customers around the world doesn't come cheap :)
quote ; If it sounds like s*** it is s*** ..."

Offline Cue Zephyr

  • All Time Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 6476
  • Good Vibes 91
    • Ezyo Music
Re: Physical vs. download
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2010, 09:25:34 pm »
How's the sound quality for downloads?
I only know physical is at 1411 kb/s.
Guitar, banjo, mandolin and piano, bass and percussion
Production and mixing

Offline Gandsfjord

  • Concert Hall Hasbeen
  • ****
  • Posts: 215
  • Good Vibes 5
Re: Physical vs. download
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2010, 11:04:43 pm »
Hi Cue
I don't have numbers (bitrates and such) that compares downloaded (iTunes) music compared to the records, but in my car the other day, I switched off my iPod to catch the news on the radio, and the exact same song was playin (Wheels, Foo Fighters). Now I have a Blaupunkt car stereo that the iPod plugs into, so the sound comparison should be valid.

The radio sound is brighter than the download, and transients (cymbals and stuff) that cannot really be heard on the iPod was there on the radio version of the song.

Now  - radio stations do all sorts of compression and enhancements to their sound, so what is closest to the 'original' I still don't know, but it's different that's for sure.

Offline Cue Zephyr

  • All Time Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 6476
  • Good Vibes 91
    • Ezyo Music
Re: Physical vs. download
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2010, 11:19:33 pm »
Radio uses compression and download uses compression as well. The average stuff you put on your iPod will most likely be somewhere between 128 kb/s and 320kb/s. However with the use of .m4a the improve in quality for lower bitrates is quite noticable.
Guitar, banjo, mandolin and piano, bass and percussion
Production and mixing

Offline old-and-in-the-way

  • Concert Hall Hasbeen
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Good Vibes 5
  • That's what I heard him say
Re: Physical vs. download
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2010, 10:23:34 am »
Radio uses compression and download uses compression as well.

This is a non-statement.  Its like saying "factories use electricity and digital watches use electricity too" -- fine, but the nature of the electricity (or compression) is different in each case (a big factory will likely use 3-phase AC with lots of volts and lots of amps, while a digital watch uses 1.5v DC at a few miliamps).

Quote
The average stuff you put on your iPod will most likely be somewhere between 128 kb/s and 320kb/s. However with the use of .m4a the improve in quality for lower bitrates is quite noticable.

mp3 and m4a are both lossy compressions schemes (as are ogg vorbis and a few dozen others).  What about lossless compression schemes (if you want to be lazy, LZW-compressed-wav (has the LZW patent expired yet?  No matter, mp3 and m4a are both patent-encumbered formats, too) or FLAC (for patent avoidance).  Still compression, but with no losses (so not as much compression as you get with mp3, ogg vorbis or m4a)

Offline Cue Zephyr

  • All Time Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 6476
  • Good Vibes 91
    • Ezyo Music
Re: Physical vs. download
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2010, 10:49:31 am »
I thought m4a was known as Apple Lossless.
Guitar, banjo, mandolin and piano, bass and percussion
Production and mixing

Offline old-and-in-the-way

  • Concert Hall Hasbeen
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Good Vibes 5
  • That's what I heard him say
Re: Physical vs. download
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2010, 11:23:35 am »
I thought m4a was known as Apple Lossless.

m4a is a regular mpeg4 container (mpeg4 is derived from apple's quicktime container, usually given the "mov" extension) that only contains audio streams.  Usually, with mpeg, you can rely on the contained data to be lossy.

As to whether or not Apple like to use lossless codecs for creating audio-only files, I have no idea.  Seems unlikely, though -- AAC has historically been their audio codec of choice, and that's a lossy format, too (although it has better playback than mp3.  Then again, mp3's getting on a bit now, so it's hardly surprising that all the young formats outperform it).

Offline Simonovski

  • Concert Hall Hasbeen
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
  • Good Vibes 0
  • 4 8 15 16 23 42
Re: Physical vs. download
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2010, 03:15:38 pm »
AAC and Apple lossless are different formats, but they both have .m4a extentions.

Unfortunately purchasing songs from the iTunes store will only get you the lossy version. Which is why I usually buy the real CD over iTunes. Strangely, it's also often cheaper to actually have the real CD shipped to me than a digital download.

Offline Cue Zephyr

  • All Time Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 6476
  • Good Vibes 91
    • Ezyo Music
Re: Physical vs. download
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2010, 03:24:36 pm »
I suppose they can also use .aac extensions?

Unfortunately for me that is not true... The CDs tend to be 50% to 150% more expensive than what they cost on iTunes. Still I prefer to have the CD.
Guitar, banjo, mandolin and piano, bass and percussion
Production and mixing

Offline digger72

  • Stadium Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2245
  • Good Vibes 105
Re: Physical vs. download
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2010, 09:46:57 am »
I prefer physical. (Vinyl - to be honest - must be my age.)
Bought the Ltd STE album which is great for chilling out to. Looking forward to the bluesy album. Would be awesome if a Ltd version came with a cd of backing tracks of the album for us aspiring axe men! (And women!)

Cheers, Justin

 

Get The Forum As A Mobile App