BenB
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 02:47 PM |
|
|
What a lot of plonkers
Finally a buisness model which beats piracy and the record companies want out!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8507885.stm
|
|
|
|
|
D Beddows
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 02:59 PM |
|
|
It's too late now to get people back into record shops (or should I say CD shops...) to spend £15 on a CD - my dad was MD of a CD pressing plant
for a good while and I worked there a couple of summers so I know exactly how much they cost to make per unit.... so sell everything for £5 and they
might (a BIG might mind you) stand a chance again. Buying a vinyl 12" record was a proper event though, you got decent artwork etc etc but
now.... a crappy little booklet and usually a couple of decent tracks and 8 or nine fillers for your £15 quid........ errr no thanks - I blame Simon
Cowell and 'reality tv' tbh  lol
|
|
|
steve m
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 03:09 PM |
|
|
Simon Cowell is to blame for most music problems we now have, but crap artwork/cd music quaility has been around a lot longer than cowell
probably since CD's were introduced, as an item cost 10p to make and sell for £10, must of been like "pvc window replacement in the
1970"
Get rich quick methods
Steve
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 03:25 PM |
|
|
not sure ^^^ I follow all of that.
If you were a musician who's major source of income came from records sold, then why should your income be reduce by given the music away for
free?
Would you build a locost and then put it on ebay for free? I don't think so. Or work for nowt? I doubt it.
The price of CDs is a lot but that don't bother me since I nearly buy all my music from ebay or amazon, hardly ever paying more than £ 5 inc
postage.
Why should I have to pay for buying a CD yet some gonk with a computer get it for free? (The article is about streaming MP3 for free over
t'internet - again, not bothered since I don't use those service for various reasons).
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 03:30 PM |
|
|
They still get paid, its all funded by adverts....so the money is still there. There's more profit in CD sales though.
I buy cd/vinyl as the quality of MP3 is crap in comparison....
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 03:30 PM |
|
|
no, the thing is this isn't "free" - it does create some revenue (definitely more than the £0 income from second hand cd sales
 ).
The fact there is no money given from the end user means that people who would normally pirate the music are more likely to subscribe, thus increasing
advertising muscle for the host program (e.g. spotify)
Removing music from streaming portals doesnt mean they're going to buy the cd - they'll just download it instead.
re: mp3 crap quality, it depends on your sample rate. Its certainly easier to get better quality mp3s than cds, with the recording process introducing
less noise than vinyl.
[Edited on 10/2/10 by cd.thomson]
Craig
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 03:35 PM |
|
|
The music industry has got used to multimillion pound payments to top artists managers and producers so they don't want to let it go. This was
built up in an era where you couldn't copy vinyl discs if you didn't have reel to reel, which you didn't. It was propagated when CD
was noticeably better than tape so most people wouldn't copy them. You had to pay over-the-odds for a genuine disc. Now you can make digital
copies that are as good as the real thing, they have no grasp over us any more.
The problem is worse in the UK where we've been over charged for music for decades. I bought CDs in New York at the Virgin Mega Store in Times
Square (so not a low rent outlet) for the same price in dollars that we pay in pounds, so about 2/3 the price. At about the same time, a friend of
mine would buy genuine CDs from Hong Kong as it was cheaper to pay the postage on Hong Kong prices than to buy in the UK.
The record industry may bleat about it but digital is the new reality. They will adapt or die. Perhaps top musicians and the industry's big
names should be paid hundreds of thousands rather than millions. That way prices will be more realistic and people will buy rather than copy music
more.
I have no sympathy for them. They've miked us for too long.
|
|
|
D Beddows
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 03:40 PM |
|
|
I was being a little unfair there BUT neither of my my teenage kids and very few of their friends are actually interested in 'albums'
any more - if they like a song they download it and if they want pictures of the band they find them on the interweb....... not sure how record
companies could ever get back from that now - they all probably bought 12" vinyl in their youth and don't 'get' how it works
now tbh LOL
|
|
|
steve m
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 03:45 PM |
|
|
"I have no sympathy for them. They've miked us for too long. "
was that miked or milked ?? either would be right !
Have to agree, and i also bought a lot of CD'S in new york, for practicley nothing, yet here £10-15 a go
[Edited on 10/2/10 by steve m]
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 03:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
They still get paid, its all funded by adverts....so the money is still there. There's more profit in CD sales though.
I buy cd/vinyl as the quality of MP3 is crap in comparison....
I keep hearing this, but did you see the blind test on Gadget Show? Vinyl, CD and high bit rate MP3 played to blindfolded listeners through the same
high end stereo. They chose the MP3 first, then the CD and last the vinyl.
Here it is if you want to see it, starts about 2/3rds of the way through:
http://fwd.five.tv/gadget-show/videos/challenge/sound-challenge
Have you done a blind test? I reckon the results would be interesting to say the least.
And for me, even if the quality is not quite as perfect, if your listening to it anywhere other than at home with no other noise going, you not likely
to notice the difference: If the choice is listening to a handful of CD's in my car (where I listen to a LOT of music) which I keep having to
swap over, or 5000 tracks anytime I want, I know which I would choose.
And I totally agree with smart51's comments, I'm happy to pay a bit, but not the ridiculous prices they charged us for so many years,
it's payback time.
[Edited on 10/2/10 by Jasper]
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 03:54 PM |
|
|
I can hear the difference on my hi-fi equipment (about £5k's worth....) but there you go. And yes I have done a blind test along with a few
friends. That said, if you are listening to something simple (acoustic for example) then its almost impossible to tell the difference. If its
something complicated, its quite easy.
Most MP3 bit rates are still at best 192kbps which sound terrible with some music. Though I have seen some downloads are finally coming up to a more
reasonable 384kbps.
The difference between vinyl and CD is very easy to hear, and its just a case of what you prefer. The clincal detail of CD recordings can spoil some
music and the softer vinyl sound can also spoil some music. Its down to what you like at the end of the day.
And yes I agree, in the car I have 2 usb sticks which have 8Gb on each of most of my favourite music. And its a lot easier than carting the CD's
about and in the car you can't hear the difference. That said, when i get home a CD goes in the stereo
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 03:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jasper
They chose the MP3 first, then the CD and last the vinyl.
what is the data word and sample rate of this high quality mp3?
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 04:02 PM |
|
|
320kps .... anyway, have a watch .....
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 04:09 PM |
|
|
I would also recommend FLAC file format for audiophiles who torrent.
Craig
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 04:11 PM |
|
|
Ta - I googled that. Some info:
Uncompressed audio as stored on an audio-CD has a bit rate of 1,411.2 kbit/s,
mp3 are compressed, I understand it is "lossy" so some info. is lost, that does not necessary mean that the lost info. will mean it is
worse.
I don't have a means to stream mp3 to my dac but it would be interesting experiment to see if I could tell the difference.
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 05:32 PM |
|
|
First time I saw that gadget show test.
What a load of cr@p.....
Their 'high quality system' was nothing special that they did the blind test on (maybe £300/piece seperates) and then it was set up in a
room waaaaay too large for that system to fill properly. None of the kit was vibration isolated (standing straight on restaurant tables) onto a wooden
stage with the speaker on as well.
If they had done it with a GOOD system, set up properly in a correctly sized room then the difference would have been very, very plain to hear
especially on something as complex as Money.
[Edited on 10/2/10 by flak monkey]
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 05:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
First time I saw that gadget show test.
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
What a load of cr@p.....
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
I saw that gadget show test.
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
What a load of cr@p.....
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
gadget show test.
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
load of cr@p.....
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
gadget show
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
cr@p.....
[Edited on 10/2/10 by Benzine]
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 06:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
First time I saw that gadget show test.
What a load of cr@p.....
Their 'high quality system' was nothing special that they did the blind test on (maybe £300/piece seperates) and then it was set up in a
room waaaaay too large for that system to fill properly. None of the kit was vibration isolated (standing straight on restaurant tables) onto a wooden
stage with the speaker on as well.
If they had done it with a GOOD system, set up properly in a correctly sized room then the difference would have been very, very plain to hear
especially on something as complex as Money.
[Edited on 10/2/10 by flak monkey]
You mean, if they had done it in a manner completely unlike the way that the vast majority of people listen to their music ?
In the 80s, there was a huge push for recording to godigital. I still remember seeing my first 'DDD' CD. Digitally recorded and mastered.
We recorded everything individually, used seperate mics on every aspect of every instrument. Every channel was gated, compressed and processed to
within an inch of its life.
We went from anaolgue tape running at 30ips to digital tape into SSL desks with 1/4 of a million pounds. Everything had to be uber clean and nothing
could be allowed to degrade that. Racks of outboard were de rigeur.
Then people started getting fed up with that. People missed the dirt. Older analogue equipment became the in thing and we went from computer
controlled digital recordings to Lenny Kravitz buying the old desk from Abbey Road and Bono doing his vocals via a hand held SM58 with monitoring via
a pair of floor wedges.
Yes, having everything optimised so that the reproduction is as good as it can be is all very admirable.
But sometimes, it's just about the song.
We use the most un hi fi sounding PA system in the world (2.4 RMS KW of Crown into reasonable quality Peavey drivers), and use this in preference to
our old Hi fi sounding HK Audio system.
It moves more air, kicks more butt and genrally just gets the message across better.
There's nothing wrong with a bit of dirt
Of course, YMMV as they say on the t'interweb.
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 06:37 PM |
|
|
Most people who say they can hear the difference have a decent hifi, set up properly. All I was saying is that if they wanted to prove there's a
difference between the 3 formats then they need to do it properly. I can believe neither could tell which vinyl was.....which just goes to show how
poor the system was or how poorly it was set up.
All I am saying is that if you do have decent hi-fi then you can easily tell the difference, if you dont then you cant.
The best sound I have heard for a long time was at a gig in the Waterfront at the UEA last year when we saw Clutch. The PA system was spot on, we had
a great spot at the back in the centre of the speakers and it was truly a truly great live sound which nothing can replicate, at all. All of it was
through analogue equipment, which was just well set up and balanced.
I like my hi-fi just as much though, and it can really shift some air if you crank it up a few notches (physically feel it 6' away). Some music
sounds better on CD, some on vinyl....
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
D Beddows
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 06:43 PM |
|
|
quote:
First time I saw that gadget show test. What a load of cr@p..... Their 'high quality system' was nothing special that they did the blind
test on (maybe £300/piece seperates) and then it was set up in a room waaaaay too large for that system to fill properly. None of the kit was
vibration isolated (standing straight on restaurant tables) onto a wooden stage with the speaker on as well. If they had done it with a GOOD system,
set up properly in a correctly sized room then the difference would have been very, very plain to hear especially on something as complex as Money.
lol, and back in the real world where we have other things (like kids) to spend money on rather than £3K or so on a 'hi-fi'............
enjoy being young mate 
[Edited on 10/2/10 by D Beddows]
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 06:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by D Beddows
lol, and back in the real world where we have other things (like kids) to spend money on rather than £3K or so on a 'hi-fi'............
enjoy being young mate
Hehe, I do! 
Cars, music and Sarah is where all my money goes!
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
A1
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 07:19 PM |
|
|
if theres only a couple of good songs and the rest are fillers...maybe the 'artist' is just crap??
it is a wee take how much they cost, but i suppose people want to make money...Id be happy to pay 10 quid for an album...
just go to fopp, theyre good n cheap!
|
|
|
ashg
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
i agree with flack. i am a bit of an audio nut and can easily spot an mp3. i can just about tolerate 320kbps.
if your into your audio, 5k isnt that much trust me.
I have got a Cambridge audio A5, matching dab unit and keff cresta2's just for the workshop lol
the week before i lost my job i was planning to put a deposit on a pair of Dali Ikon 8 speakers for collection on pay day. I have always had good
gear but these things are something else they could pick-up a fly in the background of a recording
but like others have said most people just have a crappy £200-300 midi that just makes noise and cant pick out the issues with mp3.
the only thing i will find sad is if they dump cd and sacd in favour of the masses that want mp3.
usually i will download an album, if i like it i go and buy it if i don't then i delete it. i used to like going down to ourprice and listening
to the records on the technics decks on headphones before i parted with my money. those were the days.
dont be fooled by the sob story's, record companies are still making mega money. just think how busy all the record shops were at Christmas you
couldn't move in hmv bluewater when i visited. they never used to be that busy at Christmas in the 80's and 90's.
Anything With Tits or Wheels Will cost you MONEY!!
Haynes Roadster (Finished)
Exocet (Finished & Sold)
New Project (Started)
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
First time I saw that gadget show test.
What a load of cr@p.....
Their 'high quality system' was nothing special that they did the blind test on (maybe £300/piece seperates) and then it was set up in a
room waaaaay too large for that system to fill properly. None of the kit was vibration isolated (standing straight on restaurant tables) onto a wooden
stage with the speaker on as well.
Coupled vibration might have had some impact on the Vinyl (one of the many downsides of such an outdated system ), but the set up was otherwise the
same for all three sources...
[Edited on 10/2/10 by MikeRJ]
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 10:29 PM |
|
|
So I suppose the Wanker Bros of the world don't like radio either then? Oh, that's different? Yes, because the radio gets paid by the
record company to play whatever they say. It does happen no matter what they say. Internet radio lets the listener decide (Grooveshark for
example).
In the stone age, there was a band called the Payolas, from Victoria BC (my hometown) who had to change their name because it offended the record
company. If they had nothing to hide (hee hee, the singer's name was Hyde) they wouldn't have bothered.
Most bands don't make a lot of money, but some (and you can name them all on one hand usually) make a lot. You can't confuse the average
artist with signed, established acts. The average artist never makes much signed or not.
And yes, Flak is right: vinyl sounds a lot better. But mp3 and cd is easier, especially for old people like me, so it wins.
[Edited on 10/2/10 by RK]
|
|
|
