MP3 vs CD (lossless) Formats Quality

I had a difficult time using itunes when I had an ipod. The ipod was useful, as it cut out needing CDs, but if I downloaded say, Jay-Z, and I got 20 songs under "Jay-Z'', if I found another one under ''Jay Z'' it created a whole different artist. So I would have a long list of artists on my playlists. On the Zune, I can just add them all to one person regardless of spelling. Maybe it was operator error? I had the ipod cable in the back of my Pioneer 7700 and it worked fine, but I notice Zune doesnt seem to have anything to go into a stereo...So I guess ipod is a bit more difficult using itunes, but is readily used in a stereo than Zune, although Zune is easier to download into.

Never had a tagging problem with my iPod. Not sure why you had that problem - the artist name is programmed into each MP3 track as a tag. You can change it if it's wrong. This lets iTunes and any player sort tracks by artist.

I don't need any more plastic, I'm really only interested in downloads. Albertj is right though, which is why Trent Reznor has the best solution - give away the music for free or greatly reduced as a download and sell limited edition physical albums for much more than retail.

Smart artists will skip the labels entirely, do it all over the internet, and keep their merchandising rights.

At the rate things are going with technology nowadays, with mp3 and mp4, and all this new stuff, CDs will be obsolete soon. So they might as well get ahead of the curve and start offering the option to download a CD for $5-$6, rather than let wait around for CDs demise. Id rather pay $5-$6 to download a CD anyway. Beats going to the store, and I can pick and choose what I dont want on it.

We've had the option to download entire albums on iTunes for quite some time now. They're usually about $10, sometimes less.

A dollar a track is way too much. What percentage goes to the artist anyway?

This is great news! I'm interested to see how this affects the used cd market, which I depend on. I definitely like to buy cd's that I can touch. I download my fair share too but as much I do try to keep up with the times, I really don't want to see cd's go away and have nothing but bytes to buy.

I think 25-50 cents per track is fair. Especially considering that on a typical 16 song CD, only about half is listened to anyway.

We have the internet. Imagine if artists started selling their own tracks, all they have to pay for is the download bandwidth and the studio session, the rest is all profit! (unless they are their own sound engineer)

FWIW I used to help out a band that got good results out of the internet only route. They didn't get rich but they had an incredible number of downloads through mp3.com. They had more downloads then big bands like Sevendust, Slipknot, Drowning Pool, and Disturbed; which led to a couple major label offers. As they became successful they discovered they couldn't get along anymore and broke up, but the internet was certainly working out for them.

deekster_caddy wrote:

We have the internet. Imagine if artists started selling their own tracks, all they have to pay for is the download bandwidth and the studio session, the rest is all profit! (unless they are their own sound engineer)

Artists can do this. Radiohead did it about 5 years ago. They even allowed buyers to choose their own price. I gave $10 for the album.

Regarding price, I don't think $1/track is too much. The advantage is you don't need to order the entire album, only the songs you want. I don't know how much the artist gets from sales, but it has to be more than what the record companies were taking before.

I dont see what the big problem is with the price of CDs for artists anyway. They only get on average $1 a CD from major labels. The real money comes in off of touring. Id put out a free album because I know when I go on tour, Im getting $50k a show. Do a US tour and your set. You wont even need or miss that $500k from sales, especially for megastars who are getting $100k a show...

Record companies have started to make significant amounts of money by selling digital downloads. It does not mean that everybody wants downloads, but a lot of people do, and it is really clean money. According to an article in the New York Times, the record company pockets about 70c of the 99c you pay for a song on iTunes. Without them having to manufacture, print, ship, warehouse, account, or distribute anything, and without worries of damaged or returned inventory.

The CD's life in automotive applications is going to be extremely limited in the future.

I think the 'record company' is going to become very limited in the future! They really aren't needed very much anymore.

I highly doubt that... there is always need for bureaucracy in every business. Not because its necessary, just because they can make an extra buck.

I have a cousin who's band was featured during the Super Bowl to promote their upcoming Warner album, and my other buddy's band just did a tour not too long ago with Evans Blue and Trapt.

The record companies FUCK the artist over at every chance they can get. If you think a recording artist makes his bread and butter off CD or Itunes sales, you're delirious.

The RIAA is doing much more harm to the artists than the downloaders do. They bitch and moan about lost profits, however record sales have been up, and it's been proven, that those who download one or two tracks off of an album, are more likely to buy that album legitimately.

Fuck the RIAA.

BrianEsser wrote:

The record companies FUCK the artist over at every chance they can get. If you think a recording artist makes his bread and butter off CD or Itunes sales, you're delirious.

The RIAA is doing much more harm to the artists than the downloaders do. They bitch and moan about lost profits, however record sales have been up, and it's been proven, that those who download one or two tracks off of an album, are more likely to buy that album legitimately.

Fuck the RIAA.

Oh I completely agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that the established record labels which control the music industry aren't going to just roll over and die. There are people other than the musicians that make their livings in/off the music industry, and lets face it when your the man calling the shots (in this case the label) you make the decisions.

If record labels didn't make alot of money, rappers such as Master P, P. Diddy, and Jay-Z would be a economic laughing stock compared to after they each began their own labels. Master P for example hasn't made his own music in eons, but his net worth as of 2009 is $661 million. Try doing that just selling your mixtapes on the corner. You need big business to make "big business".

The recording labels are dinosaurs and they know it, that is why they fight tooth and nail to keep the archaic system in place, fight as they might, they are losing the war in this digital age. More and more artists are going to the web, look at the southern hip-hop scene, many of those performers got to where they are now WITHOUT the labels backing them or promoting them. I honestly see them either having to make some massive core changes in the next decade, or they will simply become irrelevant, especially considering with how cheap hardware has become, it is easy for an artist to put together an album on their own.

It comes down to, evolve or die, and it seems they are choosing the latter.

An artist can make some money through a record contract (if they sell a gazillion albums), but it's nothing compared to what they make on a tour. A lot of artists keep their contracts, but make their real money on the road.

If you really want to support your favorite music, go to their shows and buy CDs and t-shirts. They keep a large portion of the money from your ticket and item purchases. And if they offer their music for sale online, buy it!

AA wrote:

An artist can make some money through a record contract, but it's nothing compared to what they make on a tour. A lot of artists keep their contracts, but make their real money on the road.

If you really want to support your favorite music, go to their shows and buy CDs and t-shirts. They keep a large portion of the money from your ticket and item purchases.

Very true words.

Artists usually get paid a forward amount, which is then taken out of album sales. So if an artist gets signed, is fronted a million dollars, but only does a few hundred thousand in sales, it's possible (and happens more than you might think), that the artist in facts become in debt to his label.

Like AA said, you want to support your band, go see their show and buy a t shirt.

If a band or an artist is stupid enough to take a million dollars of some1elses money he/she/they don't yet deserve or haven't yet earned and there is fine print involved. Then you deserve being in debted to the label. It's a wonder why these old sayings are around? Like "don't count your chickens before they hatch" maybe its because they are completely true. If some artists weren't starstruck by themselves, before they're even famous and in effect becoming borderline retarded from it, they would have the problem.

Hometown Hero wrote:

If a band or an artist is stupid enough to take a million dollars of some1elses money he/she/they don't yet deserve or haven't yet earned and there is fine print involved. Then you deserve being in debted to the label. It's a wonder why these old sayings are around? Like "don't count your chickens before they hatch" maybe its because they are completely true. If some artists weren't starstruck by themselves, before they're even famous and in effect becoming borderline retarded from it, they would have the problem.

Greed can be a bitch.

I would agree with the fact that even the highest quality MP3's don't compare to the sound of a real cd. However Ipods are very handy if you have a ton of music.

It depends on what your definition of 'highest quality', and your testing methods for finding the differences.

The MP3 vs. CD sound quality argument has more or less been shown to be more psychological than actual, at least in my own experience, and based on reading others' research. It's not to say it was always this way - improved quality of MP3 decoders available today that were not around 5, 10, or 15 years ago. Nowadays, even lower bit rate MP3s can sound very good, and higher bit rates indistinguishable from CD. The typical defense from CD proponents is that everyone's ears are different, and some people are more sensitive than others to the subtleties of distortion and other audio artifacts. While there may be a few people in the world with supernatural hearing, it is hard to find these people for testing. The average listener, even a 'good' listener cannot tell a well-ripped MP3 from a CD track.

It echoes the previous argument that vinyl records sound superior to CD, and some Hi-Fi nuts still believe this to be true, but I think most will agree that digital audio far surpasses what you get with vinyl, even with the best turntable. It seems people who are really into music and sound reproduction are very unwilling to let go of the established hi-fi format, and using their much-loved equipment over the years, no matter what testing shows. Some people just swear they can hear the difference. The key thing - those people can only identify the source if they know which is which. Control the testing with blind inputs, people are only likely to choose correctly 50% of the time.

See more on page 1 of this thread, or read more at this link: http://www.lincomatic.com/mp3/mp3quality.html