Why are high resolution downloads so expensive?

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by conjotter, Apr 10, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vocalpoint

    Vocalpoint Forum Resident

    And let us not forget that unless an album was recorded mixed and mastered at a actual resolution greater than 44.1/16 - it not even high res. Even when the labels trot out some dusty master tape from yesteryear and "transfer" it at 24/96. This is still not hi res at all. All it really is - a dusty crappy master tape being converted to a big fat file container.

    There is no more "res" available on that master tape whether it's 44/16, 24/96 or a ridiculous 24/192. More 1's and 0's - yes. More fidelity - no.

    Don't be fooled by bigger numbers. This exactly what the record companies want you to react to. "24/192 MUST be better - I should spend more".

    To most humans - all three resolutions of the same tape will all sound the same. Your mileage may vary.

    VP
     
  2. ZenArcher

    ZenArcher Senior Member

    Location:
    Durham, NC
    Does anyone else think it's strange that we skipped from lossy downloads straight to hi-res? I'd just like to download CD-quality music for a reasonable price
     
    Mohojo, Shiver, MarkO and 2 others like this.
  3. Vocalpoint

    Vocalpoint Forum Resident

    I have always thought it odd. Then again - it's all about marketing .

    A download with "24/96" or "hi-res" slapped on it is much more likely to drain the wallet of an unsuspecting audiophile than a set of 44.1/16 files.

    There is no sizzle in selling a CD rip.

    VP
     
    ls35a likes this.
  4. Rolltide

    Rolltide Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vallejo, CA
    It's kind of counter-intuitive, but I think somehow there's an even smaller niche for the 44/16 download then there is the 96/24 download.
     
  5. norman_frappe

    norman_frappe Forum Resident

    Not really the fastest growing area is streaming, no one cares about downloads anymore.
     
  6. mikemoon

    mikemoon Forum Resident

    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Thank you.
     
  7. JamieLang

    JamieLang Forum Resident

    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Yeah, actually 16/44 is the ****ing PROBLEM with digital....I have zero interest in buying files ripped from a CD.

    There is no such thing as a DAC in a computer locked at 44.1. 48khz sounds MILES better than 44.1, and everything (except obviously straight redbook CD players) can play it. In the transition to file, the WORST decision that could be made is to sell linear 16/44 for new material. For old stuff they can't be bothered to recall the 48khz or 88.2 or 96khz masters, I don't care--I just won't buy it....

    If I could "Cut the deal" that there would be no 88.2+ in the future (for delivery) but there will ALSO be no 44.1 EVER....for ANYTHING....I'd sign it today. I can record at 88.2 and deliver 48khz and it's nearly lossless compared to the studio master....I can tell the difference but it's subtle....where as SOON as you resample to 44.1=lossy. No way around it that I've found.

    44.1=compromised 1980 digital. Professional machines were 50khz THEN.....if we're no longer selling the discs that required that sample rate by their nature, there's ZERO good reason to stay with it. The difference in size is trivial. Difference in sound is HUGE.
     
    macdaddysinfo and mikemoon like this.
  8. mikemoon

    mikemoon Forum Resident

    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Good point. I have a stack of free downloads waiting to be used, while I continue to sample and explore music for free on Spotify to eventually buy the vinyl version. Interesting...I'm never in a hurry to download my albums for whatever reason. I do eventually, it' just a good while later.

    I wonder if people would pay for high res streaming...$24.99/month?
     
  9. Vocalpoint

    Vocalpoint Forum Resident

    Doubtful. Unless you stay at home all day everyday AND have equipment to allow you to actually hear any differences.

    Then - high res streaming to a mobile device (phone) would quickly burn your data plan in no time. And you could not hear a difference anyway.

    The big one overall is - I do not think that 9 out of 10 people actually care. A 320kbps MP3 is about all Joe Average wants/needs/cares about these days.

    VP
     
    macdaddysinfo and mikemoon like this.
  10. norman_frappe

    norman_frappe Forum Resident

    Yeah I have a bunch of records that came with free downloads and I have not gotten around to it either.

    As far as streaming I don't know how it will shake out. Right now I think they are having a hard time getting people to pay anything for it. I think the labels are pushing Spotify to ditch the advertising supported free version but right now it's a ton of people and Spotify is very resistant. They have so many subscribers they are getting pretty powerful. Probably only a fraction would pay, so they would lose a ton of revenue by pulling the free version right away. I don't know if that ad based model is sustainable. I guess we will see. Should be interesting. I think they need to transition people to a fee based model over time but cheaper, but it will be tough to get people to pay for something they have been getting free for a while. Google fiber etc. should make hi rez streaming widely available at some point in the future for cheap but the question is will anyone really care?
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2015
    mikemoon likes this.
  11. Anthology123

    Anthology123 Senior Member

    I can come up with a old example of this: one time years ago at Tower Records, I saw in the DVD racks the first Austin Powers movie, selling for $12.99. Go to the soundtrack rack and I see the soundtrack CD for the same movie, selling for $17.99
    I was curious about it because I wanted to get a copy of the Quincy Jones music "Soul Bossa-Nova".
     
  12. Because in this world you get what you pay for. Throughout my life I'm always reminded of this, regardless of what I'm purchasing or want to purchase (not just high rez music). :mad:
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2015
  13. Jim T

    Jim T Forum Resident

    Location:
    Mars
    -----------------------------
    I would agree that they could be cheaper, but sales volume is lower and the cost of recording must be amortized of a shorter sales run. They are still about half the price of supposedly 180 gram virgin vinyl that has some double lps at $70 which makes no sense to me. I was hoping the lp pricing was going to drop, but it not, I will be doing more 2496 downloads and burn the to DVD-Rs myself.
     
  14. marcob1963

    marcob1963 Forum Resident

    I'm curious about the debate on whether or not one can discern the difference in sound quality between 16/44 and higher fidelity. To my ears its obvious, there is quite a noticeable difference between 16/44 & 16/48. Then there is a significant difference between 16/48 & 24/96.
     
  15. Archimago

    Archimago Forum Resident

    Considering that we've had CD resolution for >30 years, if differences were that obvious, I think that fact would be clear by this point in 2015. Instead, we have studies with claims but the evidence is poor and the magnitude appears small... I have no issue with wanting high-res and have bought a number of 24/48+ albums (including SACDs and DVD-A's) over the years. But I must admit that I do this as an audiophile who wants the "best" presentation available, not because I distinctly hear a difference nor clearly enjoy one more than another (say take a 24/96 song and downsample the same master to 16/44 using something good like iZotope with dither - I like them both!).

    Anyhow, I wrote a blog entry on this topic back in January with a few papers referenced and discussion on stuff like the Oohashi ultrasonic frequency effect, etc...
    http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/01/musings-what-is-value-of-high.html

    I've said it before that I personally like 24/96 for well produced music. Except for those (I believe few) who claim the temporal resolution is not good enough, I do not believe anyone can complain about 96kHz. Likewise 24-bits is way more than needed even though I couldn't find a significant difference among test subjects last year. But given what I believe is very small if even detectable differences, there is no value IMO in spending much money... As I noted in the blog post, if a CD costs $10, I might splurge on a 24/96 download for $13, but only if I really like the music and thinks it was recorded with adequate quality (and can handle the fact that I get no material object nor resale value out of it!).
     
    onlyconnect likes this.
  16. tim185

    tim185 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Australia
    24 Bit is need for the mixing/recording process. Therefore its needed.
    And, if you have 24 bits, you then ideally dont want to be dithering to 16 bits as its destructive.
     
    Grant likes this.
  17. Archimago

    Archimago Forum Resident

    Sure, 24-bit is needed in production.

    Sure, ideally if there's value in resolution >16-bits because the recording and production was excellent, I think it'd be nice to have available...

    But I think using the term 'destructive' may carry a stronger connotation than necessary! Dithering is of course good practice and 16-bits is more than enough dynamic range for essentially any typical music we'd care to listen to.
     
  18. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Was that in USD or CND, and what was the rate of exchange in 1984? As I recall, CD prices at that time were a nominal $17 USD.

    Remember, the prices were higher because there were still few pressing plants at that time, with most of them being in either Japan or Europe. The first US plant in Terre Haute, ID didn't go on line until 1986. The greed didn't appear until after the vinyl LP, the single, and the cassette were eliminated.
     
  19. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Pono? The vast majority of files there are redbook. However, most are at full-price.
     
  20. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Unfortunately, this is exactly the attitude that encourages the labels to keep the prices high.
     
  21. Larry Mc

    Larry Mc Forum Dude

    When folks are willing to buy the same album on tape, cd, sacd, shm, shm-sacd, dcc, mfsl, dvd-a, and a few others that I can't think of, why not charge more for something you can make at home?
    There is a core block of us that will buy any new way of recording the same music we have, over and over.
    I've made some wonderful copies of Steves DCC releases? Why would I need a Pono version?
     
  22. Larry Mc

    Larry Mc Forum Dude

    Watch me dithering do folks, watch me dithering do. ....:)
     
  23. motionoftheocean

    motionoftheocean Senior Member

    Location:
    Circus Maximus
    speaking purely about newly recorded albums, meaning most music recorded in the last 10-15 years that's sold as a "high resolution" download, the only reason for the price tag is demand (read: someone will pay for it). bandwidth and file storage cost virtually nothing, so any imputed cost would be negligible, certainly nothing that could bring the price anywhere near what one can expect to pay for high-res releases now. from a production standpoint, one would be hard-pressed to find any recent album that wasn't recorded and mastered at a minimum of 24/44.1. to make those files available for sale involves no additional work beyond possibly lossless compression, and certainly more work is done to prep the audio for CD and iTunes. so yeah, if you go download the most recent Katy Perry album from HDtracks for $27 rather than download compressed redbook from iTunes for $15, you're paying a price someone decided they can charge irrespective of anything tangible.

    naturally. things change a bit when dealing with older albums that may very well not exist in a high resolution digital format, and unique transfers will be needed. at least then you're paying for an engineer's time, especially since unlike in the previous example, you're not paying for something that, in essence, has already been paid for but now carries a mercurial markup.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2015
  24. Shiver

    Shiver Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    For me, now:
    - Streaming (Spotify premium (320 MP3)): for a gigantic treasure trove of old and new artists/material. Especially downloads for running and commuting. Some of which I'll go on to buy in physical format for the extra quality where desired. That said, it can sound surprisingly good in its own right.
    - CDs: big collection and new ones are so cheap now - cheaper in some or most cases than a lot of standard downloads, let-alone hi-res ones (UK at least). Quality can be excellent. Ripped WAV files of many, sound great through the DAC.
    - Vinyl: for where I want best playback experience of favourite albums, and also for random used bargains. Learning to needledrop.

    Within all of that, I've yet to feel a need for expensive hi-res downloads. Can totally see the appeal and potential, but only really where they're cheaper and/or clearly better than their physical alternatives - including a transparency of origin. Certainly don't seem reasonably-priced enough to start experimenting with them for now - must be the same quite a few potential uptakers.
     
  25. Vocalpoint

    Vocalpoint Forum Resident

    Of course that was CDN. But regardless of availability, plants etc - the record companies wasted no time cranking the price of a CD to three times that of the price of an LP in 1984 - simply to captilize on the fact that this "new" thing was available.

    Just because they have "issues" getting the product pressed should not be my problem. I could see maybe 15 bucks for a CD at the time - but this was clearly a cash grab.

    That price did fall to about 16-17 bucks CDN from maybe 1988 on - but it was still a cash grab.

    VP
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine