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

    Apologies - but you must possess something truly special if hear "noticeable" differences on 16/48 and "significant" on 24/96.

    Since pretty much all humankind cannot hear anything past 20khz (more like 16k in reality) - I would love to know what it is you term "noticeable" or "significant" at 48K and especially 96k.

    VP
     
    ls35a likes this.
  2. Grant

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

    That did not happen! Stores struggles to keep prices low as possible, and lowered them as supplies became more plentiful. The price gouging didn't start until the 90s, after there was no where else for music buyers to turn to but the CD.
     
  3. Vocalpoint

    Vocalpoint Forum Resident

    Maybe not where you lived :)

    If you thought 14USD or whatever it was where you were in 1988 - was not gouging - that's fair enough.

    But where I lived - an LP in 1988 here in Canada = was like $10.99 on average and the CD equivalent was more like 17-18. To me - that's gouging.

    VP
     
  4. Grant

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

    No. Consider that the infrastructure for pressing vinyl and duping cassettes had been in place for decades, while the CD was still finding a foothold in the marketplace, and was still relatively new technology. Retailers in 1988 were still trying to adapt to the marketing and shelf space for the CD. The distributors weren't in the groove, so to speak, with the distribution and ordering. of them. The price was justified.

    However, in the case of downloads, where manufacturing and distribution of a physical product isn't an issue, the price is even higher than the CD was at that same point.
     
  5. Vocalpoint

    Vocalpoint Forum Resident

    You keep coming at this from a "we have a problem with infrastructure angle". Bottom line - myself included - people do not care about the back end and certainly do not understand the reasons. All they care about is "why this thing is 8 dollars more than the LP right here?"

    I was in major market broadcast at the time (music director) and had the inside scoop on all things CD - including wholesale and retail pricing. I clearly remember - every week for months and months - I would get actual pricing sku sheets from all the Canadian majors - listing what I (Radio station) could purchase product at (if not offered promo), what the record store down the street would pay wholesale and then what the suggested street list should be. Trust me when I tell you - retail CD pricing was gouge city baby.

    Basically - record companies said - here's the price and that was it. No case for any justification - more like "let's see what Joe Average will pay". And they did as long as you were foolish enough to go along with it. I know this for a fact as even tho I could score practically any CD for the lowest possible price (using my radio station pipeline) from 1982 onwards - I did not even buy my first CD player until 1989 - mainly due to the price of the discs. And even after I had my player - I still sometimes opted for a promo (free) version of the vinyl LP rather than buy the CD version - as I saw it as cash grab for the same source material. Many of my buddies who were just regular customers could not be bothered by CD either - due to price. We made more mixtapes for the car then than any other time in history! Maybe it was a Canadian thing :)

    If you want to read a real good story on this - check out a book called "Appetite For Self Destruction - The Spectacular Crash Of The Record Industry In The Digital Age (Knopper)"

    This book will show just how much gouging really went on with CD - especially as we moved into the 90's.

    VP
     
    bpmd1962 likes this.
  6. Rolltide

    Rolltide Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vallejo, CA
    What sort of justification should go into the pricing of intellectual property?
     
  7. Vocalpoint

    Vocalpoint Forum Resident

    One could also ask this - if the "intellectual property" in question (say an album worth of songs from a popular artist) was identical across three different media types (Cassette, CD and LP for example) - why is the CD 8 dollars more? Is the intellectual property on the CD "better" than the properly on the other two media types? Not in my book.

    Logically - if we are talking pricing based on "property" - the cost to me - for all three - should be the same.

    But the record companies want you and I to foot the bill on anything that's hip and cool - like CDs were back in the day.

    And downloads are today....

    VP
     
    rockclassics likes this.
  8. Rolltide

    Rolltide Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vallejo, CA
    That's fair. I just think as we have this conversation its important to realize there's a lot of arbitrary decisions that go into the pricing of music before one gets to the relative production costs (or lack thereof) of the media itself, so its hard to pin down a "fair price" vs. "gouging", at least IMO.
     
  9. Vocalpoint

    Vocalpoint Forum Resident

    I think you would be surprised to learn just how "not" arbitrary it is (or maybe "was") since we are talking about "back in the day". Record companies and artist sign contracts and in those contracts - you could be agreeing to something not so arbitrary at all. Some contracts revolved around percentages and in some cases actual amounts. So let's take an example with amounts to keep it simple - using a decent band in 1986 (Just after CDs became readily available). Not a superstar act but a decent moneymaker.

    Let's suppose Band A signed a deal back in 1986 that netted them 2 bucks out of every album sale regardless of format - that means 2 bucks to them and the rest to the record company. 2.00 to them for a cassette sale, 2.00 to them for a LP sale AND $2.00 to them for a CD sale. You can see where this is going. Once Band A signed their deal - Record Company B knows that just 2 measly bucks are going to the artist. Side note: I do not believe that any artist was savvy enough (or on the ball enough) to change a contract to get more in their pockets for a CD sale. Can't see any record company allowing that back then. (or now)

    Then the record reps spend months and years pumping up their rosters - continuously reminding them how much "more money" they were going to make now that the CD has arrived: "You guys can sell huge in 3 formats instead of 2!" (I can hear the back slapping and palm pressing even today :)

    But not so fast. Imagine the real glee in the boardroom when Record Company B slaps 17 or 18 bucks on a CD - gives two bucks to the artist (thats what they signed for) and keep 16 for themselves. ESPECIALLY when we got into the whole concept of reissuing back catalog on CD...we are talking millions (billions) into the coffers. (Read that book I mentioned).

    So when the CD really took off - they cranked that price to a level that got the artist off their back, got their costs back, got them massive profit and hopefully wasn't too uncomfortable for Joe Average but nowhere near the "fair price" (I always used the price of a LP as "fair price") since the delivery package was plentiful, nice big artwork, shipping and so on. Paying 9.99-10.99 for a new vinyl album in 1987 felt just about right to me. But paying 17.99 in 1987 for the same album on CD did not have the same effect.

    So to me - the record companies simply offloaded their "costs" to "make" CDs onto me - hoping I would help them out. The artist got stiffed at 2 bucks a disc (if that) and the companies got mega rich. Sure - I bought my fair share of overpriced CDs but many other bought tons. Of course as the years past and the artists became wise - their contracts were tightened up - generally ensuring they got more. Until we arrive at today - where we see 30 dollar "Hi-res" downloads with zero overhead, zero shipping, unlimited supply and so on.

    But even at 30 bucks a pop - are we to assume that Bono and company are getting $15.00 out of every download of their new "album". Almost a guarantee not. Bono and Co get their cut (whatever that may be) and Record Company B gets the rest - and they do it - by peddling a "hi-res" digital copy of the same old crap we bought on cassette, LP, 8-track, CD and so on years ago.

    It's a non-stop scam to get you to buy the same thing over and over again. To Record Company B's ultimate delight :)

    VP
     
  10. gd0

    gd0 Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies

    Location:
    Golden Gate
    When the physical elements – disc manufacture, package printing, shipping, retail stocking – are so conspicuously removed, NO one-hour album should cost $25.

    Especially if the perception persists that one can simply go online and steal the material.
     
    Vocalpoint and Grant like this.
  11. Grant

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

    You may not understand or care about the nuts and bolts of how the music gets to our ears, but it doesn't make it any less important or relevant.

    I have that book and read it like four years ago. I fully acknowledge the corruption in the record industry, but it wasn't like that so much in the early days of the CD,
     
    Vocalpoint likes this.
  12. Vocalpoint

    Vocalpoint Forum Resident

    I think you are misunderstanding me here - I do know and I do understand. Big time.

    It's Joe Average that does not. Record companies know that and play to this fact daily. Just like they know that Joe Average is not going to take a hypercompressed modern CD into a wav editor and then become dismayed at the DR values and the quality of his purchase. As long as 99.9% of buyers never ask questions or become wise to what's really going on - the record industry is happy to sell you whatever they can for as long as they can.

    Do not make it sound like the record industry gives a rats ass about you or me or our wallets. Or that they were a bunch of angels when the CD first hit. This is a business and their business it to get you and me to buy everything in site at the prices they set. Even when the same album is 8 bucks more because it's on a shiny disc instead of an LP. Or 30 dollars instead of 10 for a "digital" download.

    Don't forget the title of the thread man.

    VP
     
  13. Grant

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

    Yeah, and someone brought up CDs, which are not relevant to the topic, man!
     
    Vocalpoint likes this.
  14. Burt

    Burt Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kirkwood, MO
    The storage and distribution infrastructure is cheap. Getting access to the intellectual property involved and licensing it are very expensive and usually requires one to have industry contacts and expertise, which can be and is leveraged.
     
  15. ls35a

    ls35a Forum Resident

    Location:
    Eagle, Idaho
    You guys are over thinking this, by a lot. Here's your answer:

    'There's a sucker born every minute'.

    -PT Barnum
     
    Vocalpoint likes this.
  16. Vocalpoint

    Vocalpoint Forum Resident

    Agreed! Lets get back on topic :)

    VP
     
    Grant likes this.
  17. Tullman

    Tullman Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston MA
    High resolution is apparent in all frequencies not just every thing over 20k.
     
    ShallowMemory likes this.
  18. Vocalpoint

    Vocalpoint Forum Resident

    Fair enough. But the poster is referencing 16/48 as being noticeably difference than 16/44. Both resolutions still have only 16 bits per sample.

    And since it's scientifically proven we cannot hear past 20k - what exactly is the poster hearing in that 4k between 44K and 48 K that makes it so "noticeable"?

    VP
     
    Larry Mc likes this.
  19. Stephen Murphy

    Stephen Murphy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Edmonton Alberta
    Not sure you really understand how this works. He is not saying he can hear something at 48K as a frequency. He is saying 48K samples per second sound better than 44K samples per second. That is to say the program material is being sampled 4 thousand times more every second and all that extra data makes a noticeable difference to him.
     
    macdaddysinfo, dnuggett and Grant like this.
  20. brimuchmuze

    brimuchmuze Forum Resident

    Analogue Productions charges $30 for their SACDs, and $25 for DSD downloads. Do you think either of those prices are warranted? Their pricing seems to suggest physical aspects of the product contributes only $5 to the price.
     
  21. JamieLang

    JamieLang Forum Resident

    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    As someone who has recorded at different sampling rates....and delivered at different rates and bit depths for....well 25 years if you want to count mixing to DATs....I can tell you that there's FAR more difference between 44.1 and 48khz than there is 48 and double rate. Professional recording standard was 50khz....rounded down to 48khz for the standard adopted for all movie audio in the late 80s....

    The phase shift involved with PCM decimation filters effects audio pretty far down in VERY inarguably audible ranges. And the more conversions happen--that phase shift gets worse with every conversion. You can't look at it as simply "not having frequencies above 22khz"--that in and of itself might be ok....it's about HOW that's removed. Pass filters cause phase shift in the audio that remains.

    Suffice to say-you dont' need bat hearing to appreciate it. But, don't believe me? There are plenty of 48khz recordings available that are also available on CD. I would suggest You+Me....Rose Ave....stark two voices and acoustic guitar with only sparse "other" instrumentation. Nothing show off fidelity more than the human voice, acoustic guitar, and acoustic piano. Do I wish they'd done it at 88.2? sure....but, gift horse in the mouth....it's lovely.
     
    Grant likes this.
  22. Vocalpoint

    Vocalpoint Forum Resident

    But if it's on CD - it's no longer 48k. Yes?

    VP
     
    Grant likes this.
  23. wgriel

    wgriel Forum Resident

    Location:
    bc, canada
    I think that's his point - you can compare the 48K with the CD to see if you hear any differences. Not that I've done anything like that mind you, I've pretty much ignored "high rez" thus far.
     
  24. JamieLang

    JamieLang Forum Resident

    Location:
    Nashville, TN
  25. dnuggett

    dnuggett Forum Resident

    Location:
    DFW Texas
    Pono doesn't think so.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine