Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ? (Read 47733 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

I have been looking for several hours, for a music download site that has uncompressed files on it, but so far I have found one.
This particular site many of you will know, but has been crippled by the fact that you can't pay for tracks now unless you have a Diners or JCB card from a sister site(rare as hens teeth in the UK), because of the licensing laws and (maybe) pending court battle.So all the major cards like Mastercard and Visa no longer can be used.

I find this to be very odd, in the way that music downloads have stagnated.All you seem to get is mp3 or WMA, on a portable device this is fine, but I have all my CD's on my hard drive running through a software jukebox to my home cinema system.With more and more people putting their music on these types of systems, why would anyone want to listen to compressed music when you can clearly hear the difference through this kind of setup ?

This brings up an interesting problem for the modern listener.You either have to go into a store or buy online the CD.Isn't this going back in time not foward ?

Please comment on this and give me some hope that things will(or already have) changed.


Andy

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #1 –
[pedant]When you say "uncompressed" I think you mean lossless, which is technically compressed.[/pedant]

Quote from: Montana on
I find this to be very odd, in the way that music downloads have stagnated.All you seem to get is mp3 or WMA, on a portable device this is fine, but I have all my CD's on my hard drive running through a software jukebox to my home cinema system.With more and more people putting their music on these types of systems, why would anyone want to listen to compressed music when you can clearly hear the difference through this kind of setup ?

The assertion is that lossy codecs have improved to the point that most people cannot tell the difference in a double-blind test.  I have digital-out to an A/V receiver and a 5.1 home cinema set.  Using ABX testing methods on some of my collection,  I could not tell a difference between FLAC (lossless) and Vorbis/Nero-AAC @ ~128 kbps.  Unless you're double-blind testing, it's highly likely that your lossless/high-quality-lossy discernment is placebo effect.

I think there may be an emerging market for lossless downloads (mainly for users being able to transcode to any lossy codec at any time), but IMHO the current compression rates aren't quite good enough to make it serviceable.

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #2 –
I know two sites that offer lossless tracks, www.Beatport.com and www.Trackitdown.net.    Beatport offers 99% of there tracks in lossless.  Trackitdown, its about half of there tracks that are lossless.  Oh yeah, mind these sites only offer electronic music.

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #3 –
I believe I know which site Montana is referring, and its legal battles with DRM companies and copyright owners are well-known, though nothing is proved (or clear, for that matter).

The issue here (ignoring the fact the site is legal or illegal) is that the concept there works very well. We pay for the size of the music tranferred. If I have something I don't like a lot, I can choose WMA @ 128Kbps. Or my favorite artist's last album can be downloaded with FLAC or Monkey's Audio. The comprehensive options for encoding make the process worthwhile; we shouldn't be obligated to buy a "default-coded" album, so this "on-the-fly" encoding process it's great!!! 
I think it's time other sites follow this concept. This way, a lossless album can cost around US$8 or 9 and it's Lame v0 counterpart about US$4, while the standard 128Kbps (which can even be Musepack) will cost under US$2. The amount the lossless album costs should be enough to pay the artist's royalties and the transfer costs, saving the CD pressing and packing costs.

The "sister site" issue worked fine with me! 

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Bruno Monteiro on
The issue here (ignoring the fact the site is legal or illegal) is that the concept there works very well. We pay for the size of the music tranferred. If I have something I don't like a lot, I can choose WMA @ 128Kbps. Or my favorite artist's last album can be downloaded with FLAC or Monkey's Audio. The comprehensive options for encoding make the process worthwhile; we shouldn't be obligated to buy a "default-coded" album, so this "on-the-fly" encoding process it's great!!! 

I think it's time other sites follow this concept. This way, a lossless album can cost around US$8 or 9 and it's Lame v0 counterpart about US$4, while the standard 128Kbps (which can even be Musepack) will cost under US$2. The amount the lossless album costs should be enough to pay the artist's royalties and the transfer costs, saving the CD pressing and packing costs.

I've been arguing this pricing scheme for a few years now, Bruno.  Agree 100%.

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #5 –
But I still think the music industry has to change, and change quickly, before they start to lose money hand over fist.
Take for example the fact you can buy a new CD for $9.99 on Amazon.com and for the ITunes download it's exactly the same price.My first reaction is WTF ???????  How can a physical CD with case and sleeve with pictures and lyrics etc be the same price a a download, which has none of this ? Added to which the download is worse quality wise, surely I'm not the only one in the world(other than you lot here) that can here the difference, and ALSO , more to the point, we are getting majorly ripped off.
It all comes down clever spin from salesmen, which seems to happen everywhere, until people delve in a little further and find out differently.


Andy

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Montana on
But I still think the music industry has to change, and change quickly, before they start to lose money hand over fist.
Take for example the fact you can buy a new CD for $9.99 on Amazon.com and for the ITunes download it's exactly the same price.My first reaction is WTF ???????  How can a physical CD with case and sleeve with pictures and lyrics etc be the same price a a download, which has none of this ? Added to which the download is worse quality wise, surely I'm not the only one in the world(other than you lot here) that can here the difference, and ALSO , more to the point, we are getting majorly ripped off.
It all comes down clever spin from salesmen, which seems to happen everywhere, until people delve in a little further and find out differently.


Andy


There are differences.  Honestly 128kbps is not CD quality.  And I'm surprised that people are professing that here of all places.  When I started reading these forums a few years ago you would have never heard that statement.  Although lossy has improved quite a bit, there still are differences.  It seems to me that most people just really don't care when it comes down to it.  Most people believe that instant satisfaction is worth more than a quality product with the songs already backed up on a CD.  And yes we are majorly getting ripped off.

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Montana on
How can a physical CD with case and sleeve with pictures and lyrics etc be the same price a a download, which has none of this?

Because that's what the average consumer is willing to pay for it.  I don't agree with the pricing either.  It makes no sense for a chart CD that's readily available, but if I can't find a limited release at a local store or Amazon this becomes a more attractive option.

Quote
Added to which the download is worse quality wise, surely I'm not the only one in the world(other than you lot here) that can here the difference

See my first post in this thread.  I haven't ABXed iTunes store files (iTunes AAC @ 128, IIRC), but I would expect to be able to tell the difference.  I would be surprised, however, if I could distinguish the original from emusic files (LAME-encoded MP3s at V2, no DRM).  Reducing the distinction to 'lossless vs. lossy' weakens your point.

Quote
ALSO , more to the point, we are getting majorly ripped off. It all comes down clever spin from salesmen, which seems to happen everywhere, until people delve in a little further and find out differently.

Agreed.  Unfortunately, these aren't the attitudes of the general music-buying public.  The best thing to do is not buy from them.

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #8 –
Linn Records has very high q lossless files up to 24bit but of cause a limited selection.
http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-downloads-what.aspx
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #9 –
I wonder the same... for me personally it would be out of question to buy any compressed music. The only reason why I buy an CD is because of the audio quality. And since it possible I would also really prefer 24 bit instead of 16 bit.

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: sketchy_c on
See my first post in this thread.  I haven't ABXed iTunes store files (iTunes AAC @ 128, IIRC), but I would expect to be able to tell the difference.  I would be surprised, however, if I could distinguish the original from emusic files (LAME-encoded MP3s at V2, no DRM).  Reducing the distinction to 'lossless vs. lossy' weakens your point.

And I would be surprised if you can't ABX LAME V2 but you could ABX AAC@128... You've clearly never tried it, basing it solely on a number (128/192) which has no relation to audio quality if you use it to compare two different formats.

Have a look at the listening tests elsewhere on this site where AAC and Vorbis even @ 96Kbps still produce impressive results, let alone at 128.
Every night with my star friends / We eat caviar and drink champagne
Sniffing in the VIP area / We talk about Frank Sinatra
Do you know Frank Sinatra? / He's dead

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Maurits on
And I would be surprised if you can't ABX LAME V2 but you could ABX AAC@128... You've clearly never tried it, basing it solely on a number (128/192) which has no relation to audio quality if you use it to compare two different formats.

No, I haven't tried ABXing iTunes Store downloads.  As indicated in my first post, I have tested both Nero AAC and Vorbis ~128 (-q 0.4 and 4, respectively) and couldn't ABX it on my home system with my regular music.  I understand and agree that format makes a big difference.  Even with the same format, CBR/VBR and the encoder one uses can make a considerable difference.

For the record, I also have previously tried LAME -V2 and couldn't ABX, so my basis is not numbers alone... it includes the judgment that iTunes is a relatively inferior AAC encoder and CBR is worse than VBR.  I'm also trying to give Montana/spockep the benefit of the doubt that some online store/downloads are inferior to CD.  They certainly are at a bit level; the question is perceptibility.  I agree with the thread's main point that appropriately-priced lossless downloads are desirable.

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #12 –
There is also something else that I forgot to mention in my first post.

This would be individual track downloading.Now , not only would it be good for bands upcoming albums and/or singles but also for people like me that find I won't buy a whole album because I only like 2 or 3 tracks off of it.

It would also be interesting to here from these music download sites and why they charge so much ? If a shop can make profit from this, aren't the download sites just being very greedy ? Or maybe it's the fact that these sites don't know anything other than mp3 or wma ? Or is a combination of both ? Who knows ?


Andy

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #13 –
It's worth noting that Apple is widely believed to not make any money whatsoever on iTunes Store music. Record publishers get the majority of the 99 cents, Apple gets something like 5 cents.

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Axon on
It's worth noting that Apple is widely believed to not make any money whatsoever on iTunes Store music. Record publishers get the majority of the 99 cents, Apple gets something like 5 cents.


it's also worth noting a majority of the earth's population believes [a] god exists.
seriously, check the facts before making statements like the above.
apple gets something like 25-35c per sold song, with fairly minimal overhead.. they've sold what, over 2 billion songs by now?.. i'd suggest they're not doing all that badly

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Axon on
It's worth noting that Apple is widely believed to not make any money whatsoever on iTunes Store music. Record publishers get the majority of the 99 cents, Apple gets something like 5 cents.


Apple is the, or very nearly the biggest music download sites in the world, and if they make so little, how come a lot smaller sites setup ? Because if that size of site is making such a small margin, then a smaller site would be running at a loss, doesn't make ANY financial sence at all.
Plus the fact that they also have a player that is free, this player is probably one of the most widely used in the world too ,added to that they do regular updates on the player from suggestions from the users(smart idea to get the users just using their player and always having the store 1 click away).
Sorry, the more I think about it, the more I can't believe it.


Andy

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Montana on
Quote from: Axon on

It's worth noting that Apple is widely believed to not make any money whatsoever on iTunes Store music. Record publishers get the majority of the 99 cents, Apple gets something like 5 cents.


Apple is the, or very nearly the biggest music download sites in the world, and if they make so little, how come a lot smaller sites setup ? Because if that size of site is making such a small margin, then a smaller site would be running at a loss, doesn't make ANY financial sence at all.
Plus the fact that they also have a player that is free, this player is probably one of the most widely used in the world too ,added to that they do regular updates on the player from suggestions from the users(smart idea to get the users just using their player and always having the store 1 click away).
Sorry, the more I think about it, the more I can't believe it.


Andy




How many of those "smaller sites" have major-label downloads? And are making money? And are as inexpensive as Apple?

(Answer: none)

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #18 –
How about Napster for a start then there is HMV , MTV, Tesco, mp3.com, MSN, Yahoo, AOL ? ? ?

Any more ? ? ?


Andy

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #19 –
Quote from: Ekstasis on
I wonder the same... for me personally it would be out of question to buy any compressed music. The only reason why I buy an CD is because of the audio quality. And since it possible I would also really prefer 24 bit instead of 16 bit.
For me, between paying for a 16-bit file and paying a bit more for a 24-bit, I'd prefer 16-bit anytime. I am sure I can't hear the difference, and it will get encoded into Vorbis -q -0.5 anyway

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #20 –
re lossless download sources, try MusicGiants

proof that someone sees benefit in offering lossless downloads, albeit with DRM

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #22 –
EDIT - (oops...sorry)

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #23 –
Because uncompressed audio tracks are rather large files (100+ MB average) compared to compressed audio (3+ MB average).

Most people aren't really savvy when it comes to digital audio. The most people understand is that everything has MP3 support and the files are generally small.

Even less understand what DRM is, but that's getting off topic.

Why is there NO un-compressed music download sites ?

Reply #24 –
Quote
This brings up an interesting problem for the modern listener. You either have to go into a store or buy online the CD. Isn't this going back in time not foward?


No not really considering that most people that encode lossless audio files spend a good 40% of their time at the record store anyway. It also depends on what you mean by music download sites are you referring to the the big names in the record industry or just indepedent labels. I would assume the first. 
budding I.T professional