EMI sold to universal

[DublinJimbo]

And this vast collection of downloads, all lossless at 96/24 are they, or 320kbps M4As from 44.1/16 at the very least?

Some 50 date from the beginning of my download days, are MP3s, and are being phased out (apart from the Beethoven and Tchaikovsky downloads from the BBC); 450 or so were downloads from the iTunes Store (256kbs M4As). The rest are at least lossless 44.1/16. About 400 of these are higher-than-CD resolution, and 50 of that 400 are full 96/24.

[martin_opera]

Maybe I'm missing something but if we're talking about substantial back catalogues (mainly pre 1980) - where's the aural harm in downloading at 256kbps mp3 when the original recordings are AAD and ADD. Sure there may be some Living Stereo or other demonstration sound recordings that deserve a re-release on CD but on the whole wouldn't download with minimal fuss be the best way of getting the vast libraries of music out there. i agree that there is still a role for the CD re-release and have just purchased the JEG Mozart opera box having previously only bought the Cosi. I want them on CD and welcome them on CD for sound quality given that they were 1990s recordings. But if EMI (sorry Universal/Sony or whatever) saw fit to re-release Klemperer's Mozart operas I wouldn't need / want them on CD.

[Stunsworth]

Another advantage that downloads ought to have is that albums never need to be deleted. Since there's no physical product the record companies can let the albums sit on a server regardless of how popular (or otherwise) they are.

Regarding lossless downloads, many companies now offer them as an option - DG for example seem to price them at £1.50 more than the equivalent MP3s. They need converting if you are using iTunes, but there are utility programs to do this painlessly - I use XLD on a Mac to convert Flac to Apple lossless format and have them automatically placed in my iTunes library.

[Biffo]

The objection to mp3 is that a substantial part of the information is removed so that the rest can be compressed and produce a small file for downloading. Once removed that information can never be recovered. mp3 was developed when portable players only had a small memory. 'Lossless' downloads such as flac are exact copies of the original source. There is a great deal of controversy about how much the lost information actually matters. Chandos claims its mp3 downloads are 'near CD quality'. Many people claim the sound of mp3 is thin, artificial, etc etc - totally unacceptable to them.

Personally, I don't mind mp3 for historical releases (pre-stereo) and for exploring unfamiliar repertoire.

[mathias broucek]

"if we're talking about substantial back catalogues (mainly pre 1980) - where's the aural harm in downloading at 256kbps"

Am puzzled. The difference between mid 1970s and mind 1990s audio quality is much smaller than the difference between CD and 256kbps

[Bryn]

"if we're talking about substantial back catalogues (mainly pre 1980) - where's the aural harm in downloading at 256kbps"

Am puzzled. The difference between mid 1970s and mind 1990s audio quality is much smaller than the difference between CD and 256kbps

And all the extra noise from tape, etc. also gets encoded, using up valuable data. Old recording need higher, not lower, data rates.

[EnemyoftheStoat]

Simple. Eliminate the music and keep the rustle, background noise etc.
Isn't that the point of historical recordings?

[Mahlerei]

Call me a curmudgeon, but as the history of recorded sound has been about getting more out of the medium the idea of very lossy codecs doesn't appeal to me. The handful of downloads I have are mostly 24/96, with a few 24/192.

[Ferretfancy]

Nobody really knows whether any of the download formats will still be around in a few years time, but somebody, somewhere, will always be able to build a CD player, or an Edison phonograph, come to that.

I've just had a good example in a different field. On my iMac I still use an old database using the original Appleworks software with my CD catalogue on it. Apple have a new operating system called Lion, but if I start using it my Appleworks information will not be recognised and all that information will be lost. Of course I have a backup in Time Machine, but that's no help since the information is still in Appleworks format.
At best, I will be able to find some way out of this impasse, probably after hour of phone calls, trying to update a system which I have had in use for only twelve years
The alternative is just to stick with what I've got.

In my view, downloading music is a messy and unreliable hostage to fortune.

[martin_opera]

Well I've learnt something. Thanks. So I'll start downloading flac rather than 256 kbps. I can't say I've noticed the difference, but then I tend to download older recordings which I expect to have poorer sound anyway. Maybe if I start downloading in flac I'll be surprised. I respect that many classical collectors are "in it" for the sonics as well as the performance. That's never been me but then I've never owned a decent hi-fi. A bit like four by fours. If you've never driven one they're easy to dismiss.

[mathias broucek]

Martin - try downloading the same track as both 256 kbps and flac (or ripping a CD as both).

Whilst many of us on here are a bit purist, not everyone can hear (or is bothered by) the difference - it depends on your hearing, your hi fi and the way you listen. If you can hear no difference, you might want to stick with mp3 and save £££ and storage space - unless you're planning a hi fi upgrade of course