Baby It's Me: the New Release

[longtimefan]

My question below is a serious one, not intended to stir up controversy.

Is the sound quality on the first ten tracks [[the original album) of the "Baby It's Me" new digital download significantly any better than the sound quality on the recently released Japanese version of this CD?

While I applaud Andy, George, and Kevin [[by the way, where's Harry these days?), some of us have very little interest in 2014 "mixes." Personally, I see them merely as a method for "expanding" a release for sales purposes. It is the original music that we were first attracted to and still love. Though 2014 mixes may be week executed, they are not the originals. I understand that some fans enjoy multiple versions with slightly different and subtle vocal differences, etc.

I do value the three unreleased tracks, of course.

[soulster]

As I've said before, don't bother with iTunes, Amazon, or 7-digital. Get the lossless downloads.

[zani57]

Soulster, I've been following this thread because I was anxiously awaiting this release, as has everybody else.
Could you please provide the link to the lossless downloads again? And will this have every single track of the Expanded Edition that will be available on iTunes, Amazon, etc? Thank you.
[[EDIT) I just re-read your post, you are saying IF "Baby It's Me" becomes available on this hi-res sites like HDTracks. It's not even a certainty that BIM will.
It's sad to me for Andy, George, et. al., that Universal is doing this as they work so hard on these projects -- for the fans -- and then they wind up disappointing the fans at the same time.

[alanbill1074]

Are there any places to actually get lossless quality downloads for these Expanded Editions? Funny Girl for example? I just spent £12.99 on BIM on iTunes, expensive compared to the US, but I would buy it again lossless.

I'm not talking about lossless downloads of the original albums, I'm talking about the latest editions with the bonus material.

Actually, I would like to see Universal UK step up to the plate and actually press this. They complained about imports hurting UK sales, which stopped Hip-o shipping here, so now let's see if they can be bothered to actually do the right thing since they must accept some partial responsibility for these re-issues selling less copies in the US, where they were being made.

[copley]

No physical CD = No sale! :[[

[aarondillon2011@gmail.com]

Well, if "Baby It's Me" won't get a Hip-o physical release, then I would not hold out for a physical release of "Ross '78". However, some good news, coming December 9th and December 16th it seems as if all of Ross' Motown output will be coming in physical form as imports.

[calvin]

Are there any places to actually get lossless quality downloads for these Expanded Editions? Funny Girl for example? I just spent £12.99 on BIM on iTunes, expensive compared to the US, but I would buy it again lossless. .

Qobuz has many of the old Hip-O expanded editions available as lossless downloads - but you probably already have all or most of these on physical cds [[as I do). I did buy the Rare Earth set "Fill Your Head" from them, that was a title I missed on release.

Some download-only expanded editions are available from Qobuz in cd-quality audio, for example the Rick James Complete Motown Albums set. I bought that.

Qobuz also offers lossless downloads of some of the albums that recently made their digital debut, such as Smokey Robinson & The Miracles "Pocketful of Miracles" and "One Dozen Roses", Mary Wells "Live on Stage", and a couple of of Smokey Robinson solo albums. I bought all of these.

But Qobuz does not have "Funny Girl." As far as I see, it's only available from iTunes in the UK [[which I find odd, because I think it is available from Amazon in the US). I recently emailed Qobuz about this title and they responded that they will offer it if Universal makes it available to them. Why doesn't Universal do this? So I haven't bought "Funny Girl" yet, I'm still hoping that it will show up on Qobuz or on some other site that offers lossless downloads.

"Baby It's Me" was made available on Qobuz last week, but it is NOT the expanded edition, it's the 10-track original LP. I can't tell you if it's the old cd master or the new remaster - I'm not going to buy this without the bonus tracks anyway, I have the Japanese cd. If Universal has made some arrangement that the expanded edition will be offered exclusively on iTunes, I hope they will tell us.

And how about those download-only Tata Vega releases that were promoted in the forum? Or the Mandre albums? It's not only Qobuz that doesn't have them, the last time I checked no one in the UK, not even iTunes, offered them. Sure, there are still ways to get these if you're willing to make an effort, but I'm not going to do that for these titles.

I have nothing against Universal making some titles available as download only, but I don't understand their sales and marketing strategy at all.

[alanbill1074]

Thanks for the info. I hope they do appear lossless. If this is the way of things then I don't see the harm in making these files available CD quality for download. There is absolutely no reason to restrict to MP3.

[mowsville]

well I have waited long enough for this release and now im being told I can only download it...well there is another option...NOT to download it and that's what I will be doing.

[longtimefan]

These two quotes from above posts really say it all clearly!

1. "It's sad to me for Andy, George, et. al., that Universal is doing this as they work so hard on these projects -- for the fans -- and then they wind up disappointing the fans at the same time."

2. "I have nothing against Universal making some titles available as download only, but I don't understand their sales and marketing strategy at all."

Note: I am always a bit uncomfortable for Andy and George when they post online and well as go on the radio show touting these releases to the very fans who are disappointed in the lack of physical releases of both the music and booklet. It must be hard for them, actually. After all, they are employees. I don't recall Harry's presence [[?).

[rovereab]

I have bought all of Diana's expanded/deluxe albums to date and feel very disappointed that BIM and presumably the rest of her Motown albums will not be released in a physical format.

Luckily Marvin's albums received the appropriate treatment before this change of policy occurred.

Very disappointed!!!

[skooldem1]

I don't see how people can be upset when there hasn't been any confirmation that this will be a digital release only.

[mowsville]

I don't get it either....all Dianas RCA expanded editions out in one go from a company with a lot less clout than Universal..we wait how any years for this and the we are told download only....I wish they would hand ALL her catalogue over to a company that actually cares about the fans....absolutely disappointed.

[sup_fan]

yes it's nice to physically hold the expanded editions and booklets. but i'll certainly take digital releases as opposed to nothing at all.

in regards to the initial question regarding sound quality, i have the cd from the 90s and just downloaded the expanded set on iTunes today. the sound is incredible. far superior to the older cd. it sort of reminds me of when you had an older lp and then bought the same lp but new. just fresher, cleaner. you hear more of the instrumentation. everything just sounds sharper

plus there are the unreleased tracks

as for the 2014 mixes, i've only just started to listen to them on this set so haven't studied them or gone through them all. overall they're quite faithful to the original tracks except they're un-muting instruments and passages that were removed from the originals. also they're using this as an opportunity to release her alt vocals. the ones i've listened to are not quite like the I Hear a Symphony 2014 or Touch me In The Morning remix where it quite a different track. i personally liked those but understand that they're new, completely reinterpreted songs.

i highly recommend all of the fans buy this. quite bitching about the format and enjoy the music. i don't want to miss out on other potential releases of albums because there's not enough interest now that they're not doing cds.

[Jaap]

Although I would also prefer BIM to be released on CD as well, I have also downloaded the expanded edition on iTunes, and I love it. The sound is very clear and it is like discovering the album all over again. The 2014 mixes are a great addition [[and I doubt they are just included to encourage sales -- there is too much labor of love in them by Andy and George and of course mixer Kevin Reeves, I'm sure it would be much cheaper for Universal not to include these wonderful new mixes). Although in most cases I do prefer the original mixes, it is wonderful to hear the alternate vocals and alternate instrumentations [[all taken from the original tapes), which does give an insight in the recording process and the choices producers have made. In some cases, I actually prefer the new mix, as for example You're Good My Child on Diana Ross 1976. The original is good, but the new mix is just amazing, making the song much stronger. The new mix of The Same Love That Made Me Laugh is just as good, perhaps a bit better, than the original one. I hope with many that the physical release will come, but in the meantime, I hope people will treat themselves on this wonderful [[digital) release.

[dba]

I also would have preferred a physical release but I will take this one and any other digital release that would not be available otherwise.
Sounds great! I will crank it later when I get home from work.
Great job all around.

[sup_fan]

i've actually preferred some of the new 2014 mixes to the originals too! definitely like the Funny Girl tracks with only DMC on them. also like the Symphony mix, although i don't like Diana's oooo's during the bridge. i know they're original but not to my liking. but i love M and F higher in the mix.

it is very interesting to hear the additional instruments on Baby It's Me tracks. makes for interesting "what ifs." for instance, i like the bigger, fuller sound with the added instruments on I'm Getting Ready for Love. have always liked that track but the 2014 mix is fuller, a bit more powerful. might have made it a bit less pop back in the day.

[Lulu]

I appreciate the unreleased tracks. I finally got around to stocking up on the RCA releases and it was a big **sigh** because I had most, if not all of the added tracks on vinyl already.

[sup_fan]

i do like Baby's It's Me as an album. great to listen to 30+ years later. however in 1977 i don't know if it was "exciting" enough. almost like as if it was a year or two too late. by 77 Saturday Night Fever was hitting hard and disco was not only becoming more main stream but it's sound was also evolving into bigger, more aggressive tracks. Staying Alive and the Sat Night came out in Nov 77. Baby's it me was Sept 77. although it appears the promotional efforts and campaign by motown were a bit haphazard since they couldn't figure out what single to release and it took them a month to release something, maybe the album was just a bit too lightweight. Your Love Is So Good For Me is a good song. but compared to Stayin Alive, If I Can't Have You, Beethoven's 5th, etc it kind of pales. IMO

[Lulu]

Too bad Raquel's "covers" didn't make the release!


http://youtu.be/sZJdSrW72SM

[Lulu]

And............


http://youtu.be/bmzEkSc4SDQ

[Mark Desjardines]

I just purchased the "Baby It's Me" album from iTunes and am digging it big time. However, for some reason, I am unable to open the booklet. Any ideas or tips to share?

[Glenpwood]

I just purchased the "Baby It's Me" album from iTunes and am digging it big time. However, for some reason, I am unable to open the booklet. Any ideas or tips to share?

Hi Mark,

You probably should check that your Adobe reader is up to date.

[Glenpwood]

The albums above Baby It's Me the two weeks it peaked at #18

Linda Ronstadt - Simple Dreams
Fleetwood Mac - Rumours
Steely Dan - Aja
Commodores - Live
Rod Stewart - Footloose & Fancy Free
Lynyrd Skynyrd - Street Survivors
Kansas - Point Of No Return
Debby Boone - You Light Up My Life
Rose Royce - In Full Bloom
Steve Martin - Lets Get Small
Santana - Moonflower
ELO - Out Of the Blue
Barry White - Songs For Someone You Love
Crystal Gayle - We Must Believe in Magic
Kiss - Alive II
Foreigner - Foreigner
Elvis Presley - Elvis In Concert
Earth Wind & Fire - All N All
Queen - News Of The World
Bob Welch - News Of The World

Bonus: The albums that surged ahead of Baby in the Xmas rush the week it fell from its peak to #26

Boz Scaggs - Down Two Then Left
Olivia Newton John - Greatest Hits
Billy Joel - The Stranger
Neil Diamond - I'm Glad Your Here With Me Tonight
Shaun Cassidy - Born Late
Elton John - Greatest Hits Volume Two
Styx - Grand Illusion
Randy Newman - Little Criminals
Beatles - Love Songs

Definetely shows how competitive the LP market was that holiday season.

I think the album when played next to most of this list sounds just as contemporary for the times as the competition. I'd say the most dated record on that list for the time was that Debby Boone album. It sounds like a quickie cash in to capitalize on how huge the title cut was. Had the label or Mike Curb found Debby better material for it she might have become more than a one hit pop wonder.

I think the lack of an immediate single was a factor in how this got buried in the onslaught of big releases for that Holiday. It certainly sold better than Richard Perry's other big production that Xmas, Leo Sayer's "Thunder In My Heart," another surprising sales disappointment. Pop justice was served a few years back though when Leo's tune got remixed for the clubs and went to number one in the UK.

[soulster]

It's sad to me for Andy, George, et. al., that Universal is doing this as they work so hard on these projects -- for the fans -- and then they wind up disappointing the fans at the same time.
Well, Andy, George, and Harry do not make the calls on what format something is released in, or what will be sold where. All they do is prepare the masters.

[soulster]

Some download-only expanded editions are available from Qobuz in cd-quality audio, for example the Rick James Complete Motown Albums set. I bought that.

Qobuz also offers lossless downloads of some of the albums that recently made their digital debut, such as Smokey Robinson & The Miracles "Pocketful of Miracles" and "One Dozen Roses", Mary Wells "Live on Stage", and a couple of of Smokey Robinson solo albums. I bought all of these.

But Qobuz does not have "Funny Girl." As far as I see, it's only available from iTunes in the UK [[which I find odd, because I think it is available from Amazon in the US). I recently emailed Qobuz about this title and they responded that they will offer it if Universal makes it available to them. Why doesn't Universal do this? So I haven't bought "Funny Girl" yet, I'm still hoping that it will show up on Qobuz or on some other site that offers lossless downloads.


Again, Pono will make these same files available very soon for the U.S. market.


I have nothing against Universal making some titles available as download only, but I don't understand their sales and marketing strategy at all. For the U.S., it's about sales potential. CD does much better in Japan and in probably the U.K.. The U.S. has always been different.

[soulster]

I don't get it either....all Dianas RCA expanded editions out in one go from a company with a lot less clout than Universal..we wait how any years for this and the we are told download only....I wish they would hand ALL her catalogue over to a company that actually cares about the fans....absolutely disappointed.

Well, remember that Ross Records' catalog is controlled by Sony/BMG. FunkyTownGrooves is a reissue arm of Sony/BMG, if you haven't noticed. However, most of her her RCA catalog, like many of Sony/BMG's catalog, is not yet available as downloads.

[Mark Desjardines]

Thank you for the suggestion, Glenpwood!

[jack020]

Diana Ross & The Supremes: Expanded Editions [[https://www.facebook.com/pages/Diana-Ross-The-Supremes-Expanded-Editions/1408890062656296) On Facebook:
Andy Skurow posted:
This is exclusively MFiT [[mastered for iTunes) and it will be available for download at Amazon in a few weeks. Most of the record companies have stopped CD production for catalog releases, so this is not specific to Diana Ross. We would also like to continue and complete the series physically. We are in talks with some third party labels to possibly print CDs [[including this and Funny Girl) in the near future. George Solomon will discuss it on Nightflight tomorrow [[Tuesday) on www. WOMR.org [[http://WOMR.org/) at 9:15 PM EST.

[calvin]

In case Andy or someone at Universal is following this, I have a request regarding your download-only releases: Could you please make them available from websites that offer lossless downloads [[ie cd-quality audio, 44.1 kHz / 16 bit)? That includes Qobuz in Europe and Pono in the US.

Many are available from Qobuz, and I've bought them, but "Funny Girl" is not [[in the UK, I see it only on iTunes). Qobuz seemed to imply in their response to my query that this title has not been made available to them. I also hope they will get the EXPANDED "Baby It's Me" soon.

It's also a shame that some of your download-only titles are not, to my knowledge, available at all in the UK. Examples are Tata Vega's "Try My Love" and "Givin' All My Love", and the Mandre releases as well.

[Glenpwood]

I think the grieving process over the lack of physical expanded editions can be summed up by Miss Ross herself nicely yet humorously....
8688
8689

[whitesoxx]

I, too, am very disappointed. Although I appreciate the fact that a lot of work has been put into this release I cannot comprehend that Universal could not press a few thousand copies to satisfy the demand that is definitely out there. Most reissue labels press that small number of cd's or even less. Funkytowngrooves did a fantastic job releasing expanded editions of the RCA albums on cd only and they are selling well.

Look at Japan: Universal and Warner [[for the post Motown albums) will be releasing ALL of Diana Ross' albums on cd this and next month to commemorate her upcoming Japanese tour. Each cd will get a few thousand copies pressed at the most and is selling for about $10. The labels aren't in it for charity, so they will make a profit.

I'm sure Universal Japan would be happy to release an expanded Baby It's Me, so why doesn't the US branch just licence the finished product to Japan or the UK or the Netherlands, countries that have released a lot of Diana Ross product in the past.

If you look at the weekly listings of catalog releases on sites like www.pauseandplay.com , you will see that a lot of catalog ttles are still being released on cd. And we're not talking about some obscure act here, this is one of the world's most iconic and succesful female singers ever.

I can understand how an album like "At The Copa" or "Funny Girl" would have a limited appeal, but "Baby It's Me" is one of the most critically acclaimed albums Diana Ross has ever recorded and is an albums fans have been wanting to see released on a remastered cd for years.

[rovereab]

Well said whitesoxx!

[jobucats]

Would someone please burn a cd for these "I gotta have a cd version or my collection is not complete" folk? We're in the digital age, people. Apparently it's not the music you want, but something to put on a shelf [[still in its wrapper) to collect dust. Enjoy the present moment, and don't worry that your surviving relatives are not going to inherit a "complete" collection that you, yourself, didn't enjoy.

I am very thankful and appreciative of any of the formats which are being provided [[in my opinion) with lots of thought and care. I am not going to whine and kick my feet in the air that I didn't get a cd.

By the way, although I still have my original lp and another cd, I am enjoying my downloaded version of "Baby It's Me: The Expanded Edition." I just dread that I will not be able to show off a new cd at my next dinner party. What will people think???

[soulster]

Opening a jewel box, pulling out a CD, putting it in a slot, and pushing play is soooo 80s and 90s! Pushing a button on a remote that controls a server in another room through a DA, and getting that same CD sound, or better, is a much more attractive option. Scroll through your entire collection, and playing anything in it in mere seconds without ever having to get off your sofa is great.

Y'all can have your 74-minute CDs while you can still find 'em, but the future is here! Embrace it!

[Philles/Motown Gary]

I don’t understand the animosity and the insults aimed at those of us who still like our music on high-quality CD’s with graphics, photos, and track-by-track annotation.

First of all, CD’s ARE digital. They drummed that into us back in the 1980's when CD’s were first introduced. They were either AAD [[Analog Recordings remastered digitally which includes Motown recordings); ADD [[for which I don’t recall), or DDD [[all digital recordings). Classic Motown released in download format is no more "digital" than the analog CD reissues are.

Now that Universal is forcing us to settle for download-only reissues, a whole new problem has cropped up. After listening to the 20-or-so Motown downloads that I hired my neighbor to download and burn to CD on my PC for me a few weeks ago, three of them have skips. I don’t think it’s the fault of the download; I’m pretty sure it’s the defective blank TDK CD’s that I’ve had problems with in the past. This means that I will now have to hire my neighbor to re-burn them to CD for me, and then I’ll have to take the time to play each one back over again – note-for-note – until I’m able to achieve a perfect copy without skips. This is very frustrating and time-consuming, not to mention total bullcrap – especially in this day and age! I shouldn't have to be going through this. To my knowledge, CD’s still have the potential for offering the best sound quality possible if given the proper remastering process.

What really burns my butt is the fact that many of us have supported Motown faithfully and heavily for 50+ years, yet we seem to have lost all credibility and deserved consideration. Instead, Universal has chosen to release our Classic Motown music in download format only, in order to satisfy the demand of today’s 15-year-olds who are perfectly happy to be on the go while enjoying a pocket-full of their cheap, tinny-sounding music playing through their little portable transistor-radio-quality speakers/earbuds while not giving a rat’s ass about photos nor learning all that they can about Motown recording sessions. They probably aren’t even buying classic Motown.

I have no problem in getting up off my butt long enough to take a CD out of its jewel box, popping it in my portable CD player with studio-monitor headphones, and pushing "Play" as I enjoy top-notch sound while perusing the enclosed booklet with its photos, graphics, and informative track-by-track annotation. Simply pushing a download "play" button from a remote control for a jukebox-type cueing system located somewhere off in another room with nothing to look at and learn from seems mighty cold, impersonal, and sterile to me. No thanks! Save the "future"-istic stuff for The Flintstones! I like some soul with my music without having to rely upon a computer.

Totally disappointed here that Diana’s "Baby It’s Me" [[Expanded) is available in download format only. The teenagers will be thrilled, though, I’m sure!

NOTE: Harry, Andy, and George – I know that this has nothing to do with you guys. You are consistently pumping out high-quality masters/remasters on our favorite music. It’s what "the suits" do with it afterward that concerns us. You guys -- please keep up the good work! We love ya one and all!

[calvin]

I also think the criticism of those not liking downloads is quite harsh.

I see at least three reasons why some are unhappy about the format of this release:
1 - some don't understand how to use digital music files
2 - some prefer something they can hold in their hands
3 - some don't like the fact that lossy downloads have inferior sound quality to a cd release [[and lossless downloads are not always available)

I think the biggest gripe seems to be point 2. I don't really care too much about the packaging in most cases, but I can understand that some in this forum do. There are "collectors" who go beyond just having the music. Some buy music that they already have [[be it vinyl or cd) just because the cover artwork, disc label, or something is different. I'm not like that but I wouldn't criticise those who are.

As for downloads vs cds in general, it must hurt downloads somewhat that, usually [[but not in this case), no digital liner notes with basic info about songwriters, performers, etc is included. Also, lossy downloads are often priced more expensively than the physical cds! And another advantage of cds over downloads is that one can [[legally) resell them. [[In the UK, note that you are required to delete your ripped files if you sell your cd!)

I have nothing against downloads, and I've purchased several [[mostly lossless, but even a few lossy ones for "must-have" titles where it was the only choice), but I still buy mostly physical cds and make my own digital [[lossless flac) files. I don't have to take the cds out of the jewel cases to play them.

I haven't bought the "Funny Girl" or "Baby It's Me" expanded editions because of point 3. Now that there are sites [[Qobuz, Pono) which offer lossless downloads, I think that Universal should make these available - including all bonus tracks - on those sites, as they've done with so many other releases. I'm still hoping for that. But if someone at Universal tells me there are no plans to release them in lossless format in the near future, maybe I will buy them from iTunes.

I think that Universal could have turned a profit with a physical release of "Baby It's Me". But I guess that they expect, correctly or not, to sell fewer units but make a bigger profit because their costs will be lower without a physical release.

[lakedistrictlad1]

One last moan about download from me and that's my lot -

1. As long as downloads are lossy they are not the real deal.

2. If an American company called 'CULTURE FACTORY' can put out mini lp cd editions of 'ROSS' - [[1978), 'Cream Of The Crop' and many other Motown titles specifically for collectors - then why on earth can't Universal? License this stuff to company's who WILL produce cd's.

3. I feel sorry for Andy and the team as, clearly, their hands are tied and they are toeing the corporate directive from the money men, who are saying no to physical cd production. Why else would we be getting a second download only release after so many fans expressed disappointment with Funny Girl?

On a side note - yesterday I bought Culture Factory's edition of 'ROSS", as I now realise we will never see that in physical form from Hip-O.

[calvin]

I'm not convinced that downloads are the future, they're on top now but declining rapidly. Look at the RIAA numbers for the US for the first half of 2014 vs the first half of 2013:

all numbers in millions, units given first and then dollar values:
cd albums: 56.3 vs 73.7, down 24%; 715.6 vs 884.1, down 19%
cd singles: very small
download albums: 54.3 vs 61.3, down 11%; 543.7 vs 630.5, down 14%
download singles: 643.6 vs 707.0, down 9%; 752.9 vs 842.4, down 11%
vinyl albums: 6.5 vs 4.6, up 41%; 145.7 vs 102.0, up 43%
vinyl singles: very small

number of paid streaming subscriptions: 7.8 vs 5.5, up 43%
total dollar value from digital subscription and streaming: 859.5 vs 673.1, up 28%

http://riaa.com/media/1806D32F-B3DD-19D3-70A4-4C31C0217836.pdf

Apple iTunes Sees Big Drop in Music Sales
http://online.wsj.com/articles/itunes-music-sales-down-more-than-13-this-year-1414166672

Download sales are falling. Streaming is getting bigger and taking a bigger share, and this will continue. I understand the arguments against it, and I'm not really into it [[yet), but it does have its advantages which is why it's taking off. One has tens of thousands of titles at one's fingertips without having to purchase anything but a subscription, and without having to spend time ripping cds and managing digital files. One can try new music without buying it, and if you only want to listen to a title once or twice it might be a better option than buying. And streaming in cd-quality audio [[44.1 kHz / 16 bit) is now available.

In Sweden [[the home of Spotify),where people are generally more technologically savvy than in the US, streaming accounted for more than 70% of the music industry's revenue in 2013.
http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/sweden-streaming-claims-71-of-growing-market-in-2013/057417

I see how some teenagers I know "consume" music, and I think this will become more common. They buy a few of their favorite albums, either as downloads or physically, whichever is cheaper [[they know how to rip with iTunes). They buy some of their favorite songs as downloads. But mostly, they stream. Ok, so some artist pulls his music from streaming, so what? If they really like that artist and want that title, they can probably buy it [[the vast majority of streamed titles can be bought as downloads). But they probably won't care, they'll just listen to something else! Which is why only someone huge like Taylor Swift can pull her music from streaming.

Cds may well disappear, though not soon. Downloads are probably here to stay for a long time, but sales have already peaked and are in decline. Streaming may become dominant in the next years, as it already has in Sweden.

[alanbill1074]

Streaming is like stealing from artists. The revenue is pitiful - about 0.001 per play. It's sad times when people can basically listen to your hard work for free without ever having to pay what it is worth. As a recording artist [[essentially retired because I can't make a reasonable living off it due to tiny royalties and insufficient live work) I've netted virtually nothing for millions of plays of my music on Youtube. Likewise, small revenue from Spotify unless you are a big act. This is the future of music? Yikes. Artists are always the ones people expect to work for free. All those streamers certainly wouldn't fancy doing a couple of days graft for nothing every month. No wonder there's only 3 record labels left who don't want to release CDs.

That said I still want the opportunity to PURCHASE lossless downloads if I can't have the CD. It's an easy option to offer. As for jobucats post, sarcastic and not necessary.

[soulster]

I don’t understand the animosity and the insults aimed at those of us who still like our music on high-quality CD’s with graphics, photos, and track-by-track annotation.


No animosity or ridiculing here. I understand you guys. But, what I don't understand is the resistance to newer technology.


First of all, CD’s ARE digital. They drummed that into us back in the 1980's when CD’s were first introduced. They were either AAD [[Analog Recordings remastered digitally which includes Motown recordings); ADD [[for which I don’t recall), or DDD [[all digital recordings). Classic Motown released in download format is no more "digital" than the analog CD reissues are.



Of course they are! Who said they weren't digital?


Now that Universal is forcing us to settle for download-only reissues, a whole new problem has cropped up. After listening to the 20-or-so Motown downloads that I hired my neighbor to download and burn to CD on my PC for me a few weeks ago, three of them have skips. I don’t think it’s the fault of the download; I’m pretty sure it’s the defective blank TDK CD’s that I’ve had problems with in the past. This means that I will now have to hire my neighbor to re-burn them to CD for me, and then I’ll have to take the time to play each one back over again – note-for-note – until I’m able to achieve a perfect copy without skips. This is very frustrating and time-consuming, not to mention total bullcrap – especially in this day and age! I shouldn't have to be going through this. To my knowledge, CD’s still have the potential for offering the best sound quality possible if given the proper remastering process.


Well, how come you couldn't have burned your own discs? It's so easy that a five-year-old kid can do it!

The reason many of us quit burning CD-Rs is because they are unreliable. Also, the process isn't perfect. You have to burn the blank at the speed recommended by the manufacturer, and the burner has to be capable of proper burns. The computer itself has to be up to snuff. The computer has to have adequate power, memory, and space. The CD-R must never be exposed to sunlight or excessive heat, and always be stored in jewel boxes. One must never, ever use paper labels or write on the label side with anything but a water-based sharpie, preferably in the areas where do fata was written. These are among the many reasons many of we digital music lovers moved on to hard drives and servers to store our digital music, be they ripped CDs or downloads. Hard drives are MUCH more stable and robust than CD-R. And, if you're worried about a hard drive going belly-up, you just make a couple of copies. So, if one drive dies, you still have two backups!

I agree with you in one area: you don't usually get recording notes and credits, essays, or track info, but you can get album cover graphics embedded into the files.



What really burns my butt is the fact that many of us have supported Motown faithfully and heavily for 50+ years, yet we seem to have lost all credibility and deserved consideration. Instead, Universal has chosen to release our Classic Motown music in download format only, in order to satisfy the demand of today’s 15-year-olds who are perfectly happy to be on the go while enjoying a pocket-full of their cheap, tinny-sounding music playing through their little portable transistor-radio-quality speakers/earbuds while not giving a rat’s ass about photos nor learning all that they can about Motown recording sessions. They probably aren’t even buying classic Motown.


It's not just teenagers, you know. People middle-aged baby-boomers have been downloading just as much as the younger folks. I get tired of everything being blamed on "the kids". The kids are often less computer literate than their parents.

I am one of those middle-aged boomers that have their computer permanently hooked up to their stereo system. I've had it that way since 1998, and I still enjoy CD quality sound, or studio sound in the form of hi-rez. I will still buy CDs, but I embrace newer technology and can never go back! I have my music on a server and can access it anywhere in the world on demand.


I have no problem in getting up off my butt long enough to take a CD out of its jewel box, popping it in my portable CD player with studio-monitor headphones, and pushing "Play" as I enjoy top-notch sound while perusing the enclosed booklet with its photos, graphics, and informative track-by-track annotation. Simply pushing a download "play" button from a remote control for a jukebox-type cueing system located somewhere off in another room with nothing to look at and learn from seems mighty cold, impersonal, and sterile to me. No thanks! Save the "future"-istic stuff for The Flintstones! I like some soul with my music without having to rely upon a computer.

You don't need interact with a computer! Just get a D/A stereo component that will connect to the server with wi-fi. You never even have to see a computer component! All you do is scroll through your music library with a remote control, tablet, or even your smartphone. So many people live on nothing but their phones today, anyway. You can let your family or even friends and neighbors have access to your collection.

The only technology that is more backward than the CD is vinyl! You not only have to get up every twenty minutes or so, you have to clean the record and cue the stylus. But, you do get the biggest graphics.




Totally disappointed here that Diana’s "Baby It’s Me" [[Expanded) is available in download format only. The teenagers will be thrilled, though, I’m sure!

It's not about trying to attract the teenagers. It's about the realities of the marketplace.

When Napster was new and popular, and the record companies were still blindsighted on the new popular way of getting music, I knew more middle-ages adults stealing the music than teenagers. Record labels don't like to print CDs unless they think they can sell at least 500,000 units. It's also cheaper to offer downloads.

[soulster]

[QUOTE]I see at least three reasons why some are unhappy about the format of this release:
1 - some don't understand how to use digital music files

You can learn...


2 - some prefer something they can hold in their hands

The trend is toward having less clutter in their living space, fewer objects to have to deal with. LIve lighter.


3 - some don't like the fact that lossy downloads have inferior sound quality to a cd release [[and lossless downloads are not always available)

That's why I keep pushing lossless downloads from places like HDTracks and, soon, Pono. You don't have to sacrifice sound quality anymore.


As for downloads vs cds in general, it must hurt downloads somewhat that, usually [[but not in this case), no digital liner notes with basic info about songwriters, performers, etc is included. Also, lossy downloads are often priced more expensively than the physical cds!

That we don't get adequate notes with downloads is the only real bad aspect of downloads. It can be a hassle to hunt for the artwork [[although I have been having fun with it lately).


And another advantage of cds over downloads is that one can [[legally) resell them. [[In the UK, note that you are required to delete your ripped files if you sell your cd!)

You can legally sell your CDs here too, but the funny thing is how the record labels are trying to stop people from reselling their downloads! Almost no one in the real world deletes the ripped files of CDs they sell. If your house catches on fire or you get your CDs stolen, you are not going to also delete those same files. That's exactly why you backed them up!


I have nothing against downloads, and I've purchased several [[mostly lossless, but even a few lossy ones for "must-have" titles where it was the only choice), but I still buy mostly physical cds and make my own digital [[lossless flac) files. I don't have to take the cds out of the jewel cases to play them.

I do this too. But, now I have a bunch of CDs cluttering up my space that I really didn't want. I play the music from them all the time but never have to touch the discs! And, there are things that you can only get on CD, even today. A lot of classic R&B music falls into this category.

[nathanj06]

No physical CD = No sale! :[[


Ditto. Although this was one of her better albums I'm passing on the rest of her solo work. Diana Ross [[70), Everything Is Everything, Surrender and The Boss are my favorites aside from a few later singles.

[soulster]

One last moan about download from me and that's my lot -

1. As long as downloads are lossy they are not the real deal.

2. If an American company called 'CULTURE FACTORY' can put out mini lp cd editions of 'ROSS' - [[1978), 'Cream Of The Crop' and many other Motown titles specifically for collectors - then why on earth can't Universal? License this stuff to company's who WILL produce cd's.

3. I feel sorry for Andy and the team as, clearly, their hands are tied and they are toeing the corporate directive from the money men, who are saying no to physical cd production. Why else would we be getting a second download only release after so many fans expressed disappointment with Funny Girl?

On a side note - yesterday I bought Culture Factory's edition of 'ROSS", as I now realise we will never see that in physical form from Hip-O.

One more thing: I wonder how you guys would react if the companies only released these albums in the vinyl format. There are a lot of remastered titles that are vinyl only releases, like Barry White's "Can't Get Enough Of Your Love".

[kenneth]

Henry Rollins, formerly of Black Flag and now a DJ and commentator on public radio here in Southern California, had an interesting interview yesterday about analog vs. digital releases. First of all, to him digital includes CDs of course. He was lamenting not only downloads, but "listening devices" such as Ipods, Iphones, earbuds, etc., as being woefully inadequate to hear any music the way it was intended to sound.

He also talked about the increase in vinyl sales, the new turntables coming out, and the boom in new material being available in various analog formats - including cassette tapes which are apparently making a comeback!

He closed by saying that anyone who loves music should tell a young person who only hears music through a "listening device" or downloads that hearing the music in this way is like "stabbing the musician or composer in the heart with a knife!"

It was really interesting, and confirmed the love I still have for vinyl. In fact, lately I just bought the new Pink Floyd and Echo & the Bunnymen on double LPs [[which of course include either a CD or a download with it as well).

On another note, the music industry has always been completely myopic about the needs or preferences of the listener. For those of us old enough to remember when cassettes first hit the market [[ahem), the record companies were convinced that people buying cassette players and recording each others' LPs were going to ruin their gravy train. They used to plaster stickers on LP jackets saying "Home Taping is Killing Music!" So I doubt many in the industry care much about the "integrity" of the music source or what the listeners even will buy, so long as they can make a quick buck off us on something cheaper.

I did buy the "Funny Girl" download but "Baby It's Me" with only 3 unreleased tracks, I'll pass on that one.

[skooldem1]

It is much more than just 3 unreleased tracks. All of those 2014 mixes are alternate vocals and includes instruments that were muted in the original releases. I feel that it was a mistake to call these "2014 mixes". It leaves some people wondering if they are dance remixes of the songs. They should have just said alternate vocals and mixes.

[soulster]

You don't have to be limited to the device you listen to downloads on. I am constantly annoyed by people who don't fully understand technology and don't make any effort to learn about it.

[vgalindo]

It is much more than just 3 unreleased tracks. All of those 2014 mixes are alternate vocals and includes instruments that were muted in the original releases. I feel that it was a mistake to call these "2014 mixes". It leaves some people wondering if they are dance remixes of the songs. They should have just said alternate vocals and mixes.

Yes and they are really good. Some of them I like better than the original release. I too want this as a nice double cd but I can not pass on the digital release. If they are released later on cd I will definitely buy it as well.

[kenneth]

You don't have to be limited to the device you listen to downloads on. I am constantly annoyed by people who don't fully understand technology and don't make any effort to learn about it.

Soulster, if this is referring to the comments by Henry Rollins, I think his point was more digital vs. analog than listening to digital on a hand held device. According to Rollings, any digital recording simply can't keep up with an analog one.

[Lulu]

Does anyone think CDs will become obsolete like VHS tapes?

[soulster]

Soulster, if this is referring to the comments by Henry Rollins, I think his point was more digital vs. analog than listening to digital on a hand held device. According to Rollings, any digital recording simply can't keep up with an analog one. An, I dig Rollins because he's an audiophile and I like his music and all, but, it's his opinion.

[TomBairdFan]

Ditto again: #NoCD=NoSale :[[

[soulster]

Ditto again: #NoCD=NoSale :[[
As if posts like this will change their minds...

[skooldem1]

I listened to the radio show the other day. Andy and George wanted to get this out to the fans. This was the only option. Either make it a digital download, or nothing. For those fans that want to hear the music and don't care about holding anything in their hands , they will be satisfied.

[calvin]

Didn't someone mention the possibility that Universal may allow another company to print up some physical cds?

Some time ago the self-titled "Mandre" album was released as a download only in the US. I was waiting to buy this as a lossless download on Qobuz but it never appeared - and when I last checked, it wasn't even available as a lossy download on any of the major sites in the UK [[including the UK iTunes). Now it's coming out as a cd.

http://www.amazon.com/Mandre/dp/B00O34QGY8/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1416499121&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mandr%C3%A9/dp/B00O34QGY8/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1416499140&sr=1-1

Ok, I suppose no one has much interest in Mandre [[I started a thread about this release, but there was not a single response). But I think this is interesting in the sense that Universal seems to have allowed another label to make a cd of what was a "download-only" release.

Has anyone heard of this label, "Fever Dreams"? Given that Universal recently made a digital master of this album, will this cd release be using Universal's mastering?

[calvin]

I listened to the radio show the other day. Andy and George wanted to get this out to the fans. This was the only option. Either make it a digital download, or nothing. For those fans that want to hear the music and don't care about holding anything in their hands , they will be satisfied.

I don't care about holding anything in my hands, but I'd like to see it made available as a lossless download.

[jobeterob]

As far as having something to hold, isn't it as simple as hitting "Burn" and then hitting "Print"?

I can see Universal farming out Mandre but refusing to farm out Diana Ross.

When you have a release selling 30000 copies [[mostly download) and reaching #3 on the national sales charts, when you have no more CDs at Costco ~ you have to accept the message.

[RossHolloway]

Ditto again: #NoCD=NoSale :[[
Your loss..

[soulster]

I think the overriding message for some is that they don't like to be forced into change. Am I right on that?

[skooldem1]

The further we move into the digital age, the more some folks will be left with nothing. That is their choice. They will be missing out on a lot of stuff.

[jobeterob]

Change is hard for people.

Imagine if you were a heritage artist, not that well known, perhaps part of a group, making $85000 a year from royalties on sales in the 1980's ~ and you see that dwindle to nothing in the 2000's. And if you want a retirement income, you've got to get out there doing concerts now.

That kind of change would be a lot more brutal than us having to switch to downloads from a physical CD.

I printed the Funny Girl booklet and enjoyed reading it. I enjoyed a couple of the songs I knew and some of the alternate cuts.

I'll enjoy BIM a whole lot more.

[soulster]

Change is hard for people.

Some people. Not all.


Imagine if you were a heritage artist, not that well known, perhaps part of a group, making $85000 a year from royalties on sales in the 1980's ~ and you see that dwindle to nothing in the 2000's. And if you want a retirement income, you've got to get out there doing concerts now.

What does that have to do with it? That happened before the internet.


That kind of change would be a lot more brutal than us having to switch to downloads from a physical CD.

Give me lossless, and i'm happy. If the complete liner notes are provided online with artwork, i'm good. After all, I already have the files, so all I do is tag them to my liking, put them all together, imbed them in the audio files, and place it all inside a folder for that title. Then, I copy that and store them both on two or more separate drives. Al I have to do after that is open up the music files in a program or a transport, and enjoy.

[RossHolloway]

While I love physical cds, I also understand that this is a business. The music industry as a whole is in the pits, and sales are down - both physical cd and digital music. At this point I will take what I can get - Just don't stop the music!!

[marybrewster]

What's up with all the negative attitudes re: those that want a physical release? Comments like "too bad" and "your loss" add absolutely ZERO.

Clearly these "complaints" have some merit, otherwise Andy and George would have thrown in the towel and given up. But they haven't. They have heard our voices and fighting for us. And I applaud them for that.

[smark21]

I downloaded it night before last and I'm enjoying it very much. One of Diana Ross' best albums. Good batch of songs and the album is enhanced that one producer, Richard Perry, guided the project. which gives the album a cohesive feel. And Diana delivers some of her best vocals of her career. Phrasing is impeccable; great facility with rhythm on the up tempo tracks. Of the bonus songs, I enjoy Brass Band and Country John. While I understand why they may have been left off the official album back in 1977, glad they're now out there.

[jobeterob]

From Facebook:

Dick Ketler

November 18 at 7:32pm · Edited ·

.
"Baby It's Me" is now at #23 on the iTunes R&B Top 100 Album Chart as of 11-18; 10:30 pm ET, and outselling Aretha Franklin's "Sings The Diva Classics."

[Bokiluis]

I'm not convinced that downloads are the future, they're on top now but declining rapidly. Look at the RIAA numbers for the US for the first half of 2014 vs the first half of 2013:

all numbers in millions, units given first and then dollar values:
cd albums: 56.3 vs 73.7, down 24%; 715.6 vs 884.1, down 19%
cd singles: very small
download albums: 54.3 vs 61.3, down 11%; 543.7 vs 630.5, down 14%
download singles: 643.6 vs 707.0, down 9%; 752.9 vs 842.4, down 11%
vinyl albums: 6.5 vs 4.6, up 41%; 145.7 vs 102.0, up 43%
vinyl singles: very small

number of paid streaming subscriptions: 7.8 vs 5.5, up 43%
total dollar value from digital subscription and streaming: 859.5 vs 673.1, up 28%

http://riaa.com/media/1806D32F-B3DD-19D3-70A4-4C31C0217836.pdf

Apple iTunes Sees Big Drop in Music Sales
http://online.wsj.com/articles/itunes-music-sales-down-more-than-13-this [[http://online.wsj.com/articles/itunes-music-sales-down-more-than-13-this-year-1414166672)

Cds may well disappear, though not soon. Downloads are probably here to stay for a long time, but sales have already peaked and are in decline. Streaming may become dominant in the next years, as it already has in Sweden.

And that is today's reality. More and more music fans prefer access to millions of songs for a monthly fee rather than downloads. Most of us on this forum, are not typical music listeners. Most songs/albums have about a 4 month popularity appeal. Even with how much I love music, there are tons in my collection that just sit on my shelf..."until iPods gave you the option to "shuffle". Now I'll hear songs I haven't heard in awhile and be excited to hear it.
I am very proud of my CD/vinyl collection, but, not many of the people that visit have much to say about it anymore.
"Baby It's Me" is an alltime favorite. But after pining over the liner notes, I would swipe them into my music library and the CD basically sits on the shelf.
Seismic changes have happened in the music industry before as sheet music died and physical disc took over. You used to be able to find almost everything on sheet music.....not anymore. And as "streaming" becomes more popular, it will leave physical CDs even less visible.
i listen to "Funny Girl" quite a bit, but, went over the digital booklet maybe 3-4 times. The future is here and I try accept it as a positive. There's not much choice to do anything else. It doesn't interfere with my deep love of music.

[kenneth]

And that is today's reality. More and more music fans prefer access to millions of songs for a monthly fee rather than downloads. Most of us on this forum, are not typical music listeners. Most songs/albums have about a 4 month popularity appeal. Even with how much I love music, there are tons in my collection that just sit on my shelf..."until iPods gave you the option to "shuffle". Now I'll hear songs I haven't heard in awhile and be excited to hear it.
I am very proud of my CD/vinyl collection, but, not many of the people that visit have much to say about it anymore.
"Baby It's Me" is an alltime favorite. But after pining over the liner notes, I would swipe them into my music library and the CD basically sits on the shelf.
Seismic changes have happened in the music industry before as sheet music died and physical disc took over. You used to be able to find almost everything on sheet music.....not anymore. And as "streaming" becomes more popular, it will leave physical CDs even less visible.
i listen to "Funny Girl" quite a bit, but, went over the digital booklet maybe 3-4 times. The future is here and I try accept it as a positive. There's not much choice to do anything else. It doesn't interfere with my deep love of music.

That is perhaps the best elaboration on this subject I've heard especially the closing thought. I far prefer physical CDs, but will buy something as a download if I just "gotta have it" and yes, as with Bokiluis, it doesn't interfere with my deep love of music.

[jobeterob]

Nicely stated by both of you.

[soulster]

I listen to my collection more now that they are all in file form than I even did when they were just records, tapes, or CDs. When I scroll down to figure out what I want to listen to, I come across things I haven't heard in literally decades. I figure I have about 80,000 tracks now, and 7000, albums. I don't hoard music. I really like everything in my collection. I don't keep anything I don't care about. In many cases, though, there are multiple copies of the same song. Then, in some cases, I have both stereo and mono, single versions and album versions, or disco versions, and so on.

I'm in the middle ensuring my Isley Brothers albums are properly tagged. It's been a blast going through and listening to them while working on them. I also had a chance to upgrade the album art.

[calvin]

Give me lossless, and i'm happy.

Exactly my feeling.

But how would you feel if some titles are only offered in a lossy format? That seems to be the case with "Funny Girl", at least so far. It's probably too early to say with "Baby It's Me", but I do find it odd that it appeared on Qobuz [[and is coming to Pono) as a lossless download without the bonus tracks. [[Yes, I know you don't care about these bonus tracks, but I won't buy this download without them.)

If Universal wants to issue only a download, fine, but there's no excuse for not giving us the option of buying lossless, with all bonus tracks included.

I'm not holding out as a protest or anything, and I know that Universal doesn't care what I think. I still hope to buy these titles in lossless format. But hey, another good thing about downloads? Unlike limited edition physical cds, these aren't going to sell out. And I'm in no hurry.

By the way, how about the release of Bob Dylan's Complete Basement Tapes? A limited-edition box set, 6 cds with a book in a case, about £100. And offered as a download from Qobuz on the same release date as the physical set, in high resolution [[about 50 Euros, much less than the box which is how it should be) and in cd-quality audio [[about 40 Euros). Something to make all the fans happy. It can be done, at least for the top artists with large, loyal fan bases. Thanks Sony!

[soulster]

But how would you feel if some titles are only offered in a lossy format?

It's been a major aggravation.


If Universal wants to issue only a download, fine, but there's no excuse for not giving us the option of buying lossless, with all bonus tracks included.

I agree.


I'm not holding out as a protest or anything, and I know that Universal doesn't care what I think. I still hope to buy these titles in lossless format. But hey, another good thing about downloads? Unlike limited edition physical cds, these aren't going to sell out. And I'm in no hurry.

Don't take too long. The downside of downloads is that the record label or the vendor can pull a title at any time without warning.


By the way, how about the release of Bob Dylan's Complete Basement Tapes? A limited-edition box set, 6 cds with a book in a case, about £100. And offered as a download from Qobuz on the same release date as the physical set, in high resolution [[about 50 Euros, much less than the box which is how it should be) and in cd-quality audio [[about 40 Euros). Something to make all the fans happy. It can be done, at least for the top artists with large, loyal fan bases. Thanks Sony!

A lot of what we see or don't see has to do with the artist and legalities the labels never tell us about.

[Lulu]

I think I posed the question here or over on Facebook: what if CDs go the way of VHS tapes?

[Jimi LaLumia]

bought the digital album on iTunes..
sounds amazing, playing it frequently

[soulster]

I think I posed the question here or over on Facebook: what if CDs go the way of VHS tapes?
I do think the arrival of legal lossless downloads here in the U.S. will hasten its demise.

[Lulu]

I do think the arrival of legal lossless downloads here in the U.S. will hasten its demise.

That's what I was thinking. How will the naysayers adapt?

[calvin]

I think I posed the question here or over on Facebook: what if CDs go the way of VHS tapes?

If you only mean that it might one day be difficult to buy most titles on cd, that seems to be coming, though slowly.

But in another way it's very different from the demise of VHS. VHS tapes were analogue magnetic. They were replaced by a totally different way of representing the video/audio data, digital DVDs. DVDs had huge advantages over VHS tapes - much better video/audio quality, much slower degradation, and they're smaller and more convenient. [[Though the design of those unnecessarily large dvd cases was unfortunate.) It was no contest.

The underlying idea behind digital encoding of music is the same for cds and downloads - the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem, with amplitudes digitally approximated [[quantization). Mathematically, you can approximate the original signal better as you go to higher bit depths and frequencies [[due to the error in amplitude quantization). But beyond a certain point, the limitations of the human ear will mean that the listener will not be able to discern the difference.

Other things [[ie the original master tape) being equal, a cd - which is fixed at 44.1 kHz frequency, 16 bits for amplitude - will be a *better* representation of the audio data than a lossy download from iTunes. You're not getting better quality audio going from cds to lossy downloads, you're getting something worse. So I think this is very different than the switch from VHS to DVD. People who are switching from cds to lossy downloads are perhaps getting something more convenient, but of lesser quality. If you're happy with that, that's fine.

With lossless downloads, the audio quality is the same as a cd. But so far, "Funny Girl" has not been released in lossless format, while it seems that "Baby It's Me" is appearing as a lossless download but without the bonus tracks.

Lossless [[44.1 kHz, 16 bit) downloads and cds basically differ in the medium on which the data is stored. Do you want it on a shiny disc or on your hard drive [[or in the cloud)? I find playing music much more convenient from the hard drive, plus you have tagging, etc. Of course cds can always be ripped to get the same.

[midnightman]

Lossless MP3s are much of a threat to CDs as iTunes was. Plus, people are more into streaming than MP3s...

[soulster]

If you only mean that it might one day be difficult to buy most titles on cd, that seems to be coming, though slowly.

But in another way it's very different from the demise of VHS. VHS tapes were analogue magnetic. They were replaced by a totally different way of representing the video/audio data, digital DVDs. DVDs had huge advantages over VHS tapes - much better video/audio quality, much slower degradation, and they're smaller and more convenient. [[Though the design of those unnecessarily large dvd cases was unfortunate.) It was no contest.

The underlying idea behind digital encoding of music is the same for cds and downloads - the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem, with amplitudes digitally approximated [[quantization). Mathematically, you can approximate the original signal better as you go to higher bit depths and frequencies [[due to the error in amplitude quantization). But beyond a certain point, the limitations of the human ear will mean that the listener will not be able to discern the difference.

Other things [[ie the original master tape) being equal, a cd - which is fixed at 44.1 kHz frequency, 16 bits for amplitude - will be a *better* representation of the audio data than a lossy download from iTunes. You're not getting better quality audio going from cds to lossy downloads, you're getting something worse. So I think this is very different than the switch from VHS to DVD. People who are switching from cds to lossy downloads are perhaps getting something more convenient, but of lesser quality. If you're happy with that, that's fine.

With lossless downloads, the audio quality is the same as a cd. But so far, "Funny Girl" has not been released in lossless format, while it seems that "Baby It's Me" is appearing as a lossless download but without the bonus tracks.

Lossless [[44.1 kHz, 16 bit) downloads and cds basically differ in the medium on which the data is stored. Do you want it on a shiny disc or on your hard drive [[or in the cloud)? I find playing music much more convenient from the hard drive, plus you have tagging, etc. Of course cds can always be ripped to get the same.

Great little primer, Cal! You speak truth! Don't forget to add that hi-rez [[24-bit and usually a higher sample rate) is superior over CD.


Lossless MP3s are much of a threat to CDs as iTunes was. Plus, people are more into streaming than MP3s...

Which is sad because artists are hurt by the streaming model, although artists like Taylor Swift want to improve matters.

[calvin]

Lossless MP3s are much of a threat to CDs as iTunes was. Plus, people are more into streaming than MP3s...

Yes. As the numbers I gave in an earlier post show, streaming is growing rapidly while both cd and download purchases of music are falling hard [[comparing the first half of 2014 with the first half of 2013, US sales of cd albums were down 19% while download album sales were down 14%). I would expect some switching from cds to lossless/hi-rez downloads while sales of both continue to fall at the expense of streaming.

I welcome downloads, as long as they're lossless, because avoiding all the costs of physical cds [[production, distribution, inventory storage, shipping to customers/stores, returns of damaged products, etc) can make possible the release of many titles which would never be released on cd.

[[By "mp3" I understand that you mean downloads generally. Mp3s themselves are not lossless, they were originally designed with a maximum possible bitrate of 320 kbit per second. There are now encoders which can make higher bitrate mp3s, but there are compatibility issues, many mp3 players can't play the higher bitrate mp3s. I think that mp3 as a format will also gradually die out.)

[soulster]

[[By "mp3" I understand that you mean downloads generally. Mp3s themselves are not lossless, they were originally designed with a maximum possible bitrate of 320 kbit per second.

ALL mp3s are lossy. The mp3 may have been designed for 320 kbps, but at the time, no one could get one through the internet, as most connections were on telephone lines and slow as molasses. So, people went to low bit-rates like 128 kbps, like during the old Napster and Kaazaa days. As internet connections and people who cared about audio started downloading, the average bit-rate started to improve. Even iTunes improved, using the occasions to put on one of their grandiose announcements. But, iTunes doesn't use mp3. They now use 256 kbps AAC, and many people think it sounds a bit better than mp3. I am not one of them.

There are other formats that are capable of higher bit-rates. AAC goes up to something like 460 kbps, and it sounds very, very good, very compact, virtually indistinguishable to CD, but iTunes won't use it. Another very good format is Ogg Vorbis, but it failed in the all-important U.S. market. But, it is used as a container for other formats. And, there is the Microsoft format .wma, both lossy and lossless. The lossless version will play in my car along with mp3.


There are now encoders which can make higher bitrate mp3s, but there are compatibility issues, many mp3 players can't play the higher bitrate mp3s. I think that mp3 as a format will also gradually die out.)

Just about every player can play mp3. Many or most of those will also play wma. Some play AAC, and many more will play FLAC, which has become the lossless standard. Very few play wav. The new issue is if they will play gapless, meaning there are no breaks in the music during the track transitions. Some players will, some won't. I used Foobar on my computer because it plays gapless mp3 and FLAC.

[warehserat2911]

I downloaded it today and I have to say, it has never sounded this good!! They did a great remastering job on it. In my opinion, this is one of the most underrated Diana Ross albums of all time. Her vocals are incredible on these tracks. One of the finest DR albums ever!!!

[calvin]

ALL mp3s are lossy.

That's what I wrote, they're not lossless. 320 kbit/s is the *maximum* bitrate for standard mp3s, I didn't write that they were ever the most common. Even now, I think Amazon sells 256 variable. I bought the “Motown Unreleased” sets from 7Digital because they had 320 constant.

And yes of course nearly all players can play mp3. What I wrote is that it's now possible to encode mp3 in bitrates higher than 320 - but this is nonstandard and most players can't play these higher-than-320 mp3s. So there's really no point in this.

I think it should be a matter of time before all the lossy-only formats disappear. For home use, file size is no longer an issue - I have a few thousand cds and they all fit, in lossless flac, on a 2 TB drive. And now 4 TB drives are common. One can boost a smartphone up by 64 GB with an SD micro card. But then again, it seems that most people don't care and are happy to take whatever iTunes offers them. Many would rather buy a lossy iTunes download than buy the same title, at the same price, lossless from another vendor.

I should also note for those who want to jam as many files as possible onto mobile devices - if you buy lossless downloads, it's also easy to make lossy mp3s from these for your mobile devices, if you care [[I don't). Or you can just stream them from the vendor from whom you bought the download. Then you can still listen to lossless at home.

[soulster]

Unless Apple, with its iTunes, upps their inventory to lossless, they will eventually get left in the dust. The truth is that the record industry never really liked dealing with Apple, and now is their chance to give them the finger. The reason is that Apple always called the shots because they have been the only real game in town. They have the download market cornered. Their iTunes software is lousy, bloated, and difficult to navigate. And, you have to use their AAC files. You can convert those to wav it aiff, but they don't make it easy, and if you convert the resulting wav file to, say, an mp3 for your car, you wind up damaging the sound. You also strip the metedata do you have to retag everything again. It's a pain. And, if Apple does go lossless, they show no signs of using FLAC, which is the worldwide standard for lossless. They will want you to continue in their ecosystem by forcing AAC lossless. I don't like their arrogance.

The good news is that the average, non-audiophile public is slowly, but surely, finally starting to learn and know the difference in sound quality. I'm even seeing more people on this forum mention it. That's better than even a year ago when people were bitchin' at me for even bringing up the issue.