On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Christina Barkan <[email protected]> wrote: > > I will add that the sound quality of a digital download is not as good as a > CD.
This is simply not true. There are many reputable sources for purchasing music as files online that are the same or even higher bit-rate than CD. From some sources, you are correct, and they offer tracks in only MP3 or other compressed format. However, any decent publisher would insist that an online-only release be made available uncompressed (perhaps with the additional option of compressed versions), or else the work of the audio engineers will be horribly destroyed. As an audiophile, I would much rather get an uncompressed file produced by the publisher than a CD. Even ripping from a CD is a black art, and the results are neither consistent nor 100% accurate almost ever. Christina, as to your experiment comparing lossless files on the iPod to the CD, your findings are easily explained by the fact that whatever device you use to play CDs is simply better at reproducing sound than your iPod and headphones. All of that said, I think it is important to have a CD for self-promotion. You can hand a CD to a music director you meet at a party, and he/she can listen to it in the car the next morning. And if you want your CD to end up in libraries, most are currently best equipped to add a CD to their collection rather than audio files. My last point is rather speculative, but I suspect that if he wants to get his work on the radio, many radio stations would have a much simpler time popping in a CD than anything else. So my vote is for a CD release along with downloadable files of the highest bit-rate the publisher can produce. Michael _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
