What is the collective experience with binaural recordings? Avrum > From: Christina Barkan <[email protected]> > Reply-To: The Horn List <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:10:05 -0400 > To: The Horn List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Hornlist] survey: digital download vs CD release > > > Yes, if you get an uncompressed version I agree that the sound quality would > be the same or better. However, the downloaded music I have purchased or music > of mine on CDs that I have ripped on to CD media is not uncompressed. It seems > to me that the 'standard' today is an mp3 download. I have not seen an option > to download uncompressed music from sites like Amazon. iTunes seems to provide > a choice between 128 or 256 k bit rate but I don't think they have > uncompressed versions either. Downloading a an uncompressed file from the > publisher is great but how does that publisher promote their music to a large > audience? > > When I was mentioning the difference I hear between an mp3 and a CD I was > using the same playing equipment - Adcom amp and Magnaplaner speakers. I have > also heard the same difference using the audio system in my car. > > My choice for the survey would be a CD and the availability of a lossless > download. > > Tina > > > > On Aug 31, 2010, at 11:00 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: > >> 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/tina.barkan%40mac.co>> m > > _______________________________________________ > post: [email protected] > unsubscribe or set options at > https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/agolub%40optonline.ne> t
_______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
