I have noticed that there are 3 main places to download songs for under $1US. They are Apple's ITunes, Buymusic and Musicmatch. I think that this is a great idea because I would be able to buy songs that I want and wouldn't have to buy the whole CD (although I will still buy some CDs for the cover art, lyrics, DVD, etc. that I really like).

I am not going to start buying songs online until they start offering something higher than 128K. I used to encode all of my songs at 192K (I can tell a small difference between 128 and 192 which is enough for the extra 20-30% space). I have recently started encoding at 256K because I feel for backing up purposes, it is the most accurate reproduction of the frequency spectrum without taking up too much space (ie 384K).

Every place offers near CD-quality. I think that they should give you the option of what you want to download since you are paying for it anyway. If you buy the CD, you can rip and encode at whatever bitrate you want.

Ahh well,
Just my thoughts.

I assume the music quality chosen by online retailers is decided by two factors; the amount of bandwith required to download the product and the amount of HD space to store it. I wonder though... have any of these groups thought about letting a user pick fifteen songs and then sending them a burned cd?

Napster is coming back as an iTunes competitor before Christmas. I think I heard they will price their downloads below $.99.

As long as I am able to rip CDs, that is what I will do. I don't piecemeal what tunes I like, I always give the entire album a chance. My $.02

I am not going to start buying songs online until they start offering something higher than 128K

But they are not encoding mp3 at 128, they are using other formats that should be much higher quality at 128 than mp3 - e.g. AAC with iTunes. Correct?

- trs

the only time ive purchase music online was from www.livephish.com its 12.99 for 2 and a half cds worth of music. More importantly its available in FLAC. FLAC is 12.99 and 128 mp3 is 9.99. Apparently due to the extra bandwidth.

You know what might work? Making the artwork downloadable, too. Have a thing where it's $0.99 per track (or however much) and then say something like ``If you get all the tracks for an album, then you get to download the CD art, insert, and J-card, too''. And don't make the customer buy all the tracks at the same time.

That way you could burn a CD yourself that's nearly equivalent to a store-bought one. They should offer nogapped versions, though, whether it be Ogg or nogapped mp3. Lossless compression would take a lot of bandwidth, though. Maybe that would be a good use for bittorrent. Or maybe they could develop a P2P network that requires an authorization code for each track.

Really, there are so many possibilities, and they're focusing on, at best, one. Also, the price is still a little too high, unless you're buying a three-track, 70-minute classical CD or something similar.

In reply to:

---

have any of these groups thought about letting a user pick fifteen songs and then sending them a burned cd?

---

That's roughly the way it appears to work in the local supermarket (Tesco). I haven't used their system which lets you select tracks to burn a CD (because the songs I wanted weren't available), but I think you collect the disc as you leave, rather than receiving it by post. The principle is similar, though.

In reply to:

---

a small difference between 128 and 192 which is enough for the extra 20-30% space

---

I'm no mathematical wizard, but the last time I checked, encoding at 192kb/s used 50% more space than at 128kb/s...

I have to agree with the livephish.com site. It's the only time I purchase music on the web.

<taking the thread wildly off topic>

Ooooh! Neat site! That is the first time I had seen that one!

I have a few older recordings, from the dark ages when bad people would sell tapes to random Italian bootleggers who would burn them into live CDs. (Different copyright laws from live performances, from the way I understand it...)

I signed to Rhapsody where you can BURN songs for 79 cents, but you can not DOWNLOAD them! There might be an arbitrage where the cost of the number of songs on a CD is less than the price of the CD: i.e. 10 songs for $7.90 vs >$10 for the CD in the store.

I have not yet ripped the songs from the CD to upload it to my Rio, but I have played it in my CD player and it sounds fine to me!

I drive a Miata with loads of road noise so 128k is fine for me. I rarely get a chanc to listen to my music at home, unless it is on my PC.

So, yes, I favor the pay per song deal online....i think its about time as well!

Ed

emusic.com encodes with LAME mp3 encoder VBR ("--alt -preset standard" as the quality setting). That's what I do mine at, so I'm pretty happy with that!

Their selection isn't great however.... (edit, I just looked here and was pretty surprised at what they had.)

Comparison of services: http://www.museekster.com/legalmusic.htm

OK, I always wondered this about the 99 cents per song thing. Do they have a per album flat rate? If not, consider this scenario:

I want to download the entire Transatlantic CD Bridge Across Forever. They are a prog band, and hence, their songs are longer and they only have a total of 4 on the album (2 are over 27 minutes long). I also want to download the entire Bad Religion CD Against The Grain. They are a punk band, and hence, their songs are shorter and they have a total of 17 on the album. Soooooo, does this mean my Transatlantic CD only costs ~ $4 and my Bad Religion CD costs ~ $17??

I just don't see the logic in doing it on a per song basis. I have prog albums with only TWO tracks, and yet most of my punk albums have around 15-25 tracks.

Are the punks getting ripped off?

If I'm not mistaken, the link I posted above is about $15 for the whole month - you get what you want.

The "right" way of doing it would be to charge based on how much you download. This way if you don't care and only want 128k/s then you'd pay less than somebody who wanted a proper archive quality one done in FLAC. This way you're both paying a base price for the track and then whatever extra is the additional bandwidth you're using up by getting the bigger file.
The only problem with this is that the average person out there wouldn't be able to understand it easily. I know people that can't tell the difference between RAM and HD storage so don't say it won't happen.

Okay Brad... thanks to that post i've finally actually taken a good look at emusic, and i'm definitely going to get a 3 month subscription soon. They may not have the greatest selection of what i listen to most... but their catalogue of spoken word, classical, comedy, and country/bluegrass is WELL worth $45. I'm just going to cue it up and download for 3 months straight =].

Plus, they have a lot of albums that i already own that were ripped 4+ years ago at 128kbps, which i can just download with VBR encoding to save me the hassle. Definitely worth it.

The only problem with this is that the average person out there wouldn't be able to understand it easily

I think you're on the right track with this, and I think it could be set up so that the average person could understand it.

An average-quality 128 KBPS MP3 file comes in at about a megabyte per minute, give or take. So charge by the megabyte, say twenty cents per megabyte, and list the file for sale in various sizes in a spreadsheet-like format:

Rush: La Villa Strangiato Duration: 9:35 Price = $0.20 per megabyte.
Low............Fair...........Good............High...........Archival.......Grzelakian
64 kbps.....96 kbps.....128 kbps.....192 kbps.....256 kbps.....384 kbps
$1.00..........$1.50..........$2.00...........$3.00............$4.00...........$6.00

Perhaps La Villa wasn't the best example -- keep in mind that this song is about three times the duration of the average popular song. "Normal" songs would cost considerably less.

(64 kbps is a good compression rate for audiobooks BTW)

This shifts the emphasis away from buying songs to buying bandwidth, which as you suggested in your post is the "right" way to do it.

There could be adjustments made to the cost per megabyte based on the popularity of the band, maybe by means of an audience rating system. Rush might go for 30 cents a megabyte; the latest Metallica release perhaps only a dime.

The downside is that this about doubles the setup time for the music provider, and more than doubles the amount of hard drive space he has to maintain. (I say doubles setup rather than sextupling it because a great deal of the setup is preparing the tag information and getting the music cued up and ready to rip, and this would only have to be done once, then the same song would be encoded 6 times at the differing rates, a relatively quick process that is easily automated.) And if just one person purchased the 384 kb/sec download just one time, that would forever pay the cost of the hard drive storage required for that song 200 times over! (Example above: La Villa would take about 30 MB of space at 384 kb/sec, would bring in $6.00. Hard drive space is about $1.00/gigabyte, or 1/10 of a cent per megabyte. 30 MB thus costs 3 cents, brings in 600 cents, a 1:200 ratio.)

I like your idea a lot.

tanstaafl.

I thought I would use your idea on a song with a more realistic length. In this case the song used was 3:47.

I also thought your prices were a tad too high, so I computed some lower prices.

Track Time: 3:47 min.

Quality…….....Low……...Fair……….Good……….High……….Archival…..Gizelakian
Bitrate………..64 kbps....96 kbps…..128 kbps…..192 kbps…256 kbps….320 kbps
Size…………..1.7 MB......2.5 MB…....3.3 MB……..4.9 MB…...5.7 MB…....6.1 MB

Prices:

@ $0.20 MB...$0.34….....$0.50.........$0.65...........$0.98.........$1.13.........$1.22
@ $0.15 MB...$0.26........$0.37.........$0.49...........$0.74.........$0.85.........$0.92

Price per CD assuming a 15 song CD with average track length of 3:47 min.

@ $0.20 MB...$5.10........$7.50.........$9.75...........$14.70.......$16.95.......$18.30
@ $0.15 MB...$3.90........$5.55.........$7.35...........$11.10.......$12.75.......$13.80


Looking at the prices for CDs I thought how the recent pricing of CDs at $18-$20 each lined up well with the $0.20 MB. However, with Universal's change to $12-$14 a CD (which I think just about the entire world thought was a good idea) the $0.15 MB lines up well. So that’s the pricing scheme I would be happy with. I did $0.10 MB but it was just too low (though it would be nice). Of course if you want to know what it came out to, just divide the .20 by half. (edit - dividing by half gives you .40, should have said divide by 2)

Upon further reflection, I think the "Fair" and "Archival" categories to be superfluous and could probably be dropped and not missed by many people. The reason for the bigger jump between 128 and 196 is that after 128 I stopped using joint stereo (as most people who listen to their music at these bitrates probably don’t care as much about imaging.)

All encoding was done with LAME VBR using joint stereo for <=128 kbps and no other options.

Here's wishing.......

EDIT----------------------------

Further musings.......

Drop the 96 kbps and 256 kbps categories, but keep the names "Fair" and "Archival" so the categories go "Fair, Good, High, Archival" (what the heck is "Gizelakian" anyway?)

Prices could depend on how new a CD is. When it's just come out and is at the top of the charts, charge $0.20 MB. When it's been around awhile, $0.15 MB. When it's old and nobody's heard of it, charge $0.10 MB.

Artists should be able to set a minimum bitrate. While 64 kbps might be great for speech, I'd be a crime to let someone listen to Pink Floyd or the like at that rate.....

The more I think about this, the more I like it......of course, it will probably never happen......

ISTR I read somewhere that MusicMatch were using 192k WMA?

*edit* Actually, it's 160kbit WMA: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33096.html

Hugo

(what the heck is "Gizelakian" anyway?)

You rang?

Aw... Even I don't encode that high. I would, though. But it is just too much work to re-encode everything, and I don't have the months to spare... I might have to soon, though. Most of my encodings were done on ancient software, and I am either hearing things (not having hear the original CDs for so long) or I am starting to perceive encoding flaws.

Right now, I am guessing my average music encoding rate would be about 200kbps VBR and my average audiobook rate would be about 98kbps VBR. At least for anything I encode myself.

If I were to buy individual track downloads, I would want the highest bitrate they would offer. Start with the best quality you can get, and encode down if you have to for player compatibility. I would rather get the file as FLAC or even raw WAV / PCM then have someone else encode it at too low a bitrate.

And, at that kind of price, I would rather buy the album and rip it myself. This way, I have a physical backup. This really depends on listening styles - I tend to be album driven as opposed to individual tracks.

But, then, perhaps I am just obsessive...

I still think that a flat rate per month is the way to go. $14.99 for 30-days - get what you want. Then it's up to you if you'd rather wait twice as long for a 256kps mp3 over a 128kps or a 8:00 minute song over a 4 minute one.

One thing to be careful about, with these WMA services, they can limit your ability to burn and some will even "expire" your songs once you end your membership. Newer protected WMA's only play in windows media player.

That's why I'm really likeing emusic.com. They encode with LAME VBR, membership can be as little as $10 a month if I sign up for a year (free 2 week trial to try it out) and when I cancel, I get to keep my songs!

Ok, to put what I'm about to say into context, first understand, I'm a profesional lurker. I read all the new posts on the board once, maybe twice a day, and I've been doing it for the past year. My post count is in the mid 30s.

That said, Paul, I suspected it was you, but wasn't sure for the following two reasons:

One: your last name doesnt look quite the same in the normal bbs font. And there was no "r".

Two: I remembered that you didn't encode that high. If you had put me to a guess I would have said you prefered 192 kbps. You say 200 kbps. Yes, this is creepy. Don't ask me how I remember this, I have a head for odd facts. I am always remembering things about them that people never expect (and sometimes don't want) me to remember.

So anyways, I figured it was you they ment, but it didn't quite add up in my head, so I thought I would ask.

Re: SE

Flat rate sounds nice, yes, but it would be wasted on me as I'm a sporadic buyer. Best thing, as always, is to give consumers a choice. Of course, how often does this happen in the recording industry?

The whole thing about WMA I agree with compleatly. It really goes without saying in my book. I dont care how cheep it is and how good of quality it is, if your restricting my use, you must not be agreeing that it is mine.

Not a problem. I think it was just a typo. As for the recording rate, well, I tend to be a little excessive sometimes...

of course......you can aford to be....

You can never have too much space!!! Unfortunately, I am starting to run out!!!

OK, I always wondered this about the 99 cents per song thing. Do they have a per album flat rate? If not, consider this scenario:

Yes. In most cases the album costs $10 on the iTunes store, even if there are more then 10 songs. I couldn't find Bridge Across Forever, but CDs like Firesign Theatre that have CDs with 2 tracks can only be bought in album format.

I just looked up "How Can You Be in Two Places at Once When You're Not Anywhere at All", and the album cosrs $7.92, while each of the eight tracks is $0.99. Oddly enough, they seem to be breaking this album up, as the CD I have simply has 2 tracks.

The only problem with the pay per meg strategy that I see is that is doesn't differentiate what artist you download. In other words, how does the individual artist get paid? It seems that their royalty check should be the same regardless of the format you download in. But then the only ones making more money would be the emusic seller.

It seems that their royalty check should be the same regardless of the format you download in.

Unless they, too, got a flat percentage of emusic sales and therefore were paid more for larger files.

And of course, song length becomes part of what you're paying for. Which is actually pretty logical in terms of overall value, but it would bring new meaning to the cliche "he plays like he's getting paid by the note..."

And of course, song length becomes part of what you're paying for. Which is actually pretty logical in terms of overall value, but it would bring new meaning to the cliche "he plays like he's getting paid by the note..."

"Hey Joe, let's play the chorus 8 more times; we'll get paid more!"

No thanks!

And of course, song length becomes part of what you're paying for. Which is actually pretty logical in terms of overall value...

I suspect there is no direct relationship between the time and effort an artist puts into the recording of a song and the finished song's length. However the music store incurs costs vaguely proportional to file size (encoding, storage, bandwidth). I could easily see a model with a flat fee per song to the artist (and label - they're still gonna get their cut), and variable fees to the store.

A "better" song will (presumably) be downloaded more, and generate more revenue for the artist and label, and cover their costs. Those willing to pay for higher quailty encodings will generate revenue for the store and cover its costs.

-jk