Do you download the album or buy the CD at a record store?

To many ads? Support ODJT and see no ads!
R

Ruben Mora

DJ/Comdian
Dec 10, 2006
3,375
60
Sacramento, CA
If there is an album I want to buy, I get it from a record store. I know I can download it much cheaper at Itunes but I want the cover, notes, etc, that only I can get if I buy the CD. Since I still use CD’s at events it does look better if I have the store bought CD rather then a CD I burned legally.

What do you do?
 
Buy the CD, I like to have the physical product, no downloads for me :D:D:D

The I rip them to my collection
 
In the recent past, I've downloaded the whole CD from Ick-Tunes but like Ruben and Jacob, I'd rather have the liner notes, etc....I'm just old-fashioned that way.:sqrolleyes:
 
CD, CD, CD!!!

Only .wav files here, .mp3's just don't cut it for me, and with storage as cheap as it is now, i don't know why anyone would use compresed files - especially in professional applications (kinda like pissing in the gas tank of your Ferrari)! I ran out of space on my 80gb ipod and had to buy the 160 off ebay as Apple does not make it anymore!
 
Michael Doucot said:
CD, CD, CD!!!

Only .wav files here, .mp3's just don't cut it for me, and with storage as cheap as it is now, i don't know why anyone would use compresed files - especially in professional applications (kinda like pissing in the gas tank of your Ferrari)! I ran out of space on my 80gb ipod and had to buy the 160 off ebay as Apple does not make it anymore!
Click to expand...

(Raises hand and jumps up and down) OH OH OH.... I know I know let me answer that one.......

Because you can tag them?
 
jokerswild said:
(Raises hand and jumps up and down) OH OH OH.... I know I know let me answer that one.......

Because you can tag them?
Click to expand...

Maybe I have been out of the game too long. I am a sound guy, not a computer guy so I am not sure what that even means.

Does this mean you can search by artist/title, etc? If so, why can't you do that with .wav files?

I figured if my car stereo can read the info and display it from my ipod, why can't professional players do it?

Let me know! THANKS!
 
Michael Doucot said:
Maybe I have been out of the game too long. I am a sound guy, not a computer guy so I am not sure what that even means.

Does this mean you can search by artist/title, etc? If so, why can't you do that with .wav files?

I figured if my car stereo can read the info and display it from my ipod, why can't professional players do it?

Let me know! THANKS!
Click to expand...

Yes and it also means you can add other tags to aid in searches including: Genre, Year, BPM, Album, Album Art, Comments, etc... even Key Signatures.
 
Michael Doucot said:
Maybe I have been out of the game too long. I am a sound guy, not a computer guy so I am not sure what that even means.

Does this mean you can search by artist/title, etc? If so, why can't you do that with .wav files?

I figured if my car stereo can read the info and display it from my ipod, why can't professional players do it?

Let me know! THANKS!
Click to expand...


Mike,

Wav's have an ability to be tagged, although nobody uses that format, because it is not really standard. You can put all sorts of chunks in a WAV -- lists, etc. MS did provide for just about everything.

Most software, players -- will read MP3 tags without any issue though.

Big problem with WAVs, IMHO, is the throughput. Yer either reading into memory, or streaming. It is much faster to read a 10 MB file, than a 50 MB file.


Given the noise floor at any DJ event -- why waste yer time taxing yer hardware/software, and losing decent tagging ability...?
 
So - are you telling me there is no pro player that will allow you to add all that info to a .wav file? Seems to me there is an opportunity for someone to make a lot of money there...

I guess I only ever used Artist, Title, and BPM - if nothing exists that would let me use it, I would put the BPM in the album name.

It just seems weird that every time a new format has come out, there has always been an improvement in audio quality...until now that is. I will gladly give up a little convenience for quality!
 
SoftJock Rick said:
Mike,

Wav's have an ability to be tagged, although nobody uses that format, because it is not really standard. You can put all sorts of chunks in a WAV -- lists, etc. MS did provide for just about everything.

Most software, players -- will read MP3 tags without any issue though.

Big problem with WAVs, IMHO, is the throughput. Yer either reading into memory, or streaming. It is much faster to read a 10 MB file, than a 50 MB file.


Given the noise floor at any DJ event -- why waste yer time taxing yer hardware/software, and losing decent tagging ability...?
Click to expand...

I think I get it....must be why my ipod skips (rarely, but it happens). For as seldom as it happens, I can live with it, but at an event, that would clearly be unacceptable.

Thanks for the education!
 
Actually Michael I'm reripping to WAV all of my files and I'm using TAG & RENAME to tag my new WAV files, I've also been using T & R exclusively to properly tag my mp3's and I'll say it's money well spent.

http://www.softpointer.com/tr.htm
 
Michael Doucot said:
So - are you telling me there is no pro player that will allow you to add all that info to a .wav file? Seems to me there is an opportunity for someone to make a lot of money there...

I guess I only ever used Artist, Title, and BPM - if nothing exists that would let me use it, I would put the BPM in the album name.

It just seems weird that every time a new format has come out, there has always been an improvement in audio quality...until now that is. I will gladly give up a little convenience for quality!
Click to expand...


It's not just the player Mike -- it comes down to standards.

I can put anything in a WAV if I like -- but nobody else can read them, unless they follow my standards.



Quality is also in the eye of the beholder...

If I'm sitting in my office, listening to near fields, with a ref amp (or God forbid, I warm up the tubes) -- that is one thing. If there are 200 people on the dance floor, chanting "Get laid, get f__" -- that's another...

They don't care if it's an MP3 or WAV. They just want to dance :)
 
What's a record store? :)

You can still have every bit of info on a digital copy of a disc as you can with a physical copy (liner notes, credits, etc), you just have to know how to do it.

I don't think I have even stepped into a physical music store, much less bought something from one, in about 3 years.
 
SoftJock Rick said:
They don't care if it's an MP3 or WAV. They just want to dance :)
Click to expand...

I agree - but it would be enough to annoy me.

Truth be told, most of the time I can't hear too much of a difference in the way the track itself sounds, rather it seems to be in the dynamics...especially at higher volumes...and especially on older recordings.

(no thanks to the way songs are produced today, but that is another subject)!
 
Michael Doucot said:
I agree - but it would be enough to annoy me.

Truth be told, most of the time I can't hear too much of a difference in the way the track itself sounds, rather it seems to be in the dynamics...especially at higher volumes...and especially on older recordings.

(no thanks to the way songs are produced today, but that is another subject)!
Click to expand...

Honestly, I deal with this issue every day, since I write software.

All things considered, and if I have the Jolida's toasted up -- I would play the WAV (or the CD, on a tube CD player). I would also use speakers that fit my ear spectrum.


Yer looking at $50-100k plus though, properly setup in a listening environment. Shoot, I have speaker cables that cost more than most DJ/PA speakers.


I'm not taking that stuff to a gig though -- they'd be drunker than I usually am, and Murphy's Law... ;) :)
 
In summation?

For my money, yeah I'd like to have the physical CD. Then again I don't like to pay $10 to $20 for one track. So much music has the life expectancy of a fruit fly. Just yesterday I was being begged to play Chicken Noodle Soup and Money in the Bank for old time's sake. NOT! You gotta believe no one's asking for anything else on the same album.

You guys hit on some points:
The very large WAV files (large until you deal with video) don't seem to be justified for the sake of quality. The ability to tag MP3s (and be universally read) put the final nail in the MP3 vs.WAV coffin for me. God bless ya if you say you can hear the difference between 320, 192 or full wave bit rates. Still, I'd love us all to get together one day and have some double blind testing. This isn't to have a pissing match, I'm genuinely curious but still very skeptical if many can hear the difference. When it finally comes to playing the music in a hall, with questionable acoustics and lots ambient noise from people and air handlers how many of you, let alone customers can tell the difference? Two times in the last year, people could not tell there were no tweets or mids in either speaker. No, I was just in attendence. Little hums and minor problems drive me batty too. I hear the noises in my head but no one else does - crazy huh?

The biggest difference I hear is in the original, what ever the medium. I've had vinyl that sucks. I've had CDs that suck. When the producers put second rate material on the CD and or over compress it doesn't matter what you do. It sucks from that point on. Some of the catalog material (old music) comes from questionable sources such as badly worn vinyl transferred to CD. Because of the digital restoration it ends up sounding like the recording ran out of headroom. Not terrible but no where near what 60's or even 50's technology was capable of. No way, no how, are many of these recordings from the original master. They are many generations departed from the original.

After years of perfectionism, I now believe in "good enough". 192 with the best stuff I can afford to connect to it, for me is good enough. This isn't to tell anyone else what they should do just want to say 192 sounds pretty damn good. I've gotten some compliments and nary a complaint on the sound. Alot that most effects the end result is beyond our control.
 
Balanced Line: I know exactly what you mean about the quality of a digital track converted from what must have been a bad original.... take for instance the song My Girl.... I have a version that the bass drum kicks are always distorted..... and I got it from iTunes.... they also had a remastered version which is much, much better and the one I use...

This could only have happened as you metioned in your post by using a crappy recording of it and calling it a digital remaster.... what a crock!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back