Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Rise of "Hybrid" Vinyl-MP3s

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the rejoicing-DJ dept.

Music 258

Khyber writes to let us know that First Word Records, a U.K.-based record label, is now selling vinyl records that come with codes that allow you to download a 320-kbit MP3 of that record's content. The article mentions another independent label, Saddle Creek, that also offers DRM-free downloads with some vinyl records. The co-founder of First Word is quoted on why they didn't DRM the download: "Making a legal, paid-for version of the file less useful than a copied or pirated one doesn't make sense."

cancel ×

258 comments

vye....null? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19137431)

What is this vye..null?

Re:vye....null? (5, Funny)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137815)

It's an ancient musical recording that is etched into a circular rock. A bird presses it's beak to the stone and rotates it, producing sound.

Possibly better than CDs? (4, Interesting)

powerpants (1030280) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137443)

If the MP3s are coming straight from the record label, maybe they could be encoded straight from the master mix, rather than a down-sampled 24-bit, 44.1kHz CD. My understanding is that CDs go up to 20 kHz (which is pretty close to the highest pitch humans can hear), but that the bit-depth is somewhat course at that range.

Is there an audio engineer around who can explain if there's much to be gained this way?

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (4, Informative)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137525)

I'm not an audio engineer but from a telecom course I took the basic idea is that you sample at twice the highest frequency (IE. 20kHz frequency would require 40k samples a second).

For the most part humans focus on the 300Hz-3.3kHz range which is why the phone companies only give you about 3k Bandwidth and sample at about 8k samples a second over POTS.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (5, Informative)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137909)

Yes. Nyquist. There's a Theorem, a Limit, and a Guy that discovered these, all by the same name.

A 44.100kHz sample rate will theoretically get you up to a 22.050kHz max frequency in the audio signal. Humans can focus on any part of the audible spectrum, but voices won't typically fall outside the 300-3300 Hz range. Thus aLaw (US) and mu-Law (outside the US, a.k.a. "uLaw", since the Greek mu looks like a u with a tail) are typically 8000 Hz sample rate, 8-bit-sample, monophonic (who has a stereo telephone?) signal when digitized.

The GP was worried that the bit depth is "coarse". This is not the case. Bit depth "distance" is constant for a given depth.

CD's are 44.1kHz, 16-bit, stereo. Always. So there are always 44100 samples per second per channel. There are always two channels (stereo, one left, one right). And each sample in each channel is always 16 bits. A 16-bit integer can represent numbers from 0-65535 (2^0-1 through 2^16-1), and since there's no need for negative numbers (this is Pulse Code Modulation, or PCM, so no, you don't need to represent a +/- of a waveform) you get the full 0-65535 swing. From there, the value is directly translatable into a DC voltage that goes to the speakers. (Most of the heavy lifting is done in the A/D phase, D/A phase is a simple value-to-DC conversion.) The change in DC voltage over time is what causes the magnets to move, which moves the speaker cones, which moves air, which moves your tympanic membrane, which blah-blah-blah... eventually you hear sound.

So there's no need to worry. Nothing gets coarse. Nothing loses fidelity. Nothing loses audible quality. This is why vinyl fanatics get laughed at by people who know how and why digital audio works. The limits of even now-mundane CD audio are far above the possible limits of even hypothetically perfect human hearing. Nobody can hear 22kHz. Nothing below 22kHz is misrepresented in CD-quality audio. For mastering work, where effects will be applied later, higher quality recordings are wonderful, since you can guarantee that it will stay high-quality when downsampled to CD-quality, but other than that (and "economies of scale" where better parts are just as cheap to produce), there's no need for anything better.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (3, Informative)

[Marvin] (46773) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138077)

Actually, the max. frequency that can be sampled is 22kHz, not 22.050kHz - what the Nyquist theorem states is that in order to construct a signal accuately, you need to sample at twice the maximum frequency + a little more, because then you can also deduct the phase of the original signal.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138321)

If we are quibbling, the theorem is about the reconstruction, not the sampling.

The REAL reason behind 44.1 kHz (4, Informative)

darkain (749283) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138835)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD#Audio_format [wikipedia.org]

"The sampling rate of 44.1 kHz is inherited from a method of converting digital audio into an analog video signal for storage on video tape, which was the most affordable way to get the data from the recording studio to the CD manufacturer at the time the CD specification was being developed. A device that turns an analog audio signal into PCM audio, which in turn is changed into an analog video signal is called a PCM adaptor. This technology could store six samples (three samples per each stereo channel) in a single horizontal line. A standard NTSC video signal has 245 usable lines per field, and 59.94 fields/s, which works out at 44,056 samples/s/stereo channel. Similarly, PAL has 294 lines and 50 fields, which gives 44,100 samples/s/stereo channel. This system could either store 14-bit samples with some error correction, or 16-bit samples with almost no error correction."

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138899)

There's much more to digitization than is explained in the grandparent post. He did get it as right in that short comment as it needs to be to understand the basics. No need to nitpick, especially since neither 22kHz nor 22.05kHz are relevant bounds in practice, because the signal is filtered after the DA conversion and filters which are steep enough to come close to these limits aren't cheap enough to put into consumer electronics. (I'm just waiting for the dumbass who claims that CDs don't capture more complex waveforms than sines at 20kHz and vinyl will let him hear 20kHz sawtooths or something...)

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138203)

Your explanation is spot-on and deserves to be modded up. However, I do have a question for you regarding your "laughing at vinyl fanatics" comment that I've never seen addressed. The question is the relationship of harmonic overtones. It's well known that certain confluences of sound react with each other and produce further sounds. Even though these typically fall outside the range of human hearing, we are still able to sense and feel them. How does the quantization and digitization of analog waveforms affect the reproducibility of these harmonics?

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138639)

we are still able to sense and feel them

That's the part that will get you laughed at.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (3, Interesting)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138875)

Look, if you're going to make up justifications for using vinyl, make them more convincing. Much of the theory about human hearing is based on the assumption that the ear acts as a linear system. If the ear were a linear system there is no way it'd be possible for "certain confluences of sound react with each other and produce further sounds". In linear systems harmonics at different frequencies simply add, there is no possible 'interaction' that can happen between them.

But nonlinear systems are quite different. The classic example is soliton waves [wikipedia.org] . When two of these meet, they don't simply combine additively. In particular, different harmonics don't necessarily pass straight through each other and its quite possible for two very high frequency signals to interact and produce a low frequency signal in the result. And of course there really is no reason to expect the ear to remain close to a linear system, even ordinary sound waves in air become nonlinear if the sound is loud enough.

So if you want to sound convincing, talking about nonlinearity is your best bet. I can guarantee that 90% of the engineers you talk to won't have a sensible response because they've never studied nonlinear signal processing, and they'll be less likely to laugh at you.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (2, Informative)

serginho (909707) | more than 7 years ago | (#19139057)

"This is why vinyl fanatics get laughed at by people who know how and why digital audio works."

There's only problem with this: vinyl lovers are not worried about signal-to-noise ratios or the frequencies that are audible to the human ear. It is simply a matter of taste.

Vinyl records, if played in a decent setup (good turntables, good capsules, good speakers - but by no means audiophile gear), do sound different to CDs. They sound warmer, with more presence. That's what vinyl collectors are looking for.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

trentblase (717954) | more than 7 years ago | (#19139239)

Vinyl records, if played in a decent setup (good turntables, good capsules, good speakers - but by no means audiophile gear), do sound different to CDs. They sound warmer, with more presence. That's what vinyl collectors are looking for.
CDs sound different if played with digital filters. Don't tell me nobody's come up with a "reduce bandwidth and introduce artifacts so this CD sounds like vinyl" filter.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19137943)

That "300Hz-3.3kHz range" is for human vocals, sufficient for a phone conversation but our hearing covers 20 to 20k Hz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_%28sense%29# Hearing_in_humans). POTS sampling at 8k per second is therefore acceptable for a voice circuit but to record music or arbitrary sound you need a much higher sampling rate, for example 44kHz for audio CDs.

NOT better than CDs (5, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138161)

I'm not an audio engineer but from a telecom course I took the basic idea is that you sample at twice the highest frequency


You are correct, the Nyquist theorem states that you must record at a sampling rate that's above twice the higher frequency in your recording.


All this debate over vinil is rather tiresome. Anyone who has studied electronics engineering like I did knows that vinil records have a rather low signal-to-noise ratio. I did a course on "Probabilistic Models in Electric Engineering" where we learned how to calculate noise due to the fact that electric charge is quantized. Now, get this vinil fans: ELECTRIC CHARGE IS QUANTIZED. There is no such thing as a charge smaller than an electron, which is 1.6e-19 coulomb.


There are no such thing as analog values in this universe, everything is quantized. You cannot possibly have an electric signal that's totally free of noise, what you get is a number of "clicks", one for each electron that goes by. The same way, you cannot even hear a sound without noise, what you get is a number of "plocs", one for each air molecule that hits your eardrums.


Now, I know people will say, "sure, but these effects are very small". Well, think again. Human hearing evolved to be as sensitive as it physically could be. Inside an anechoic chamber you can hear the blood flowing through your veins. The sensitivity of our ears is just short from hearing individual molecules hitting the eardrum. In any analog pick-up, be it moving coil or moving magnet, human ears are sensitive enough to hear the noise due to the quantization of electric current.


Digital equipment have much better signal-to-noise rations because they have high currents in low-impedance circuits, the effect of charge quantization is diluted by averaging a large number of electrons. In analog vinil pick-ups either the impedance is relatively high for moving magnet models or the voltage is very low for moving coil types.


And all this is considering only the most fundamental effects, not to mention problems as dust on the record. The cleanest cleanroom specified in the ISO-14644 standard has 12 particles per cubic meter. The lowest spec in ISO-14644 allows over 40 million particles per cubic meter. Does the room where you do your listening conform to an ISO "cleanroom" specification?


Digital sound standards were created to be as good as they need to be. CDs have all the bandwidth and dynamic range one needs in the final recording. It's only when you are going to mix and resample the music that you may need better quality to avoid round-off error in the processing. Because of this, professional equipment normally use something like 24 bits @ 192 kbps. The widespread acceptance of MP3s show that the CD standard has actually a better quality than the majority of people need or want.

Mod parent up (-1, Offtopic)

virgil_disgr4ce (909068) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138233)

n/t

Re:NOT better than CDs (1)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138451)

Better is subjective. Do you deny that CDs sound different from Vinyl? As you point out, human ears are very, very sensitive, thus the noise and distortion on compact disc can be distinguished as different from the noise and distortion on Vinyl. Whether one measures better than the other is irrelevant. Some people, due to conditioning, random chance, etc find that they prefer the sound of Vinyl to the sound of Compact Disc. For them, Vinyl is "better." There are also people that prefer the sound generated by Vacuum tube amplifiers. Again, the distortion introduced by them is different and distinguishable from the distortion of solid state. The same principles apply. Leave these people alone. They like what they like.

Re:NOT better than CDs (3, Interesting)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138693)

No, "better" in this case is not subjective at all. I think you entirely missed his point. His point is that you can create any sound you want with digital. Any sound at all. If you wanted to make a digital version of a track that sounded like it did on vinyl, you could do that and put it on CD. The issue here is that CD audio is a lot closer to the original live audio. Therefore it's a better reproduction. Just as 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10 is a better representation of Pi than 3.14 is. So the question isn't so much "do you like CD or vinyl better". The question is "do you like live music or vinyl better". Because with CD, you've basically got the exact same sound as if you were actually at the concert.

Re:NOT better than CDs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138897)

As anyone who listens to live music knows, what you get with CD is not the same as the sound you get at a concert. It's the same as the original master. There's a long way to go yet in transducer technology.

Re:NOT better than CDs (2, Insightful)

colanut (541823) | more than 7 years ago | (#19139257)

The question is "do you like live music or vinyl better". Because with CD, you've basically got the exact same sound as if you were actually at the concert.


That is BS. CDs are no where near "live". First tracks (as in individual instruments) are recorded separately and then mixed together, edited in production and then eventually mastered for final encoding. There are many steps between recording and pressing and at each step there is loss/enhancement.

If CDs were so perfect, why was there a need to spec out SACD or DVD audio (other than the obvious audiophile cash grab)? Because CDs are mostly adequate. Also early CD mastering was pretty awful. CDs are convenient for the digital age, but I wouldn't consider them "source" perfect. Also, labels that produce vinyl might be recording and mastering analog so your point would be moot.

I'm not saying that vinyl is the most accurate recording of the source, but your CD worship is pretty baffling and ignorant of the audio recording/distribution process. The real question is: do you like the aesthetics of vinyl or the convenience of CDs? The question that the article is pointing too is that vinyl positive labels are now offering the convenience of digital with their experience. I don't see why people on either side of the "debate" must somehow declare superiority. People like what they like, and people will often set up business plans to make money off of it. This isn't a holy war...

Re:NOT better than CDs (5, Funny)

neomunk (913773) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138737)

There are no such thing as analog values in this universe
You tell that to my friend pi and his buddies. But be careful, I understand they can be quite irrational.

Re:NOT better than CDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19139061)

Now, get this vinil fans: ELECTRIC CHARGE IS QUANTIZED. There is no such thing as a charge smaller than an electron, which is 1.6e-19 coulomb.
You're not trying to imply that human ears (or any equipment) can detect a difference of a single electron in an audio system? Or are you trying to imply that vinyl fanatics don't know what an electron is?

Re:NOT better than CDs (1)

gordgekko (574109) | more than 7 years ago | (#19139165)

We are talking about a group of people who buy "special" cables which "improve" the sound of the final output, right?

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

c_fel (927677) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138289)

You're right. But still, the higher sampling frequency, the better it sounds, even when it's over 40kHz. It's because two near frequencies form a beat frequency that is the difference between these two frequencies. So even if you reproduce two frequencies that are not audible by humans, their beat frequency often can be eared.

But you have to have a very high fidelity sound system to reproduce these frequencies, so for most consumers, the sampling frequency of a CD is Okay.

It is also true that for most people, the problem with CDs is more with the quantization level. Actually we have to induce white noise at the encoding step, to be sure to reduce the quantization noise that is very, very disturbing for the ear. Analog doesn't have this quantization noise, but still, it has to be played in a very high fidelity system to be superior to CD quality.

Anyway, sound is personal, hey ?

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 7 years ago | (#19139139)

So even if you reproduce two frequencies that are not audible by humans, their beat frequency often can be eared.

But you have to have a very high fidelity sound system to reproduce these frequencies, so for most consumers, the sampling frequency of a CD is Okay.
I think the more likely explanation is that if you own a "very high fidelity sound system", it means you've spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to get a slight improvement in sound quality, and you'll think you hear a difference whether it's actually there or not... because you know that if you don't hear a difference, you're just a sucker.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137603)

I wonder -- what is the real ability of a vinyl record to store digital data?

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19137689)

There's a load of audiophile BS and folklore about the alleged failings of CDs, but they are the best widespread consumer audio format available.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137965)

But this doesn't have anything to do with the failings of CDs, but rather the failings of MP3s encoded from CDs. And how they relate to MP3s encoded from a source upstream of whatever downdsampling process is used to create the CDs themselves.

There is no doubt that a 320 kps MP3 encoded from a superior source to CD could potentially be superior to a 320 kps MP3 encoded from CD. The question is whether this is noticeable, and indeed, whether the MP3 in question could have higher fidelity than the uncompressed CD.

It is certainly possible to compare and make qualitative judgments even without being able to hear the difference, especially if you have the source material. All you have to do is use the MP3 or CD-audio file to reconstruct the original waveform using the best algorithm available and calculate the least-squares difference.

There are plenty of products where knowing one is technically better than the other despite being practically indistinguishable has sentimental value to the consumer.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138071)

The problem is that with vinyl, you are required to sanely mix their tracks, whereas with a CD you can blow out everything with no repercussion. On vinyl if you do that, you wind up with the needle skipping. It sounds better than a CD simply because of the physical limitations of the medium. Which wouldn't be an issue if "artists" didn't think blindly that louder is better, period.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (2, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138305)

Which wouldn't be an issue if "artists" didn't think blindly that louder is better, period.

It's often not the artist that makes this decision. Rather, it's whoever does the mastering that decides this. Sure, the label and artist sign off on it, but remember that the artist's ears are usually pretty shot from playing live music day in and day out. And the label doesn't want to have to pay to have it done again.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138553)

Whatever the reason, it still happens, and is a problem.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

eat here_get gas (907110) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138885)

"Which wouldn't be an issue if "artists" didn't think blindly that louder is better, period. "

"Made loud, to be played loud" j.giels band, 1974
I believed it then, I believe it now...if it's too loud, you're too old!

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138667)

That's a problem with vinyl? sounds like a feature to me.

With MP3 (or at least, with some unnamed but still lossy compressive scheme) it's possible to have your cake and eat it, too. You can specify the base volume level, and have your loud monstrosity, but with no skipping (as in the album) or loss of fidelity (as in the CD).

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138883)

That's what I was saying. I never said it was a problem, I said it was a physical limitation. Limitations aren't always bad.

And no, you can't get the same with an mp3. It still depends on the source CD, which is all the tracks already mixed together. The only solution would be to re-mix the source tracks so they weren't all loud as hell simultaneously [wikipedia.org] , and an LP basically forces you to do that.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (3, Interesting)

iangoldby (552781) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137895)

My understanding is that CDs go up to 20 kHz ... but that the bit-depth is somewhat course at that range.

You are probably thinking of 'one-bit' (or bitstream) digital to analogue converters. (Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] .) It gets around the problem of producing 16 bits of resolution with a single bit by switching at a frequency many times that of the sampling frequency and averaging over time.

In its purest form, it would switch at 2^16, or 65536 times the CD sample frequency. If one CD sample value is 0, the DAC would be off for 65536 DAC output samples. If the CD sample value is 65535 it is on for 65536 DAC output samples. For intermediate values it is on for the given proportion of the time. In other words, the CD sample value determines the duty-cycle of the output from the DAC. The one-bit on/off output is then averaged over time. This results in a conversion with almost no non-linear distortion of the signal.

Unfortunately a frequency of 65536 * 44.1 kHz would be in the THz range, so the actual frequency that a 1 bit DAC operates at is somewhat lower. For lower frequency audio signals the averaging process is still very accurate, but it loses some accuracy for the highest frequency audio tones mostly when there are rapid transients in the high frequencies. You might refer to this as a 'coarsening of the bit-depth'.

A full 16-bit DAC doesn't suffer from this problem because each sample from the CD is converted straight into a voltage proportional to that sample value in a single step. But it is very difficult to make a completely linear 16-bit DAC, so the non-lineararity of the DAC introduces its own distortions. But these distortions do not depend on frequency as they do with a 1-bit DAC.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

lufis (1102669) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137903)

Red Book CD audio is 16-bit.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138837)

Everybody, a big hand for Captain Obvious! *cheers and applause*

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138007)

IAAE.

CDs are 16-bit, 44.1kHz.
24-bits gives you a higher dynamic range (per sample, 44.1 being the samples per second). The higher the sampling frequency, the greater the frequency range (Nyquist frequency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency [wikipedia.org] ).
That is why CDs are 44.1, because humans supposedly only hear up to ~20kHz.

MP3 is a lossy format, I don't think there would be much to gain.
Although, I've never tried to encode an MP3 from a 24-bit source and not sure if that is even possible.

It would be awesome though if they sent you a data CD with the masters in WAV format.

(Those damn images, I can't read the words)

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

eat here_get gas (907110) | more than 7 years ago | (#19139095)

"MP3 is a lossy format, I don't think there would be much to gain. Although, I've never tried to encode an MP3 from a 24-bit source and not sure if that is even possible."

from the samples I heard, it's possible, but not practical, as the sound degradation is horrendous.

"It would be awesome though if they sent you a data CD with the masters in WAV format."

thats exactly how I collect my bootlegs. In my circles we shun mp3, not just because of its "lossy" stigma, but as to someone who REALLY appreciates THE SOUND(S) of music, mp3's are empty. Downgrading (or downsampling) to mp3 chucks out a lot of music. mp3's don't just compress the music, they throw out a lot of it, hence the inherent file size differences. On the other hand, SHN (shorten) and FLAC (free lossless audio codec) will compress music greatly, without sacrificing ONE SINGLE NOTE!

On a side note- since I collect/trade-for-free live concert recordings, and not commercially-produced cdr/lp/cass, drm and dmca is not a thing I worry about....

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 7 years ago | (#19139107)

They should give you the vinyl, a listen to-able MP3, and a hyper-master-mix (or unmix. Bung the tracks on there too.) FLAC version.

Re:Possibly better than CDs? (1)

eat here_get gas (907110) | more than 7 years ago | (#19139155)

um, mp3 and flac are oppositional. lossy vs. lossless. one or the other.

Sounds.... (1)

Dude McDude (938516) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137469)

...like a good idea!

Hybrids everywhere (2, Funny)

linguae (763922) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137475)

I guess I will be looking forward to playing my hybrid vinyl records in my hybrid Toyota soon.

Pulseblack has done it for a long time (3, Informative)

Echo5ive (161910) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137477)

http://pulseblack.com/ [pulseblack.com]

They've been doing this for a long long time with CDs. Very nice record label.

This is the future (4, Insightful)

tentimestwenty (693290) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137655)

As silly as it sounds with Indie Rock, Hip Hop, Jazz and to an extent, Classical, the sales of vinyl are growing at a quick rate and CDs are slowly massively. People value the sound quality and physicality of the vinyl and generally download the tracks from file-sharing to use portably or in the car. While I don't personally care too much for the free downloads, it will save a lot of people a lot of time and it keeps them "in-tow" with the record label's marketing. Everyone wins.

Re:This is the future (1)

mrdaveb (239909) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138887)

I do occasionally buy music on vinyl and attempt to download a digital copy for use on the move, so yes I agree that is possibly a growing market.

But unfortunately, vinyl sales as a whole are still decreasing, although of course not disappearing... I really wish I could find a link to the stats, I remember seeing BPI figures a while back, but I can't easily google them up now. Anyway, LP and 12" single sales were down a bit quite a few % compared to the previous year, although for some odd reason sales of 7" singles were going through the roof

Re:Pulseblack has done it for a long time (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137697)

With CDs? What, you buy the CD and they'll let you download mp3s? If I have the CD, I'll encode it myself...

HUH? (0, Offtopic)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137485)

HUH?

Cancel your XM accounts! (-1, Offtopic)

MrP- (45616) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137495)

*** XM RADIO SUSPENDS OPIE & ANTHONY FOR 30 DAYS ***

IF YOU HAVE AN XM SATELLITE SUBSCRIPTION PLEASE CALL 1-800-XM-RADIO (1-800-967-2346) AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT NOW.

IF YOU HAVE AN XM RADIO ONLINE-ONLY ACCOUNT PLEASE GO TO http://listen.xmradio.com [xmradio.com] AND CLICK ON "Manage Your Account." THEN, CLICK ON "Change Billing Info" AND YOU'LL FIND THE LINK TO CANCEL.

SHOW XM THAT YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THEIR DECISION!

BE SURE TO LET THEM KNOW THE SUSPENSION IS THE REASON! - DO NOT ACCEPT FREE OFFERS!



[peopleagai...orship.org]

The Crimes of Reverend Al Sharpton



TAX EVASION: In a 1988 interview, Sharpton said he saw no reason why blacks should pay taxes. If we do not have a justice system that protects us, what are we paying for? Sharpton has faced multiple chargesand one convictionof tax evasion.


TAWANA BRAWLY: 1987. Al Sharpton, during the infamous Tawana Brawley case, falsely accused a former assistant district attorney of ****** and sodomizing Ms. Brawley. Young Tawana stated that white racists abducted, *****, and sodomized her, scrawling the initials KKK on her in human feces. A grand jury later found the entire incident a complete hoax. Most likely, Ms. Brawley, afraid of punishment for staying out too late, fabricated the entire story. This did not stop Reverend Al Sharpton, who accused Pagones an assistant district attorney, of the crime. We stated openly that Steven Pagones did it. If were lying, sue us, so we can go into court with you and prove you did it. Sue ussue us right now.


Pagones did. After receiving death threats, and threats against his child, Pagones sued Sharpton and two others for defamation. A jury unanimously concluded that Sharpton defamed Pagones, ordering Sharpton to pay $65,000 to Pagones. The Reverend promptly announced his intention not to pay. A couple years later, Sharptons buddies passed the hat and paid off Sharptons debt, which totaled $87,000 with interest and penalties. To this day, never having paid one penny of his own to Pagones, Sharpton refuses to apologize, I did what I believed.They are asking me to grovel. They want black children to say they forced a black man coming out of the hard-core ghetto to his knees.Once you begin bending, its did you bend today? or I missed the apology, say it again. Once you start compromising, you lose respect for yourself.


CENTRAL PARK JOGGER: In 1989 the jogger, a young white woman, was monstrously ***** and nearly beaten to death in Central Park. Sharpton insisteddespite the defendants confessionsthat her black attackers were innocent, modern-day Scottsboro Boys trapped in a fit of racial hysteria. Sharpton charged that the joggers boyfriend did it, and organized protests outside the courthouse, chanting, The boyfriend did it! and denouncing the victim as Whore! He brought Tawana Brawley to the trial, to show her white justice and arranged for her to meet the attackers. Sharpton appealed for a psychiatrist to examine the victim, generously saying, It doesnt even have to be a black psychiatrist.Were not endorsing the damage to the girlif there was this damage. (While it doesnt excuse his calling the victim a whore and denigrating any damage to her, or his accusations against the boyfriend, the convictions of the accused were eventually vacated, despite their taped confessions, after another manwhose DNA matchedconfessed to the **** in 2002.)


CROWN HEIGHTS/ DIAMOND MERCHANTS: In 1991, Gavin Cato, a seven-year-old black child was killed in a traffic accident in Crown Heights (in Brooklyn), when a car driven by a Hasidic Jew went out of control. Sharpton turned it into a racial incident. Sharpton led 400 protesters through the Jewish section of Crown Heights, with one protester holding a sign that read, The White Man Is the Devil. There were four nights of rock- and bottle-throwing, and a young Talmudic scholar was surrounded by a mob shouting, Kill the Jew and stabbed to death. A hundred others were injured. Sharpton said, The world will tell us that [Gavin Cato] was killed by accident.What type of city do we have that would allow politics to rise above the blood of innocent babies?Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights.All we want to say is what Jesus said: If you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise. Pay for your deeds. Later Sharpton said, If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.


ARAFAT: When Sharpton announced a 2001 trip to the Middle East, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach helped plan his itinerary. Sharpton, according to the Rabbi, promised not to meet with Yassir Arafat, yet only days later, Jewish New Yorkers opened the morning paper to see a smiling Arafat and Sharpton, meeting and shaking hands in Israel. Furious, Rabbi Boteach said, Prior to our recent trip to Israel, U.S. black leader Reverend Al Sharpton and I discussed several times that there were to be no meetings with Arab or Palestinian leaders, not because I wished to set preconditions for our travel, but because the express objective of our mission was to show solidarity with Israeli victims of terror. The idea was to provide a magnanimous gesture of friendship and solidarity with the Jewish nation that would hopefully have strong reverberations for the relationship of the Jewish and black communities back home.


FREDDYS FASHION MART/WHITE INTERLOPER: 1995. A Jewish store owner in Harlem was accused of driving a black record store owner out of business, when the United House of Prayer, one of the largest black landlords on 125th Street, raised the rent on the Fashion Mart owned by a Jew, Freddy Harari, who then raised the rent on his subtenant, Sikhulu Shange, who ran a record store. At one of many rallies meant to scare the Jewish owner away, Sharpton said, There is a systematic and methodical strategy to eliminate our people from doing business off 125th Street. I want to make it clearthat we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business. Following a demonstration three months later, one of the protestors, a black man, stormed Freddys Fashion Mart with a pistol, screaming, Its on now! All blacks out! In addition to shooting, he set fire to the building, eventually killing himself and seven others. Initially, Sharpton denied having spoken at any rallies. When tapes surfaced, he said, Whats wrong with denouncing white interlopers? Eventually, he apologizedbut only for saying white, not interloper.


CRIMINAL JUSTICE: During the Million Man March in Washington, civil rights activist Al Sharpton thundered, O.J. is home, but Mumia Abu Jamal aint home. And we wont stop till all of our people that need a chance in an awkward and unbalanced criminal justice system can come home.


OUT OF THE KING MOVEMENT: Although he was 14 when Martin Luther King was assassinated, Sharpton claims he came out of the King movement. Sharpton once explained, I was on some show this week, and people said, Why dont you just let it go? Why dont yall just get over it? Get over what? Get over Dr. King dying? Get over Medger Evers dying? Get over Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner dying? Get over those four girls in Birmingham dying? We are never gonna get over it, and we are never gonna let you forget it!


FBI TAPES/COCAINE: In 2002, HBO aired a 19-year-old FBI surveillance of Sharpton with self-described mobster Michael Franzese and an undercover FBI agent posing as a Latin American businessman. The three were discussing promoting boxing matches and musical events. HBOs Real Sports got a hold of a hidden camera video that shows undercover agent Victor Quintana posing as a drug dealer trying to convince Sharpton to play a middleman in a big cocaine buy.


Sharpton asks the undercover agent, What kind of time limit are we dealing with?


Coke? the agent asks.


Yeah. Sharpton says.


The phony drug dealer says, Could be about the same time we have 4 million coming to us.


Sharpton: End of April?


End of April. Six weeks from now. Is that a good time you think? the agent asks.


Probably, Sharpton replies.


Later on, the undercover agent offers Sharpton a finder's fee for help with the drug deal and says to Sharpton, I can get pure coke for about $35,000 a kilo ... Every kilogram we bring in, $3,500 to you. How does that sound? Sharpton nods in response.


The deal never went down, and Sharpton has said he was just playing along because he was scared of the would-be kingpin. And I'm in his office. I don't know whether this man is armed. I don't know what's going on. So I kind of say, Yeah, yeah, yeah, to get out of there, Sharpton claimed the tape was leaked by law enforcement officials to disrupt his 2004 presidential run, and he sued HBO, its parent company AOL Time Warner, and several individuals who worked on the story. No charges were ever brought against Sharpton because of the tape, which was allegedly made to get Sharpton to act as an informant for the feds into an investigation into corruption by Don King and the boxing industry. The HBO report featured former Mafia captain Michael Franzese saying that the FBI was on the right track when it targeted Sharpton in a sting back in 1983 to try and root out corruption in boxing.


Sharpton admitted in 1988 that he informed for the government in order to get rid of drugs and election fraud in black neighborhoods. He denied informing on civil rights leaders and organized crime figures.


FBI TAPES/DONATIONS: After Sharptons name surfaced on wiretaps in an unrelated Philadelphia City Hall corruption case, the FBI launched a probe into Sharptons fund-raising for his failed 2004 presidential run. The FBI secretly videotaped Sharpton on May 9, 2003, pocketing campaign donations from two shady fund-raisers in a NY City hotel room, and then demanding $25,000 more. The two fund-raisers were La-Van Hawkins and the late Ronald White. Hawkins is currently on trial in Philadelphia on corruption charges. White was going to be indicted, but died before charges were brought. A later wiretap recorded Hawkins telling White that they had raised more than $140,000 for Sharpton the previous quarter, but Hawkins was concerned that Sharpton had only reported about $50,000 to the Federal Election Commission, as required by law. Sharpton said the allegations were a politically motivated smokescreen to hide the fact the Justice Department is out to get him. He ripped the probe and the secret videotaping, saying, Can you imagine what would happen if it was a white presidential candidate?



[peopleagai...orship.org]

Re:Cancel your XM accounts! (-1, Offtopic)

MrP- (45616) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137629)

http://www.peopleagainstcensorship.org [peopleagai...orship.org]

Re:Cancel your XM accounts! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138515)

Thanks for posting this off topic item. I have extended my 3 XM subscriptions for a year each.

Re:Cancel your XM accounts! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138555)

That's not censorship, you dolt. The company that carries their show has decided to suspend them; completely within their right. Furthermore, the First Amendment doesn't consider obscenity as a protected class of speech.

Now, regardless of how I feel personally about what those guys said; this whole deal has nothing to do with censorship; not to mention off-topic in terms of the original article.

Fuck Opie & Anthony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19137819)

What kind of half-wit listens to those two buffoons anyways? Good fucking riddance. It's censorship when the government won't let you say what you want. It's not censorship if a business does not want to let a couple of sophomoric chimps fling feces on air. That's just good business sense.

Re:Cancel your XM accounts! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19137823)

Damn I wish there was a -1: Retarded

Funny coincidence (3, Insightful)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137523)

I just bought a turntable as an impulse purchase, a Pionner PL-516 for the curious. I have about 30 LPs lying around. I saw that HMV (a music store) had some new vinyl titles in stock, so I grabbed one at random, "The Arcade Fire". An abominable album to be sure, but it was just to hear how new vinyl sounds. Sounds pretty good. Got this famous coupon in there as well.

My conclusion is that this is how things should work. Obviously there's a demand for vinyl, and the convenience of digital is undeniable. Somehow, music companies got this right.

Re:Funny coincidence (2, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137667)

The most impressive thing I have ever seen with vinyl disks was a friend saying "you have to listen to this" and searching the disk for a particular pattern and dropping the needle on it.
Deadly accurate and spot on.
You could see the entire album and know where quiet sections are and how much to skip to to get past the annoying interlude or whatever.

Re:Funny coincidence (2, Funny)

TenBrothers (995309) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138075)

I must be old to see this comment as cute and quaint.

Re:Funny coincidence (1)

JensenDied (1009293) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138177)

Sticking with the seeing the music.
You can do this with your digital collection on Amarok with the moodbar [kde.org] plugin.

Re:Funny coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138979)

Most record shops around here (here being a major metropolitan area in Canada) sell a lot of new albums as vinyl records. The thing is that the vinyl version of the album is twice as expensive as the CD version. And a large enough number of people still buy the vinyl versions over the CDs, mostly college kids, but it still happens enough so the music shops keep the vinyl in stock.

That Arcade Fire album you got, the CD version I have, which is now an MP3 version, sounds fantastic, much better than a vinyl record, and it's portable to boot! And it cost half as much! MY GOD!

That's not a hybrid (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137559)

Any more than a book with an offer inside for an eBook version is a hybrid hard/soft copy.

Anyway, years ago magazines had flexidisks on the cover which could (if you were lucky) be used to load data into a home computer.

Wow, this is awesome (3, Insightful)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137573)


I'm in a small minority, but I'm a rabid music collector. Often times I'll buy both the cd and the vinyl versions of an album (the vinyl to listen to at home, the cd for the car or to rip to portable player). Basically, this allows me to only buy one version of the album (vinyl, the version I really want anyway) and just burn a copy for the car and drop one on the mp3 player. The only way this could get better is if they start supporting flac...then I can convert that to whatever format I want. This is great news for the indie / record junkie scene, though.

ffffff black people (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19137587)

how does black people know what watermelons is ;_;

Really go retro: old tape recorder interfaces (1)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137591)

Codes to access an MP3 is so lame. I thought they were resurrecting the audio data file format used in early home computers that read data to and from a normal cassette tape recorder.

If they're going to go retro with vinyl, they might as well go retro on the computer formats too.

Re:Really go retro: old tape recorder interfaces (1)

shredthrashgrind (960700) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138067)

Surprise! People actually LISTEN to music from vinyl nowadays. Some even claim that the quality is better than other availbile audio formats (although its up for debate). Nobody actually still reads data from a casette tape recorder... I don't even understand what you're suggesting - should said record companies distribute data tapes with their vinyls? Really?? I think their solution is rather elegant. A feasible hard-copy alternative might be to pair a data CD with vinyls.

Re:Really go retro: old tape recorder interfaces (1)

Dieppe (668614) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138871)

It is a very elegant solution! If you want the digital version, you just have to use your bandwidth to download. Providing a physical CD with the vinyls puts manufacturing a CD back on the record company. (Not to dis your suggestion.. just.. they should only have to provide one physical format, and an optional digital format. Awesome!) :)

DRM - no sense (5, Insightful)

Skadet (528657) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137637)

"Making a legal, paid-for version of the file less useful than a copied or pirated one doesn't make sense."
And herein is the best anti-DRM argument there is. Just this sentence and no further. If I were writing a thesis on DRM, this would be my main point.

Of course, expading the "doesn't make sense" part is important. It's also critical for the surely-to-be analogizers below to realise that this has no usefulr real world (as in, tangible) comparison. If three clicks of the mouse provides you with something far more useful than something you've shelled out your hard-earned cash for, something is wrong. Lax enforcement -- not to mention the difficulty of enforcement -- and fuzzy laws make this so.

It's not as easy as saying, "Stealing a car has more utility than buying one, we should all steal cars!" since enforcement and history are so vastly different. See, the car analogy is wrong! Ha!

Been doing this for awhile (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137643)

I know I've seen various rekkids put out by Merge and Matador Records that had stickers on the front offering exactly this sort of thing. The thing is that I saw those albums about 1-2 years ago. This isn't exactly new...

The Fools! (5, Funny)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137695)

Don't they realise that evil hackers will make multiple copies from the vinyl to audio cassettes and listen to it on portable tape players? Home Taping Is Killing music!

Re:The Fools! (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138229)

We must outlaw candles immediately, since pirates can use the wax contained in them to make copies of these vinyls. Only a pirate would own a candle!

Re:The Fools! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138731)

When candles are outlawed etc etc...

Audiophiles will be happy with this (1)

Yapz (934682) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137787)

I hope they took the MP3's from the same master as the vinyls. Will make some audiophiles happy since both actually will -do- sound good.

Re:Audiophiles will be happy with this (1)

kurbchekt (890891) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138573)

Not me. Sound frequency has to be downgraded (especially the bass) when converting music to vinyl format as the deeper resonance bass can cause the groove to intersect when cutting.

Somewhat pointless (3, Interesting)

11223 (201561) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137791)

Given that I can buy totally unmolested WAVs from Beatport [beatport.com] , what's the point? I find it hard to believe that there are vinyl purists who want MP3s, or that those who would work with an MP3 wouldn't rather deal with a master-quality WAV which can be manipulated even more.

Lossy compression is just as insidious as DRM when the bandwidth for CD-quality uncompressed audio is available.

And to those who say you can't hear the difference, if you slow the track down by 50%, you can. If you don't know why you would do that, ask a DJ.

Re:Somewhat pointless (2, Informative)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138395)

Lossy compression is just as insidious as DRM when the bandwidth for CD-quality uncompressed audio is available.

And lossless compression like flac [sf.net] makes even more sense.

Re:Somewhat pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138843)

I don't know a dj. Please explain.

Re:Somewhat pointless (1)

hkgroove (791170) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138963)

But is that a limitation of the software that changes the tempo from say 128 bpm to 64 bpm? (In Ableton or a CDJ)?

I've actually quite wondered this for a while. I know that there have been times when I've changed the tempo but used the 'pitch-lock' on the first version of the Pioneer CDJ1000 and heard a noticeable distortion as I changed the tempo. (I also heard this on vinyl that I ripped directly to WAV).

The MK3s have been better about this. It has been sometime since I've actually tried changing the tempo drastically.

Tenacious D (1)

vulcan (30164) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137811)

I bought the /Pick of Destiny/ picture disc LP, and it came with a code to download non-DRM MP3s as well. Can't remember who released it for certain; was it Sony? (Seems ironic, I know.)

Re:Tenacious D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138847)

Tenacious D's "Pick of Destiny" soundtrack/album was released by Epic Records, an imprint of Sony BMG. But it's rather hard to know how well the many arms of the music industries are controlled (or even guided) by their head company.

someone gets it (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137853)

"Making a legal, paid-for version of the file less useful than a copied or pirated one doesn't make sense."

BINGO, YES why can't the rest of them understand this?

Re:someone gets it (1)

[Marvin] (46773) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138251)

Indeed! Consumers tend to follow the path of least resistance. IMHO the best way to combat piracy would be to provide superior content for paying customers. A couple of examples come to mind....

- My Futurama DVDs have anti-copy warnings in four different languages that I have to sit through after *each* episode. How is that better than having them sitting around on my hard drive in DivX format without all the superfluous junk?
-My MST3K boxsets are region 1 because no European distributer can be bothered with them...which means I have to use region-defeating software when I watch them on my computer.

I sometimes feel like a fool for buying movies and music instead of downloading it...

Oh, but they do! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138623)

>>> "Making a legal, paid-for version of the file less useful than a copied or pirated one doesn't make sense."

> BINGO, YES why can't the rest of them understand this?

They do. That's the "beauty" of it. They're in for the money; they know fully well they're screwing the innocent while real pirates go on without being bothered.

I think:

a) they want their music to be pirated where they cannot enforce law, because this is a cheap not-very-efficient way of promoting;

b) they like it: being able to screw people and presenting a false excuse to gullible judges probably is very rewarding for some executives.

What amazes me is how loads and loads of people are being had and keep thinking "it's ok!".

320kbit/s noobness. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19137901)

320kbit/s CBR mp3 encodes are the ultimate "I have no idea what I'm doing" sign in the audio coding world. All the downsides of mp3 (lossy, huge files) with none of the benefits. "I'll just turn all the knobs to 'highest' and hope that's good".

Re:320kbit/s noobness. (1)

hkgroove (791170) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138997)

Well, then get on the labels' ass or the distributor of them to only support WAV or a lossless format.

DJing in a club, most people, even the audiophiles can barely notice. Even on a solid setup that's not hampered by some moron using self-powered mackies and a pioneer mixer (note: use Allen and Heath)

'enhanced' CDs (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19137905)

They used to make these multi session audio CDs with the CD audio also encoded as WMA on the second session.

They don't make them anymore. The distributors had to pay out twice the royalties to the artists since there were two copies being distributed.

Somehow I don't think this new scheme will last long.

Looks cool, and functional too (2, Insightful)

CheeseTroll (696413) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137981)

Perfect, now audiophiles can look cool with their 'retro' collections of vinyl (even if they never listen to them), and still get easy access to the far-more-functional digital copy.

Ah, vinyl... (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 7 years ago | (#19137995)

the original, rental model, of DRM!*

-
*Yes I know what the D stands for.

Even better idea... (1)

keithmo (453716) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138133)

...distribute the MP3 files on vinyl [artsci.net] .

The sky is falling, the sky is falling! (2, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138173)

Making a legal, paid-for version of the file less useful than a copied or pirated one doesn't make sense.

Someone selling content realizes the "value" of DRM? Excuse me for a moment, I gotta check for flying pigs. And could someone who has his number call the big red guy and ask him if the temperature in his home is still cozy?

Re:The sky is falling, the sky is falling! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138755)

Quite comfy, actually. A little overcast, but on every soul a little shadow must fall.

Re:The sky is falling, the sky is falling! (1)

maharvey (785540) | more than 7 years ago | (#19139043)

And could someone who has his number call the big red guy and ask him if the temperature in his home is still cozy?

Haven't you heard the north pole is melting? Oh wait, wrong big red guy who enjoys extreme temperatures and, um, is real interested in who's naughty, and who is known as "Nick"... hooboy, my kids ain't gonna like this!

BAH (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138329)

Sounds great....now if they only had some records to sell :(

There seems to be one album and 11 (sidebar says 8) singles.

That was a waste to follow that link :/

I did the same as another poster and grabbed new vinyl at random just too play a new one. Next time i'll be more careful, hehe. Full blown vintage Pioneer system with 4-channel 8-track player/recorders :) My buddy never realized we were listening to an 8-track mix tape ;)

Analog and/or Digital (1)

Dj Stingray (178766) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138493)

Okay, this, to me (as a DJ) is pretty retarded. Why wouldn't they just include a CD with the vinyl? Why should I have to download anything? Seems like a waste of bandwidth to me. CDR's costs nothing to make.

Real DJ's want the original vinyl, but most still end up converting them to some sort of digital format if they do a lot of traveling (vinyl weighs a TON). It seems to me this is an attempt to get the consumer to their website.

I don't know anything.

Re:Analog and/or Digital (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138637)

Seems like a waste of bandwidth to me. CDR's costs nothing to make.

Bandwidth costs less.

woah, saddle creek! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19138539)

cursive!

I own Torq (1)

killermookie (708026) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138741)

How is this different from Serato Scratch Live [rane.com] or Torq [torq-dj.com] ?

The double-headed approach makes sense for several reasons. DJs and audiophiles will always want the top end of quality, so they will buy physical media, but for convenience you can't beat a digital file.


Yes, it's an analog record playing a digital song. I don't think it's as the highest quality from playing a true record that has the real song imprinted in it.

Otherwise, Torq is amazing and I really like it.

This is ALMOST old news. (1)

whitewhale (935135) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138811)

As of the last few months, I almost never buy CDs anymore---- I'm lucky enough to have a great record store (Amoeba) that sells lots of new vinyl, and now I only buy records that include a download of the album. Recent LP+MP3 purchases include:

Ted Leo: Living with the Living [tedleo.com]
Low: Drums and Guns [subpop.com]
Coco Rosie: The Adventures of Ghosthorse & Stillborn [touchandgorecords.com] (sorry, Flash, but pretty)
Of Montreal: Hissing Fauna, Are You the Destroyer? [polyvinylrecords.com]
Blonde Redhead: 23 [blonderedhead23.com]
M. Ward: Post-War [mergerecords.com]


I totally cannot tell you how much better it feels to spend my $12.99 on an LP than a cheap, disposable CD that becomes garbage after I import it.

And the best part is I'm selling Amoeba all my CDs to pay for it all!

Wish I could mod that up... (2, Insightful)

Valtor (34080) | more than 7 years ago | (#19138961)

Making a legal, paid-for version of the file less useful than a copied or pirated one doesn't make sense.
It is a pity we can't mod that +5 insightful for the other guys in that industry...

Not a True Hybrid (2, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 7 years ago | (#19139121)

Its not a true hybrid until they figure out a way to get MP3s to skip and warp if you leave them in a hot car.

They do have MP3 turntables you can use to 'scratch' recordings.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...