The new HMV downloads store. More competition, still no full-rez quality...

[AlmaataKZ]

http://whathifi.com/News/HMV-aims-to-rival-iTunes-with-launch-of-digital-store/

It is of cause good to have another competitor on the market but, regrettably, still no sign of high-qualilty mainstream downloads...

I already have music on CD. The music I cound not / did not want to get on CD (e.g. where I needed only 1 or 2 tracks from an album) I have downloaded from other sites.

The only way to get me (i.e. somebody with existing music colelction) interested in paying for another download is to offer it in higher quality than what I already have. Otherwise this is only interesting for 'new' collectors who do not want lossless music.

Sad. Will anybody ever move that way?

 

[The_Lhc]

You're expecting quality from HMV?

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Why not? I am expecting quality from everybody!

 

[Andrew Everard]

The truth of the matter is that, of course, the vast majority of people don't really care a jot about the quality of a download, provided it's listenable. Those of us interested in hi-rez downloads are a tiny fraction of a one percent of the market.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

But we would pay a bit more....

... per track...

... not total volume...

ah, this is becoming hopeless... All the necessary technology is there and the only option to get a lossless mainstream track is to buy a CD which was designed 25 years ago!

 

[Andrew Everard]

Hey, that wasn't my view - just the way the companies offering these services think. More interested in breadth of catalogue, price and speed of download for punters; a lot less interested in higher-resolution files.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Andrew Everard:Hey, that wasn't my view - just the way the companies offering these services think. More interested in breadth of catalogue, price and speed of download for punters; a lot less interested in higher-resolution files.

Yes, I know, you are just reflecting on the realities ... and I am also interested in breadth of catalogue, price and speed - but not at the expense of quality. The best would be to offer choice of price and resolution.

Well, just got an answer from HMV (not that I expected any answer and not that I asked specifically about FLAC):

--------------

Hello,

Sorry for the problem that you have experienced.

Presently, we do not offer a large selection of FLAC content because most of our distributors do not yet offer their content that format. We are pushing for them to do this and expect FLAC to be much more prominent in the next year or so.

Thanks,
hmvdigital

------------

Good thing will come to those who wait!

 

[Anonymous]

AlmaataKZ:
Andrew Everard:Hey, that wasn't my view - just the way the companies offering these services think. More interested in breadth of catalogue, price and speed of download for punters; a lot less interested in higher-resolution files.

Yes, I know, you are just reflecting on the realities ... and I am also interested in breadth of catalogue, price and speed - but not at the expense of quality. The best would be to offer choice of price and resolution.

Well, just got an answer from HMV (not that I expected any answer and not that I asked specifically about FLAC):

--------------

Hello,

Sorry for the problem that you have experienced.

Presently, we do not offer a large selection of FLAC content because most of our distributors do not yet offer their content that format. We are pushing for them to do this and expect FLAC to be much more prominent in the next year or so.

Thanks,
hmvdigital

------------

Good thing will come to those who wait!
so they actually know about flac or some kind of lossless methods
it will no doubt happen sooner or later to all these downloading sites hopefully sooner.

 

[Alec]

Andrew Everard:The truth of the matter is that, of course, the vast majority of people don't really care a jot about the quality of a download, provided it's listenable. Those of us interested in hi-rez downloads are a tiny fraction of a one percent of the market.

Indeed. There was an article by some industry bod in the latest of one of the mens mags about the culture of wanting everything for free, in whiuch he mentioned that MP3s sound awful but A) they do not (always) and B)...well...what Andrew said.

Then he mentioned some new super format thats in development by someone or otther, i think.

 

[mattjax05]

How do you get the 5 free downloads, just registered and it's not clear if this offer exists?

 

[mitch65]

AlmaataKZ:
But we would pay a bit more....

... per track...

... not total volume...

ah, this is becoming hopeless... All the necessary technology is there and the only option to get a lossless mainstream track is to buy a CD which was designed 25 years ago!

I would love to see a better choice of HD music downloads but unless most of the population of buyers wean themselves off life sucking compressed music then HD downloads will only ever be a niche market like vinyl which would be a massive shame IMO.

 

[Andrew Everard]

mattjax05:How do you get the 5 free downloads, just registered and it's not clear if this offer exists?
I rest my case.

 

[mattjax05]

Andrew Everard:mattjax05:How do you get the 5 free downloads, just registered and it's not clear if this offer exists? I rest my case.

The case in respect of the majority of consumers not interested in the quality of music downloads?

I'm not in that category btw, I just wanted to test a download on my system, looks like I will have to spend 40p

 

[Joe Cox]

mattjax - the five free downloads seems to have been a limited offer to previous users of the hmvdigital site. I'll remove the reference in the news story, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Dan Turner]

It seems to me that if nothing else, offering CD quality downloads would be a no-brainer. Even if 1% of the market for physical CD purchases (i.e. those who would not buy an MP3 download over quality issues) adopted that instead then that's got to represent a massive cut in overheads for someone like HMV, for only a small reduction in the sale price compared with a physical CD purchased on-line.

If you went for a market that was buying a CD quality or better download then clearly that consumer is going to understand and accept a reasonable wait for their purchase to download, so that shouldn't be an issue for the retailer.

The only reason I buy physical CDs is because I don't want to accept a reduction in quality just for the sake of convenience. Clearly the means exists for us to have both, so it's annoying that only a very few niche retailers have cottoned on to that fact that there is a market for it.

 

[6th.replicant]

AlmaataKZ:
But we would pay a bit more....

... per track...

... not total volume...

ah, this is becoming hopeless... All the necessary technology is there and the only option to get a lossless mainstream track is to buy a CD which was designed 25 years ago!

Indeed.

Surely logic dictates that if CD sales are still bouyant(ish), then the same punters would want the same quality, or higher, via DL? Why don't the record companies offer lossless and/or studio master DLs direct?

Can't help thinking that if just one of the major brands had the savvy to take the plunge, then the rest...

 

[The_Lhc]

6th.replicant:Surely logic dictates that if CD sales are still bouyant(ish), then the same punters would want the same quality, or higher, via DL?

Not at all, cd is the only format of choice for physical purchases, so people aren't necessarily buying them for sound quality reasons, rather that they don't have any choice. That doesn't imply that your average muggle will make any connection between that and download sound quality or even notice the difference.

 

[6th.replicant]

the_lhc:6th.replicant:Surely logic dictates that if CD sales are still bouyant(ish), then the same punters would want the same quality, or higher, via DL?

Not at all, cd is the only format of choice for physical purchases, so people aren't necessarily buying them for sound quality reasons, rather that they don't have any choice. That doesn't imply that your average muggle will make any connection between that and download sound quality or even notice the difference.
True, but perhaps the real answer lies 'tween the two? The 'average muggle'(!) also appears to be content with plugging their iPod into a budget one-box setup and gleefully jettisoning their CDs. If I had a tenner for every time a pal said, "Do you want my old CDs? I don't need them anymore." And that same person now makes all of their new music purchases via iTunes et al.

Which kinda leads me to believe that a goodly proportion of CD purchasers do indeed want SQ?

 

[Andrew Everard]

I'm not sure anyone wants stereo quadrophonic - that format hasn't been around for decades.

 

[Anonymous]

Having downloaded several albums in 24/96 FLAC from HdTracks and acquired about 20 DVD-audios/DualDisc and converted the 24/96PCM to FLAC, I would say forget 16/44.1 FLAC and just offer higher quality downloads as the difference in sound quality is quite significant if you have a correctly set up 24bit system.

Whether this will happen or not is another matter. When DualDisc launched back in 2004, Sony/Epic was not interested in offering 24bit on the DVD side, so just offered so called "enhanced" 16/48 audio whilst all the other labels tended to release 24/96.

Much as I would like to see mainstream 24/96 downloads, I just can't see it happening unless one of the big record companies takes a punt, but I do think there is a sustainable market out there for HQ downloads, especially as a lot of people already have the necessary hardware.

 

[The_Lhc]

bendrummond:
Having downloaded several albums in 24/96 FLAC from HdTracks and acquired about 20 DVD-audios/DualDisc and converted the 24/96PCM to FLAC, I would say forget 16/44.1 FLAC and just offer higher quality downloads as the difference in sound quality is quite significant if you have a correctly set up 24bit system.

Whether this will happen or not is another matter. When DualDisc launched back in 2004, Sony/Epic was not interested in offering 24bit on the DVD side, so just offered so called "enhanced" 16/48 audio whilst all the other labels tended to release 24/96.

Much as I would like to see mainstream 24/96 downloads, I just can't see it happening unless one of the big record companies takes a punt, but I do think there is a sustainable market out there for HQ downloads, especially as a lot of people already have the necessary hardware.

I think you'd need to define "a lot", I suspect in terms of a percentage of the market it's actually "not very many". I listen almost entirely to streaming audio and I'm a lot more tech-savvy than most and i have no way of listening to 24-bit audio.

 

[6th.replicant]

6th.replicant:...Which kinda leads me to believe that a goodly proportion of CD purchasers do indeed want SQ?
Andrew Everard:I'm not sure anyone wants stereo quadrophonic - that format hasn't been around for decades.

Ah, the ambiguity of abbreviations. Therefore, no doubt, cars equipped with ESP is also a source of much mirth?

 

[Anonymous]

I was referring to the fact those most modern PC's have soundcards that are 24bit capable, so you have the option of either routing audio via minijack to an amplifier (assuming your soundcard's DAC is up to the job) or SPDIF-out to an external DAC/Receiver.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Tom Petty sells hi-rez music on his site, apparently.

 

[The_Lhc]

bendrummond:I was referring to the fact those most modern PC's have soundcards that are 24bit capable, so you have the option of either routing audio via minijack to an amplifier (assuming your soundcard's DAC is up to the job) or SPDIF-out to an external DAC/Receiver.

That would kind of defeat the object of having the NAS and Sonos allowing me to listen to music without the PC on though. And it's not so straightforward to get a PC to play music without mucking about with the signal either, something I just can't be bothered to worry about, if I'm honest.