Re: [ARSCLIST] CD versus Download was "All hail the analogue revolution..."

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

One man's experience here. I was very skeptical about ripping any classical material to MP3 for the 
iPod. However, I've been happy with the results at 192K with old mono classical albums. There 
stereo, no way. The MP3 format screws up the timbre and tone of the instruments, the air and space 
of the hall and a good classical album that's not recorded with a dummy head doesn't sound natural 
with headphones, at least not to me. Mono is a different story. It seems to work well with 
headphones and the 192K format is OK with what are somewhat fidelity-limited old recordings anyway. 
It still sounds weird to have a whole symphony going in the earbuds, but it makes a pleasant option 
for listening sometimes.

I don't have any stats to prove it, but something tells me that classical is a tiny, tiny market on 
iTunes. One thing that would be a great use for the Internet and classical would be if orchestras 
would podcast their concert broadcasts. It could introduce a whole new audience to the genre and to 
the difference between live performance and recorded performance. I'd gladly pay a couple of dollars 
if the bitrate were high enough that the sound was really OK. Plus, for instance, I'd gladly pay 
once in a while to hear the Cleveland or Chicago or a European orchestra. No way I'd ever be able to 
hear their broadcasts -- and a lot of these orchestras don't have regular recording contracts 
anymore. I can't see why this isn't a reality already. I see that some orchestras have 
terrible-sounding Real or WinMedia streams, but who wants to be pinned to their desktop?

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Richter" <mrichter@xxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] CD versus Download was "All hail the analogue revolution..."


> Karl Miller wrote:
>
> > I wonder if the classical market is less suited to the download. No doubt,
> > economics will be, to a large part, the determining factor...but I
> > consider how classical discs have, from time to time, cost more. Plus I
> > look to the popularity of labels like Brilliant where collections of the
> > "complete" are popular...especially at what they charge.
> >
> > I also think about the nature of classical music with its wide dynamic
> > range and the complexity of sound.
> >
> > Any thoughts out there as to whether there might be a potential for the CD
> > staying with us a bit longer for classical music versus popular music?
>
> In response to your wondering, no and yes (I like to be specific).
>
> The market for commercial classical CDs has no significant competition from downloading. The 
> customer wants both superior sound and the packaging. There are exceptions, but I believe that 
> that is generally true.
>
> On the other hand there is an active market for live material, broadcasts, and recordings long out 
> of print. In general, neither sound quality nor packaging offers any advantage comparable with the 
> cost of the CD - even when that CD is an underground product from a label such as Gala. That 
> business is likely to be destroyed by downloading, which appears to bother no one but those living 
> on its proceeds.
>
> Now if only the people uploading realized that an AM broadcast does not benefit from 48 Ksps, 320 
> Kbps MP3s in "stereo"... <G>
>
> Mike
> --
> mrichter@xxxxxxx
> http://www.mrichter.com/