II Guys from Petra now on Spotify (and other tips)

[brent]

Royalties are to be paid for all copyright protected music reproduced everywhere, on-line, on radio, etc. As to how those piddly payments get divided is specific to each artist/band. Terrestrial and internet stations usually ask to be released from their obligations, otherwise, they cannot afford to pay for all of the music they play. It is easier to get played if the artist does not want to get paid.

[Boray]

If the picture I posted is correct, I would need 380 plays to get one dollar! If the album costs $10 to download, it would be equal to playing the whole album (all 11 tracks) 345 times on Spotify.

I just got the Spotify Royalty report for March and it seems I get 0.0058 dollars per play in average, which means you would need to play a full 11 track album 157 times to get $10 (the same as it costs to download). So the question is really - if you buy an album, do you play it 157 times in your life time?

Unfortunately, I only got 55 plays in two weeks and ended up with just $0.32 :-/

Now, go and play one of my tunes to give me $0.0058!
http://open.spotify.com/album/2CF2OaJBIn6inTywLIC3mJ

[executioner]

It seems to me that all these online sevices are just a big rip off for the artist. ITunes changed everything and its a shame. I buy NOTHING online via MP3; compared to CD MP3's sound like crap!! I couldn't believe the quality difference in the MP3 and the CD version of TGC.

[Boray]

But there is no difference at all in sound quality between the TGC FLAC download and the CD. And if you got the mp3s ages ago I would guess that was before the album was mastered anyway.

[brent]

MP3s on these download services are 50% distortion, even with the best industry standard codec. They cannot maintain dimensional stereo imaging and in some cases a phantom center image. It has to do with how data is thrown away. There are some MP3s that sound closer to CD, like 1092kbps. But you will not find those.

[Boray]

There are some MP3s that sound closer to CD, like 1092kbps. But you will not find those.

Maybe because the maximum bitrate for mp3 is 320. At least I thought so.

[Boray]

There are some MP3s that sound closer to CD, like 1092kbps. But you will not find those.

Maybe because the maximum bitrate for mp3 is 320. At least I thought so.

The average bitrate for the lossless FLACs from TGC is 986kbps. So 1092 kbps mp3s seems pretty useless to me anyway.

[brent]

There are some MP3s that sound closer to CD, like 1092kbps. But you will not find those.

Maybe because the maximum bitrate for mp3 is 320. At least I thought so.

Nope. There is an audiophile downloading service offering 1092kbps. They have been operating for over 4 years.

[brent]

There are some MP3s that sound closer to CD, like 1092kbps. But you will not find those.

Maybe because the maximum bitrate for mp3 is 320. At least I thought so.

The average bitrate for the lossless FLACs from TGC is 986kbps. So 1092 kbps mp3s seems pretty useless to me anyway.

Two different monsters. FLAC is better, but when high res MP3s were in the works before FLAC was widely accepted. I do not see a need for 24/192 downloads, but 24/88.2 would be a killer standard. HDTracks is a great thing. It would be cool to see Christian bands on there.

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file ... gename=faq

[Boray]

Nope. There is an audiophile downloading service offering 1092kbps. They have been operating for over 4 years.

Do you have a link? I searched for "1092kbps mp3" and all I found was a post by you here on the Zone.

And what player can play 1092 kbps mp3s?

[brent]

Nope. There is an audiophile downloading service offering 1092kbps. They have been operating for over 4 years.

Do you have a link? I searched for "1092kbps mp3" and all I found was a post by you here on the Zone.

And what player can play 1092 kbps mp3s?

IIRC, when you subscribe to the subscription service, you download the proprietary player. I will look it up later. It has a been about two years since we had it running at the audiophile shop I managed. It was mostly limited to jazz, new age, classical, some light pop and acoustic music. They thought that it was going to be the next big thing. Then...it wasn't. That's the way it goes. Of course, back then, if you would have asked people in the business if they thought people would be content with iTunes type quality, everyone would have said no. But, people are and the CD is dead.When Fraunhofer rolled out the Surround MP3 people thought that would take off and give some new life to the MP3 sales. It didn't take off either. It was tricky getting a mix to pan out right every time when decoded. So, here we are, stuck with low-res MP3s for the masses...for now.

[Boray]

Found this in that thread I found:

brent: "No typo. 1092kbps. It is a WMA lossless format. It does not have the data compression (crappy quality) of all other MP3s."

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4456


WMA lossless? Since when is WMA and mp3 the same thing? It's a completely different format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Me ... o_Lossless

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

[brent]

They are not the same thing. Before you start your usual ball busting about something you do not know about, let me try to find the info for you so you can read it first. This was so long ago. Like I said, this was a proprietary thing. The whole issue back then was download times and file sizes. I believe, and I could be wrong, but I believe it was a two-step process and WMA was used for play back on PCs. I do not recall, but I do not think that it was MP3 at playback for non PC machines. THAT'S IT. The thing I recall downloading was the app that allowed WMA to play on our mac. I don't recall what that was.

Here. They went bankrupt. http://www.stereophile.com/news/more_on ... index.html

Yes, it was 1092kbps, CD quality, downloaded in WMA lossless. http://www.technofile.com/articles/musicgiants.asp

[Boray]

They are not the same thing. Before you start your usual ball busting about something you do not know about, let me try to find the info for yuou so you can read it first.

Something I do not know about... Well I know mp3 and wma lossless are two completely different formats. Seems you don't. Take the time you want. Our little encounters always starts with you having your terminology wrong and ends with you saying, oh, I meant something else. I just don't like when you say things that aren't true and keep on insisting they are true because you simply never can be wrong ever.

[Boray]

Oh, you edited your post while I was answering. Ok, so I guess we can agree now that there is no such thing as 1092 kbps mp3s then. Good.