[sub_tex]

I definitely go for the CD. I like total control over how I use the music, and right now, CDs are the only game in town.

Plus I really couldn't live with the lower bit rates and compression used by all the online music stores. I shudder at the thought of burning compressed music to re-rip it. It's funny how I never thought much about it until I got good headphones and a good sound system at home.

Playing my lower bit rate mp3s then was a whole new experience then. It was like, "holy crap, these files sound like poop!"

If I just want a single track, I'm more apt to use eMusic or AllOfmp3 since I can get DRM free music from them.

[sub_tex]

I definitely go for the CD. I like total control over how I use the music, and right now, CDs are the only game in town.

Plus I really couldn't live with the lower bit rates and compression used by all the online music stores. I shudder at the thought of burning compressed music to re-rip it. It's funny how I never thought much about it until I got good headphones and a good sound system at home.

Playing my lower bit rate mp3s then was a whole new experience then. It was like, "holy crap, these files sound like poop!"

If I just want a single track, I'm more apt to use eMusic or AllOfmp3 since I can get DRM free music from them.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by sub_tex

Plus I really couldn't live with the lower bit rates and compression used by all the online music stores. I shudder at the thought of burning compressed music to re-rip it.

I used to think the same thing, but I have to admit that the 160 kbps tracks from MSN Music burned and re-ripped as 256 kbps MP3s sound really, really good to my ears. You might want to try it as an experiment just to see (99 cents is a cheap experiment). ;-)

Originally Posted by sub_tex

If I just want a single track, I'm more apt to use eMusic or AllOfmp3 since I can get DRM free music from them.

Sorry, but I have to call you on AllOfmp3: you know it's 100% illegal and no different than getting music from Limewire or another file sharing service right? If you're ok with that, fine, but it gets under my skin when people talk about AllOfmp3 as if it's a legitimate music service where the artists get paid. It's not - it's just a "legal" service insofar as the ass-backwards Russian "law" has no rules against someone selling the intellectual property of someone else.

[sub_tex]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

I used to think the same thing, but I have to admit that the 160 kbps tracks from MSN Music burned and re-ripped as 256 kbps MP3s sound really, really good to my ears. You might want to try it as an experiment just to see (99 cents is a cheap experiment). ;-)

Why bother ripping it at 256? You're not getting a better bitrate really. At most, you could rip it lossless and get a 160 kbps file back.

I'll try the 99 cent test with a friend's account. I'm not expecting much from it though....:lol:

Sorry, but I have to call you on AllOfmp3...

Well yeah, it's not legit at all. I don't see it as a legit music service, I see it as what music services should be aspiring to. eMusic is nice, but still only 192k mp3s.

With allofmp3 I can get FLAC! That's insane.

I still buy CDs though. I'm the kind of guy who likes album art, and all that. I like having it in my hands.

Sort of like me buying paper books when I've only read it in ebook form. I like it in my library or to give out to friends who don't have PDAs/smartphones with eReader.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by sub_tex

Why bother ripping it at 256? You're not getting a better bitrate really. At most, you could rip it lossless and get a 160 kbps file back.

I used to think the same thing, then someone very correctly pointed out that the compressed files being sold are not simply CDs ripped with WMP10, they're prepared with industrial-grade encoders...so 160 kbps is not always the same 160 kbps. I rip at 256 kbps knowing there's a bit of headroom, but I'm confident they're better quality than ripping at the same bitrte they were encoded at.

Although it would be really interesting to know if there's any truth to what I believe!

[Bob Christensen]

I'll continue to buy CDs... but not any with DRM schemes. I would guess that the Sony fiasco had some negative effect on CD sales (even non-Sony CDs).

[craigf]

My wife and I own well over 1,000 CDs and have so far purchased zero tracks through online music services (e.g., iTunes, Napster, etc.). For me, the reasons are clear: CDs are safer (you always have a physical backup and you don't risk your service/DRM format making your music inaccessible), loanable, provide a bigger overall experience than a downloaded MP3 track does (e.g., booklet art, lyrics, etc.), and are generally more inclusive of the artist's work (which can be bad, but there are lots of songs I enjoy or are part of the artist's larger overall vision for the album that I wouldn't have purchased separately).

Plus, we purchase CDs from a lot of niche and lesser-known artists who, most likely, won't ever get on the radar of the most prominant download services. For them, a CD is still the best, if not only, option.

Ripping my collection has taken a long time. If I were king of the world, I'd make it mandatory that every music CD comes with high-quality MP3 tracks of the standard audio files, complete with accurate ID3 tag info per the most recent standard. That would save me time and help ensure a good listening experience whether I'm playing off the CD or from MP3.

Oh, and no DRM. DRM is important to the most successful 5% of musicians, but the other 95% generally don't give a crap -- the more people hear their music, the happier they are (and the more income they get, even if it's a fraction of the total listening going on). To make an analogy, DRM is to music what estate tax relief is to taxpayers -- it generally only benefits those who need its protection the least.