|
Post by MattyJam on Sept 15, 2021 20:02:47 GMT
I've been clutching onto physical media for years, continuing to collect CDs, uploading them onto iTunes, keeping the physical format stuffed in a drawer somewhere.
I have resisted streaming services like Spotify for the longest time, but have finally given in and joined as a premium member.
I just no longer see the point in physical media. It's just useless clutter at this stage when you can get 95% of it on Spotify.
I am interested in the thoughts of those who still buy CDs, vinyls, those who like to consume physical formats etc. Do you not see it as a futile exercise? What are you getting from it and do you actually use the physical media you purchase or is it more as a collectors piece nowadays?
I used to want to keep buying CDs to support the artists, as I don't believe in the devaluation of music as an artform. But now I don't even use the physical format to upload onto iTunes, I really see no use in owning any of it.
I'm even thinking of selling my entire CD collection (we're talking in the thousands).
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Sept 16, 2021 5:55:49 GMT
I used to have a large MJ collection but got rid of the majority of it all.
I also used to buy heaps of cds and dvds by other artists too. Got rid of them as well as I just stream all my music now.
These days, all I have is a small MJ and Madonna CD/DVD collection all in a box. Don’t play them or even touch them ever.
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Sept 16, 2021 6:00:51 GMT
I used to have a large MJ collection but got rid of the majority of it all. I also used to buy heaps of cds and dvds by other artists too. Got rid of them as well as I just stream all my music now. These days, all I have is a small MJ and Madonna CD/DVD collection all in a box. Don’t play them or even touch them ever. Would you ever sell your MJ collection?
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Sept 16, 2021 6:02:09 GMT
I used to have a large MJ collection but got rid of the majority of it all. I also used to buy heaps of cds and dvds by other artists too. Got rid of them as well as I just stream all my music now. These days, all I have is a small MJ and Madonna CD/DVD collection all in a box. Don’t play them or even touch them ever. Would you ever sell your MJ collection? I’ve already sold the vast majority of it. Just kept my favorite MJ cds and dvds now. Used to collect everything Michael. Books, magazines, cds, dvds, vinyls, cassettes, vhs etc you name it. What I have left I wouldn’t sell because I like having an MJ collection, just a not large one, but a small convenient one that I can easily store and transport with me around the globe. I probably won’t bother buying any more new release MJ physicals either. I stream everything now.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Sept 16, 2021 7:24:20 GMT
I have only bought one album in the last 5 years, and that was just to display the LP in my room. I think, especially for LPs, there are people who enjoy the whole experience of it - including sitting down to read all the linear notes and admire the artwork as they listen to the record. Also some enjoy the physicality of it. No doubt many enjoy the fact that once they have it, it's theirs forever. As you can probably tell by the first line, I've been fully streaming for years and I frankly cannot imagine another way now. The fact I can pay a very reasonable fee every month and have access to 70,000,000+ tracks is absolutely phenominal. It has me branching out to new music I would've never given the chance of before, it allows me to find any music for any mood I'm in, whether it be I need something mute and chill while I work or I need something intense and full-on while I work-out. I love the social aspect of it too. The fact I can make, share and collaborate on playlists with friends is incredible too - it's perfect for parties, roadtrips, specialty projects, you name it. The fact my friend can be like "Hey, check this out" and with just a link I can instantly access a high quality, legal version of the song. I follow many friends on Spotify too, and I love seeing what everyone plays. The fact I can play my music everywhere. My personal computer, my phone, my iPad, my PlayStation, an Apple TV/Chromecast, my work computer, a friend's computer. It's all there and it's wonderful. I kind of like how I don't have a huge physical collection lug around too? The price is fantastic too and at the end of every year, Spotify gives me all these statistics about my music listening habits too and I'm a complete sucker for those too.
The big thing I see many physical owners bring up is the availability - what if your favourite music is gone tomorrow? And that is valid, but in the ~5 years I've been streaming full time it has rarely happened (and many of those tracks have since returned). But let's say for arguments sake an album I do love was taken offline... well I could source it from elsewhere (one way or another) and just load it to my Spotify app. There are songs not available on any streaming service that I've done that for. It's a bit more work sure, but I don't often have to do it so that's fine. It's not really been an issue to bother me too much yet.
I think I kind of got spurred to just jump all in when I realised I would just buy the CD, rip it to iTunes and then very rarely use my CD again, meaning once I ripped I was effectively entirely digital anyway. And my CD collection just sits in my cabinet anyway, though I do show off a couple LPs in my room. When it comes to supporting artists beyond streaming, I'd also rather go spend the money on a concert or merch or something anyway, I believe more of the money goes to the actual artist that way.
But yeah. Lots and lots of positives for me.
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Sept 16, 2021 7:38:05 GMT
I buy lots of vinyl as I like the larger artwork.
When it's digital I haven't lost anything by not listening to it again so it seems more throwaway.
|
|
|
Post by mjjfan810 on Sept 16, 2021 11:13:49 GMT
I only really collect MJ, as it's been over 30 years of doing so. I mostly use Spotify, but get frustrated with them deleting songs, that's the downside of streaming services. I tend to buy digital back ups of most songs too.
|
|
|
Post by electriceyes on Sept 16, 2021 16:08:25 GMT
At one point, I had close to 5,000 CDs, but I sold about 95% of them to recoup some of the money I'd spent over the years buying them. I used to buy vinyl albums, but I stopped several years ago because the record cabinet I'd bought had no more room, and I wasn't going to buy another one to keep buying more vinyl. Everything I have, music-wise, is either on a 2TB external hard drive, or streamed from Spotify. It's cheaper and takes up a hell of a lot less room. I've been downsizing a lot of my belongings, not for financial reasons but because I realized I don't need all this stuff. I could get hit by a car tomorrow; what is my family expected to do with it all? Keep it in their house? Where? They don't have room for their stuff and my stuff too.
I don't tell people what to do with their money. If you want to buy 20 different copies of the same MJ album, that's your choice. I just think it's ridiculous. This is how compulsive hoarding starts. When you start doing something and find yourself unable to stop because if you don't have the ultra rare limited copy signed in silver pen under the light of a full moon, your collection is incomplete.
|
|
Maxym
Wondering Who
Posts: 74
|
Post by Maxym on Sept 16, 2021 21:54:35 GMT
I still buy mostly CDs and some vinyls, I'm not really a fan of vinyls ... and I digitize them all the best I can.
I firstly pay attention to the quality of the sound/mastering, when possible I mean, so I usually prefer used CDs from before year 2K or so because (re)master after 2K only make things worse I think.
In theory, digital music (downloads) should be the go-to format nowadays, but it's not necessarily done with care, or worse (example: I heard when Qobuz came out, they we selling Thriller in the same mastering as the Japanese SACD, which is pure ear-orgasm , but later they had to replace it with the 2001-2008 remaster which is actually much inferior). So when you buy digital files, even Hi Res lossless, you actually don't have a real guarantee that it's going to be good sound. Additionnally, digital comes with a risk of watermarking. Some big media group was notorious a few years ago for watermarking their files on digital platforms, and some people with trained ears could even ear/guess the watermark. I think they stopped doing it. But it would also technically be possible to include individual watermarks in digital files, I don't think it's done right now, but it could be done, and that would mean that your file and wathever you do with it could be traced back to your order, ... which is not possible on CDs. I'm not saying that because I want to promote file sharing piracy, but there are all kind of edge cases from sharing with family to small content creator stuff (too complex to go in detail).
Other than that, I actually liked the CD format size, they take less space than vinyls I know that some people brag about how vinyl is great to have a large cover (I actually bought Dangerous on vynil just for this), but I have known artists who turned the CD booklets into real pieces of art, or an actual small book, which I found worked well with CDs.
But I have approximately 2.000 CDs for now and I start feeling like it's taking up too much space, more or less the same electriceyes explains.
Yet about digital, I got tenths of terabytes of archives due to the fact that always used to do stuff with sound and images (including photography and video editing), so I can tell that even digital archives may become "too big" in a sense... and I know that some people are so careless with wathever is digital that I don't see them keep any "collection" past a few years... Or until their next computer change or so.
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Sept 17, 2021 6:06:54 GMT
I still buy mostly CDs and some vinyls, I'm not really a fan of vinyls ... and I digitize them all the best I can. I firstly pay attention to the quality of the sound/mastering, when possible I mean, so I usually prefer used CDs from before year 2K or so because (re)master after 2K only make things worse I think. In theory, digital music (downloads) should be the go-to format nowadays, but it's not necessarily done with care, or worse (example: I heard when Qobuz came out, they we selling Thriller in the same mastering as the Japanese SACD, which is pure ear-orgasm , but later they had to replace it with the 2001-2008 remaster which is actually much inferior). So when you buy digital files, even Hi Res lossless, you actually don't have a real guarantee that it's going to be good sound. Additionnally, digital comes with a risk of watermarking. Some big media group was notorious a few years ago for watermarking their files on digital platforms, and some people with trained ears could even ear/guess the watermark. I think they stopped doing it. But it would also technically be possible to include individual watermarks in digital files, I don't think it's done right now, but it could be done, and that would mean that your file and wathever you do with it could be traced back to your order, ... which is not possible on CDs. I'm not saying that because I want to promote file sharing piracy, but there are all kind of edge cases from sharing with family to small content creator stuff (too complex to go in detail). Other than that, I actually liked the CD format size, they take less space than vinyls I know that some people brag about how vinyl is great to have a large cover (I actually bought Dangerous on vynil just for this), but I have known artists who turned the CD booklets into real pieces of art, or an actual small book, which I found worked well with CDs. But I have approximately 2.000 CDs for now and I start feeling like it's taking up too much space, more or less the same electriceyes explains. Yet about digital, I got tenths of terabytes of archives due to the fact that always used to do stuff with sound and images (including photography and video editing), so I can tell that even digital archives may become "too big" in a sense... and I know that some people are so careless with wathever is digital that I don't see them keep any "collection" past a few years... Or until their next computer change or so. You sound like a real audiophile. I must have an uneducated ear, because I can't tell the difference between streaming digital files and CDs. I got into streaming a few years back but used Apple Music. Their rules, in order for the music streams to count, are ridiculous. Thankfully I transitioned to Spotify and I love it. My plays towards my favourite artists were almost always counted and it’s a way better streaming service, more freedom!
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Sept 17, 2021 8:57:50 GMT
I still buy mostly CDs and some vinyls, I'm not really a fan of vinyls ... and I digitize them all the best I can. I firstly pay attention to the quality of the sound/mastering, when possible I mean, so I usually prefer used CDs from before year 2K or so because (re)master after 2K only make things worse I think. In theory, digital music (downloads) should be the go-to format nowadays, but it's not necessarily done with care, or worse (example: I heard when Qobuz came out, they we selling Thriller in the same mastering as the Japanese SACD, which is pure ear-orgasm , but later they had to replace it with the 2001-2008 remaster which is actually much inferior). So when you buy digital files, even Hi Res lossless, you actually don't have a real guarantee that it's going to be good sound. Additionnally, digital comes with a risk of watermarking. Some big media group was notorious a few years ago for watermarking their files on digital platforms, and some people with trained ears could even ear/guess the watermark. I think they stopped doing it. But it would also technically be possible to include individual watermarks in digital files, I don't think it's done right now, but it could be done, and that would mean that your file and wathever you do with it could be traced back to your order, ... which is not possible on CDs. I'm not saying that because I want to promote file sharing piracy, but there are all kind of edge cases from sharing with family to small content creator stuff (too complex to go in detail). Other than that, I actually liked the CD format size, they take less space than vinyls I know that some people brag about how vinyl is great to have a large cover (I actually bought Dangerous on vynil just for this), but I have known artists who turned the CD booklets into real pieces of art, or an actual small book, which I found worked well with CDs. But I have approximately 2.000 CDs for now and I start feeling like it's taking up too much space, more or less the same electriceyes explains. Yet about digital, I got tenths of terabytes of archives due to the fact that always used to do stuff with sound and images (including photography and video editing), so I can tell that even digital archives may become "too big" in a sense... and I know that some people are so careless with wathever is digital that I don't see them keep any "collection" past a few years... Or until their next computer change or so. You sound like a real audiophile. I must have an uneducated ear, because I can't tell the difference between streaming digital files and CDs. I got into streaming a few years back but used Apple Music. Their rules, in order for the music streams to count, are ridiculous. Thankfully I transitioned to Spotify and I love it. My plays towards my favourite artists were almost always counted and it’s a way better streaming service, more freedom! I remember iTunes would only count a playcount if you finished the song or skipped in the final 10 seconds. Is that how it applies to Apple Music too? I know Spotify is at the other end, if you've played 30 seconds it counts as a listen (likely some royalty thing, so they don't have to pay the artist if you only play the song for 6 seconds).
You might like this website: www.statsforspotify.com/ It uses Spotify's API and I use it often to see my most played songs/artists of the past month, six months and of all time.
As for audio quality, I'm actually pretty glad I can't tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a lossless file. Both sound crystal clear to me and I think it'd just be a disadvantage when listening to music on a service that isn't lossless, though Apple Music went lossless a couple months back and Spotify is soon to follow. I can start telling the difference once it goes below... somewhere around 160-192kbps I believe. That's when I start to pick up on compression artifacts.
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Sept 18, 2021 5:47:34 GMT
You sound like a real audiophile. I must have an uneducated ear, because I can't tell the difference between streaming digital files and CDs. I got into streaming a few years back but used Apple Music. Their rules, in order for the music streams to count, are ridiculous. Thankfully I transitioned to Spotify and I love it. My plays towards my favourite artists were almost always counted and it’s a way better streaming service, more freedom! I remember iTunes would only count a playcount if you finished the song or skipped in the final 10 seconds. Is that how it applies to Apple Music too? I know Spotify is at the other end, if you've played 30 seconds it counts as a listen (likely some royalty thing, so they don't have to pay the artist if you only play the song for 6 seconds).
You might like this website: www.statsforspotify.com/ It uses Spotify's API and I use it often to see my most played songs/artists of the past month, six months and of all time.
As for audio quality, I'm actually pretty glad I can't tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a lossless file. Both sound crystal clear to me and I think it'd just be a disadvantage when listening to music on a service that isn't lossless, though Apple Music went lossless a couple months back and Spotify is soon to follow. I can start telling the difference once it goes below... somewhere around 160-192kbps I believe. That's when I start to pick up on compression artifacts.
Apple have some really funny rules regarding play counts. They don't count any streams when songs are played from your own self-created playlists or when you've added songs to your library from Apple Music or when you've downloaded songs to your library from Apple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2021 13:03:40 GMT
An artist can't take your physical media back off you, but their work can disappear from every streaming service in a heartbeat.
The second biggest factor for me is that Spotify etc. will always have the latest remaster. I don't listen to Michael Jackson or David Bowie's work up to '87 on Spotify for this reason. I don't like the 2nd edition of HIStory. I prefer my own backed up files.
I use Spotify a lot at work because it's handy. If I like something on Spotify, I will usually go and buy it if I like it enough.
Back up your CD's before ditching would be my suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Sept 18, 2021 16:04:19 GMT
An artist can't take your physical media back off you, but their work can disappear from every streaming service in a heartbeat. The second biggest factor for me is that Spotify etc. will always have the latest remaster. I don't listen to Michael Jackson or David Bowie's work up to '87 on Spotify for this reason. I don't like the 2nd edition of HIStory. I prefer my own backed up files. I use Spotify a lot at work because it's handy. If I like something on Spotify, I will usually go and buy it if I like it enough. Back up your CD's before ditching would be my suggestion. Depends on the artist actually. For the albums that have received the super deluxe edition treatment, The Beatles have both their 2009 remasters and the newly remixed versions available for you to pick from. Depending on the song, there are different remasters for some of Bowie’s stuff too (Heroes has a number of different remasters available for example). You’re mostly right on MJ though. Some different remasters exist depending on the album you play (but given the original mixes/masters haven’t been sold new for a long time, it’s not those). But that’s why if I had to recommend a service to people like you who prefer specific older mixes or masters that are no longer generally available, I’d recommend Apple Music over Spotify since you can just upload your preferred version and stream that everywhere. Can’t be removed by the artist/label either since it’s your private upload. You can listen to your own additions on Spotify too (I have songs that aren’t available to buy or stream on mine and have synced them to my phone), but AM’s implementation is unquestionably the better one. A best of both worlds approach really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2021 19:18:55 GMT
An artist can't take your physical media back off you, but their work can disappear from every streaming service in a heartbeat. The second biggest factor for me is that Spotify etc. will always have the latest remaster. I don't listen to Michael Jackson or David Bowie's work up to '87 on Spotify for this reason. I don't like the 2nd edition of HIStory. I prefer my own backed up files. I use Spotify a lot at work because it's handy. If I like something on Spotify, I will usually go and buy it if I like it enough. Back up your CD's before ditching would be my suggestion. Depends on the artist actually. For the albums that have received the super deluxe edition treatment, The Beatles have both their 2009 remasters and the newly remixed versions available for you to pick from. Depending on the song, there are different remasters for some of Bowie’s stuff too (Heroes has a number of different remasters available for example). You’re mostly right on MJ though. Some different remasters exist depending on the album you play (but given the original mixes/masters haven’t been sold new for a long time, it’s not those). But that’s why if I had to recommend a service to people like you who prefer specific older mixes or masters that are no longer generally available, I’d recommend Apple Music over Spotify since you can just upload your preferred version and stream that everywhere. Can’t be removed by the artist/label either since it’s your private upload. You can listen to your own additions on Spotify too (I have songs that aren’t available to buy or stream on mine and have synced them to my phone), but AM’s implementation is unquestionably the better one. A best of both worlds approach really. The Beatles remixes aren't remasters though, they're new remixes. That's why both are available to stream.
|
|