Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Jan 10, 2007 18:38:32 GMT
Hello everyone, Those of you who read about All Angels will know there is an article about classical music downloads and the new UCJ classical download store in this week's issue of Music Week (the UK's nearest equivalent to "Billboard"). The new download store could be big news - although I've just learned that the files will be incompatible with iTunes - but downloads are at an amazing 320 kbps (far higher then iTunes quality). As there could be lots of media reports about this, I decided to start a new thread to avoid hi-jacking Oksy's existing thread about song downloads - members will have to decide which thread is most suitable for their message. You can discuss Hayley's digital downloads in here if you want to, if that side of it develops we might move the thread (s) to the Hayley "Miscellaneous" board. Three versions of Odyssey are already available on the UCJ download store! Peter, to answer one of your queries in the All Angels board, I suspect that we are going to hear a lot about downloads for Hayley in the run-up to the release of her new album. This is a rapidly developing area and if the album does as well as we hope it does, some more classical download records may be broken (if the album qualifies as classical!) If you want to read more, today's Universal Classics & Jazz news release is mentioned here: UCJ to sell Downloads (thanks Roger!) and complete details of the new UCJ download service are here: UCJ Download DetailsAnyway, to start it off, here is the original Music Week article: Cheers, Dave
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Jan 10, 2007 18:54:46 GMT
The Music Week website has now caught up (subscriber only):
Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by jons on Jan 11, 2007 14:49:14 GMT
Only problem: 320Kbits may improve sound quality but reduce storage space and battery life on portable players.
|
|
Theta
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by Theta on Jan 11, 2007 16:51:41 GMT
I know wma files may have better sound quality than mp3 files, but surely mp3 is more widely recognised by media player? Isn't that saying, we will offer these files in WAV, which has great quality, but a even smaller number of media players would recognise them? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Jan 12, 2007 9:52:37 GMT
I know wma files may have better sound quality than mp3 files, but surely mp3 is more widely recognised by media player? Isn't that saying, we will offer these files in WAV, which has great quality, but a even smaller number of media players would recognise them? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here? While I can't comment on the technical aspects, the thought that struck me was this. Is this an attempt to BREAK proprietory format hold by having so vast a library available, universality of access and use is achieved? Peter S.
|
|
|
Post by roger on Jan 12, 2007 11:42:44 GMT
This seems to be a slightly more in-depth report of what has previously been posted. From Reuters: It is intersting that they play to make the artwork available from album sleeves. I would expect that might encourage more people to use the download facility. Roger
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Jan 12, 2007 17:41:58 GMT
Only problem: 320Kbits may improve sound quality but reduce storage space and battery life on portable players. Hi Jon, It''s not a problem for me, I'd rather have the better quality and I think the target market (me!) mentioned in the article posted by Roger would tend to agree with me. I've grumbled about downloads using too low a bitrate for ages, although I admit that iTunes 128 kbps aac format is a bit better than it looks, perhaps equivalent to a 160 kbps wma or mp3 file. But 320 kbps wma should give noticably better quality than the 128/192 kbps offered by other download services, when played on a good hi-fi system. Add to that the huge and increasing range of material offered by UCJ, and especially if artwork is also going to be available, as suggested in the article, and I think UCJ are onto a winner. I've just spent half an hour browsing their site and most of the samples are 60 to 90 seconds long, which is very good. I found it very tempting and nearly bought Anna Netrebko's Russian Album (but artwork isn't available so I didn't). Oh, Pure is on there now - they've just added it. I wish UCJ well in this imaginative venture! Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jan 13, 2007 8:24:54 GMT
Hello folks! There is now an item about this on the News section of Hayley's official website, dated 10th January 2007:- www.hayleywestenra.com/hayley-westenra-news.htmThere is a very similar article on All Angels' official site. I'm joining Dave in wishing Universal good luck with their bold venture! Richard
|
|
|
Post by jons on Jan 14, 2007 14:07:12 GMT
I know wma files may have better sound quality than mp3 files, but surely mp3 is more widely recognised by media player? Isn't that saying, we will offer these files in WAV, which has great quality, but a even smaller number of media players would recognise them? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here? WMA is the record companies favorite because it uses DRM(Digital Rights Management) to protect against piracy, but limits what you can do with the music. MP3 does not have any propriety copyright protection. And you're right Dave, the target audience for UCJ (like yourself) would prefer higher quality. In fact, EMUSIC have been offering high quality downloads for a while (MP3 no less, with no DRM restrictions) and in association which them Classic Fm offer a download service which is compatible with the Ipod.
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Jan 14, 2007 14:37:31 GMT
WMA is the record companies favorite because it uses DRM(Digital Rights Management) to protect against piracy, but limits what you can do with the music. Hi Jon, I can't think of anything more limiting than iTunes - you are locked in to them and they won't allow other people to sell in iTunes/iPod DRM format . This (and their monopoly) allows them effectively to set the price for downloads. 7Digital a couple of years ago made their downloads available in a choice of iTunes aac format, wma or mp3 format - but that didn't last long, they were soon forced to toe the line. I'm afraid I have an aversion to monoplies and restrictive business practices and the sooner someone finds a way to break the iTunes monopoly the better. I think I actually hate Apple/iTunes more than Microsoft and I won't ever buy an iPod or download any music from their iTunes store (though I do have it installed as their charts and track listings are interesting). With iTunes/iPod, it's as if Microsoft monopolised not only the softwarer but the PC hardware as well - which thank goodness they do not. I am disappointed that Universal didn't opt for digital rights management-free files, with a choice of wma or mp3 - but even so, I wish them well in their efforts to break the iTunes monopoly. Record companies and CD stores don't have a monopoly so why should one of the downloads companies effectively have one? Sorry iTunes fans (including two of my daughters!) but I hate Apple iTunes/iPod with a passion! Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by comet on Jan 14, 2007 14:51:05 GMT
Hi Folks Dave and Jon. Long live the CD and the SACD. to hell with monopolies Iv'e been anti mac and their over rated programmes for years. I thought for a while they were going to go under but unfortunately they were saved by the ipod.
|
|
|
Post by jons on Jan 14, 2007 15:57:53 GMT
|
|