 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A cd *is* digital files. You should look at it this way. When you buy a cd, you buy digital files that someone printed on a disc for you. I reckon most buyers nowadays put the files from the cd on their computer as soon as it arrives.
It's like printing something, sending it to someone and then have them use a scanner to get it back on their computer.
Yes, that's how I see it. Good analogy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A cd *is* digital files. You should look at it this way. When you buy a cd, you buy digital files that someone printed on a disc for you. I reckon most buyers nowadays put the files from the cd on their computer as soon as it arrives.
It's like printing something, sending it to someone and then have them use a scanner to get it back on their computer.
That's not how the industry sees it. "DVD and digital available August 3rd." And for those of us who still value physical media, it's important to keep the distinction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's how I see it. Good analogy.
But you and johnbijl are wrong, yet again! How many times we have to discuss this??!!
The value of a CD is in the item ITSELF. It's a matter of collecting it, it's about the feeling of having it and then enjoy it as a thing you can put physically in a player. Some of us will never EVER buy intangible digital files.
The 16-bit or 24-bit talking is irrelevant, because you don't hear it, you just KNOW it! The analogy with the scanner is also stupid. You don't make a picture of anything and say you use it.
If Intrada starts to do releases both ways (physical and digital) then that's the best for everybody. However, I'll feel VERY disappointed if they decide to go the digital-only route. They will loose me, and I'm sure many others too, as their customer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 16, 2020 - 1:05 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tevose
(Member)
|
Yes, that's how I see it. Good analogy.
But you and johnbijl are wrong, yet again! How many times we have to discuss this??!!
The value of a CD is in the item ITSELF. It's a matter of collecting it, it's about the feeling of having it and then enjoy it as a thing you can put physically in a player. Some of us will never EVER buy intangible digital files.
The 16-bit or 24-bit talking is irrelevant, because you don't hear it, you just KNOW it! The analogy with the scanner is also stupid. You don't make a picture of anything and say you use it.
If Intrada starts to do releases both ways (physical and digital) then that's the best for everybody. However, I'll feel VERY disappointed if they decide to go the digital-only route. They will loose me, and I'm sure many others too, as their customer.
If you decide to not buy a composer’s score that you’re a fan of because it’s digital only — and it so happens to be only released digitally — that’s not Intrada’s loss; that, my friend, is your own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's just industry language because "digital" sounds sexier than "download" - "digital" is also a noun while "download" is more often considered a "verb". They certainly won't want to muddle the market with "physical" vs "loose digital files" terminology
Perhaps, but that's the word for it. It's what Intrada used in their press release for Inchon, and it's what the poster I responded to misused to advance his message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When is the 32-bit/148kHz/high resolution re-mastering on the acetate sources of Herrmann's On Dangerous Ground getting released?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's how I see it. Good analogy.
But you and johnbijl are wrong, yet again! How many times we have to discuss this??!!
How are we wrong? It was a very apt analogy and it fits.
The value of a CD is in the item ITSELF. It's a matter of collecting it, it's about the feeling of having it and then enjoy it as a thing you can put physically in a player. Some of us will never EVER buy intangible digital files.
See, yours is a perfectly fine way to collect music, and I don't think you are "wrong" because of it. You are like the person who enjoys the printed out document over the sent PDF, and that is completely okay. I don't at all think that you shouldn't do this or are "wrong" because of it.
But there are some people, I am among them, to whom the physical part of collecting music is irrelevant. (Well, more or less completely irrelevant, I enjoy some of the very nice special editions, as the complete Howard Shore LORD OF THE RINGS -- that's as nice at they get -- or Miklós Rózsa's Rhino release of BEN HUR or John Williams's STAR WARS TRILOGY set.)
Anyway, the physical collecting part is important to you, and that's fine, but why should those of us who care little or not at all about the physical part be "wrong" for just caring to get the music in the best sound quality and find the physical part negligible? In fact, I prefer to not collect too much more "physical" stuff anymore. I enjoy some nice physical edition of a book, or even a CD release, but basically, I don't need my music in any physical format anymore, and I find that very liberating.
(I'm currently moving... and CD boxes are HEAVY... sheesh... )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Congrats on Intrada for finally entering the hi-res format. Magnetic tape analog recordings of any age - of course, when properly vaulted - do sound WAY better than the digital baby step technology from the 1970s-1990s. Unfortunately we had some 20 years of bad sounding sources due to the limitations of those digital formats.
Compare Poltergeist and Inchon. Both are from the same year and Poltergeist sounds worse.
Hi-res recordings from the original tapes, when done properly - and I trust their expertise - improve on soundstage presentation and microdetails and texture. The difference is night and day.
Try listening to the hi-res version of Jurassic Park in comparison to the CD. Dennis Steals The Embryo sounds crisper, clearer and way more detailed, for instance.
This is the future.
I will promptly buy any release of a beloved score on hi-res and I hope to be able of purchasing Intrada’s whole catalog in 24-bit 96kHz version or even higher like DSD.
Thank you for the opportunity!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compare Poltergeist and Inchon. Both are from the same year and Poltergeist sounds worse.
Inchon was actually written and recorded in 1980, even though the film’s general release was delayed until 1982.
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
