Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music? (Read 40923 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

What is that keeps the major labels from allowing FLAC stores to sell their stuff?  One might assume it's lack of DRM support in FLAC, but these labels have already agreed to let their music be sold DRM-free on Amazon as 256 kbps MP3s.  If the labels can do that, then why can't they sell their stuff DRM-free as FLAC files?  FLAC files generated from the WAV data on a CD is 100% lossless, but 256K MP3s are also very nearly CD quality, so what gives?

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #1 –
Lossy audio is lossy.  That probable eases some concerns about piracy.
Demand.  I doubt there's all that much demand for lossless audio from the masses.  There are lossless stores around, but for the most part the ones I've come across are for classical (which is more likely to overlap the audiophile market) or single bands (like The Barenaked Ladies).

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #2 –
Most likely bandwidth, or more specifically, transfer. The average bit rate of my current FLAC collection is 885kbps. If we assume that the average bit rate of VBR '256kbps' MP3 is about 245kbps, then the FLAC for a given track (relative to the averages of my collection only) will be around 3.5 times larger than the MP3. It will thusly take users 3.5 times longer to download the FLAC, corresponding to what is mostly likely more simultaneous users and a higher server load.

There are likely other reasons, of course.

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #3 –
Most people wouldn't know what to do with flac. They'd wonder why it took so long to download and it sounds no better than an mp3.

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: twostar on
it sounds no better than an mp3.

Depending on the bitrate, of course...

audiophile // flac & wavpack, mostly // using too many audio players

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #6 –
The general public is not accustomed to high-quality sound.
audiophile // flac & wavpack, mostly // using too many audio players

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #7 –
<snip>

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: tuxman on
The general public is not accustomed to high-quality sound.

Define "high-quality." More correctly, the general public finds that 128kbps music to be transparent enough for their use, so to them, they are as "high quality" as whatever other source they used to use.

Most legal download service is moving above 128kbps anyway. iTunes plus uses 256kbps AAC. Amazon MP3 uses Lame VBR (presumably -V 2).
twitter.com/pika2000

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: pika2000 on
Define "high-quality."

For me, "high quality" means a brilliant sound of even complicated tracks (you know... progressive stuff) on any audio equipment.

audiophile // flac & wavpack, mostly // using too many audio players

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: tuxman on
For me, "high quality" means a brilliant sound of even complicated tracks (you know... progressive stuff) on any audio equipment.


and to the general public, that could be a 128kbps compressed music, even with ABX test. Just saying. I don't think a can ABX a "brilliant" sound....
twitter.com/pika2000

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #11 –
Quote
What is that keeps the major labels from allowing FLAC stores to sell their stuff? One might assume it's lack of DRM support in FLAC, but these labels have already agreed to let their music be sold DRM-free on Amazon as 256 kbps MP3s. If the labels can do that, then why can't they sell their stuff DRM-free as FLAC files? FLAC files generated from the WAV data on a CD is 100% lossless, but 256K MP3s are also very nearly CD quality, so what gives?


I have been asking myself the same question for a few years now and came to the conclusion that there just aren't any audiophile downloads. They are probably avoid it as a way to curb piracy as was mentioned earlier, but with the exception of the small audiophile community out there it appears that nobody really cares very much. Trust me I absolutely agree with you it would be a better world if they just offered lossless downloads so you were free to encode any which way you like for your portable, home collection, etc. 
budding I.T professional

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: pika2000 on
Amazon MP3 uses Lame VBR (presumably -V 2).


-V 0 actually.  Also LAME 256kb/s CBR, both stereo and JS.  And Fraunhofer 256kb/s CBR.

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #13 –
Forget lossy online music. Buy CDs. Take 'em to whatever format you want.

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: fracai on
Lossy audio is lossy.  That probable eases some concerns about piracy.
Demand.  I doubt there's all that much demand for lossless audio from the masses.  There are lossless stores around, but for the most part the ones I've come across are for classical (which is more likely to overlap the audiophile market) or single bands (like The Barenaked Ladies).


I don't understand about there not being much demand for it.  If a person went to a record store and had the choice between buying a CD for an artist vs. a cassette tape (analog), most people would buy the CD.

It makes sense to prefer digital downloads (even in MP3 format) to CDs simply because people like to buy single tunes vs. whole albums, and also music files are portable, and you don't have to leave home to get it.
 
However, if you can get all that PLUS the quality of a lossless audio file, then I don't see why people wouldn't want it.  There would be an increased download time vs. 256k MP3, but most of the top music stores these days have their servers hosted on the backbone, so even a 20 MB file would download in less than a minute w/most broadband connections, i. e. w/3 Mbps down, 20*2^20*8/3e6 = 56 sec.

The dload time WOULD be an issue if the server was hosted on maybe a T-class or low-tier connection, but stores shouldn't need to do that--they can host on the backbone (i. e. Level 3, Saavis), pay the huge hosting fees and still make a profit, and they can adjust the needed upload allocation w/how much music is being downloaded from their site. 

Even if this strategy incurs a net $$ loss for maybe the first 1-2 years in business, should still be worth it.

The BIG issue cannot be the download time, then.  Physical memory on the music players is also not an issue since iRiver, Cowon, etc. have lots of RAM (1-4 GB), i. e. can hold 50-200 FLACs. 

And the other issue, the lack of support for FLAC in players, isn't an issue either since conversion can easily be done.

IMHO, the only issue left is the DRM, which is odd because all four labels are giving away their stuff DRM-free on Amazon at 256k VBR, which is SUPPOSEDLY just as good as CD-quality.  But, of course, FLAC IS CD quality, so the labels have an excuse to throw a fit over that, because they don't want their FLACs floating all over the place on P2P networks.

So then, we're down to putting DRM in FLAC, which is impossible, except to add a watermark into FLAC, which, as far as I know, can't be done without altering its sound.

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: solletica on
I don't understand about there not being much demand for it.  If a person went to a record store and had the choice between buying a CD for an artist vs. a cassette tape (analog), most people would buy the CD.

It makes sense to prefer digital downloads (even in MP3 format) to CDs simply because people like to buy single tunes vs. whole albums, and also music files are portable, and you don't have to leave home to get it.


The reason being is that most people are perfectly happy with lossy music.  I remember helping one guy at work rip his CDs.  He was a normal iTunes user and rarely ever bought a CD but he would spend about $40 a month in the iTunes Store.  Anyway, I told him that it would be best if he ripped his CDs to a lossless archive and then transcoded those files down to lossy for portable use.  He started ripping to FLAC and then saw that a 4 minute song came out to about 32MB in size.  Even though he had a 1TB hard drive in his desktop, he still didn't like the idea of having lossless files.  He then explained to me that he doesn't want lossless as:
1.  He will never listen to them.
2.  He will only listen to the lossy files.
3.  He can't think of anything that he would do with the lossless files.
4.  He doesn't see himself transcoding to a new lossy/lossless format in the future.

I explained the flaws with his arguments but he just wouldn't hear it.  So the general public are perfectly happy with lossy files.  I don't know if they truly understand the benefits of having a lossless archive of their music.  I have a lossless backup of my CDs that I never listen to but I have them just in case I need to transcode (they came in real handy on the 4th of July whenever Lame 3.98 was released).  I still use my lossy files for everything but I love having a lossless backup.

Either way, I wouldn't expect a mainstream lossless store to open  up anytime soon.  There is that one that uses DRM'ed WMA lossless files but I think that is about it.  If anything, I expect that Apple will lead the way when the time comes as they were one of the first major stores to start offering DRM-free lossy files.  Then Microsoft and Amazon followed shortly after.

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #16 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Either way, I wouldn't expect a mainstream lossless store to open  up anytime soon.  There is that one that uses DRM'ed WMA lossless files but I think that is about it.
Which one?? Fairuse4WM could come in real handy...
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #17 –
Quote from: odyssey on
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Either way, I wouldn't expect a mainstream lossless store to open  up anytime soon.  There is that one that uses DRM'ed WMA lossless files but I think that is about it.
Which one?? Fairuse4WM could come in real handy...


I don't remember what it is called but they charge about $15 for an entire album, I think that is why I forgot their name so quickly.  I believe that the discussion of the software you mentioned (there is also an iTunes Store equivalent) is not allowed on these boards.  Doesn't it illegally use reverse engineered Microsoft code?  I know that iLounge shuts down any discussion of the iTunes Store equivalent DRM removal tool.  I do know that we can talk about TuneBite as it simply plays back the files and records the stream through the soundcard.

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #18 –
why they don't sell flac:
1. but how do i play it on my ipod?
reponse: you should have bought a good digital audio player
2. not a big enough market

why there is not a big enough market:
1. file size is too large (this reason is becoming irrelevant more and more)

...and now for the ULTRA SEKRET REASON
2. other people dont care as much about music as people from an audiophile board

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #19 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
I believe that the discussion of the software you mentioned (there is also an iTunes Store equivalent) is not allowed on these boards.
Maybe, maybe not - But then I don't understand why things like TuneBite is allowed. The legalness of it's use depends on the country one resides in.
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #20 –
Quote from: CoyoteSmith on
why they don't sell flac:
1. but how do i play it on my ipod?
reponse: you should have bought a good digital audio player
2. not a big enough market

why there is not a big enough market:
1. file size is too large (this reason is becoming irrelevant more and more)


It's totally irrlevant now--I mean, w/a 32 GB player, you can fit more than 1000 FLACs, or 500 WAVs.

But the storage size issue brings up another important question:  how many tunes does the average Joe want on his player at a time?

Quote from: CoyoteSmith on
...and now for the ULTRA SEKRET REASON
2. other people dont care as much about music as people from an audiophile board


True, but people from MIT, Berkeley, Hydrogen Audio, etc., i. e. people IN THE KNOW care, and surely those in the know have some influence.

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #21 –
Quote from: solletica on
Quote from: CoyoteSmith on

why they don't sell flac:
1. but how do i play it on my ipod?
reponse: you should have bought a good digital audio player
2. not a big enough market

why there is not a big enough market:
1. file size is too large (this reason is becoming irrelevant more and more)


It's totally irrlevant now--I mean, w/a 32 GB player, you can fit more than 1000 FLACs, or 500 WAVs.

But the storage size issue brings up another important question:  how many tunes does the average Joe want on his player at a time?


people seem to think its a *good idea* to put every single article of music they own on their failpods. these are the same people that see no need to keep it backed up on a computer.

32gb players are still expensive and HUEG, plus "ipods dont play that flac thing"

consumers dont care and they have little reason to, they are "casual listeners" at best. if more people actually "listened" to music, top40 would be a whole new thing.

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #22 –
lossless is a niche, but eventually someone big will wake up and realize they're leaving money on the table.  the raw storage cost of a 5 minute FLAC track even at 1000kbps is half a cent and falling.  hosting and bandwidth add to that but not much.  now look at the premium FLAC carries for all the people selling FLAC next to lossy now; it's 20-35%.  those people are not losing money just to prop up a format, they are selling FLAC because it's a high margin niche that makes money.

I don't think DRM is holding things back for the big guys either; DRM on audio is dying and will soon be dead.  as for which format the first big guy will offer, apple may blunder and use apple lossless, but aside from that, whoever wants to make the most money on that niche will offer FLAC.

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #23 –
Quote from: CoyoteSmith on
people seem to think its a *good idea* to put every single article of music they own on their failpods. these are the same people that see no need to keep it backed up on a computer.

32gb players are still expensive and HUEG, plus "ipods dont play that flac thing"

consumers dont care and they have little reason to, they are "casual listeners" at best. if more people actually "listened" to music, top40 would be a whole new thing.


It is true that many people like to carry around every piece of music that they have whether they listen to it or not.  I can also see why you don't like iPods (they are popular, easy to use, on every store shelf, and you tend to go with something less popular for the sake of it and want something with better output quality and more features) but I don't see what this thread has to do with slamming iPods.  I could see posting negative stuff about them in a thread where someone asked about iPods but this is not the case.

As for 32GB players aren't really that expensive as Creative's goes for $299.  One can also easily pick up a 160GB hard drive based player for $300.  32GB players also aren't big at all as the Zen is 3.26" x 2.16" x 0.44".  Now, if you consider that to be big then slamming iPods is the least of your concerns.

I agree with your comments here and there though and think that you are right about the general consumer audio population not really caring and are filed more under casual listeners.


Quote from: odyssey on
Quote from: kornchild2002 on

I believe that the discussion of the software you mentioned (there is also an iTunes Store equivalent) is not allowed on these boards.
Maybe, maybe not - But then I don't understand why things like TuneBite is allowed. The legalness of it's use depends on the country one resides in.


Last time I checked (about one year ago), TuneBite records the audio stream through your sound card and that is technically a legal method of recording DRMed music.  TuneBite plays the music back at a really high speed, slows it down, and then spits out a AAC/mp3/WMA file that doesn't contain DRM.  This method is lossy though.  FairUse, on the other hand, uses reverse engineered Microsoft code (they didn't use it legally) to losslessly crack the DRM and remove it.  The iTunes equivalent software would use iTunes to crack the DRM through some loophole up to iTunes version 7.5.  It too is a lossless method.  It is legal for one to record the song being played through the sound card or burn it to an audio CD and rip it, both methods being lossy.  It is illegal to crack the code though and use lossless methods of removing the DRM in which you end up with lossy files (I hope that makes sense).

Edit: spelling.

Why is there no FLAC music store for major label music?

Reply #24 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
It is legal for one to record the song being played through the sound card or burn it to an audio CD and rip it, both methods being lossy.  It is illegal to crack the code though and use lossless methods of removing the DRM in which you end up with lossy files (I hope that makes sense).
I'd qualify this statement.  For purchased DRM content (content you are allowed to burn, for example), no problem... but for rental content (subscription music, etc.), it'll be against the terms of service and can be considered illegal (& unethical) for obvious reasons.  (It isn't content you are allowed to "keep.")

Products like "noteburner", which does automated conversion/encoding for you using "virtual CD" solutions, are a bit more legitimate, in my opinion.

MusicGiants was the 'mainstream' high-def online music store mentioned earlier: http://www.musicgiants.com  The Lossless high-def files are burnable, and as such... can be converted without Loss to other formats.  And, even easier, some of their content is unprotected now.