Tom Petty Download At 24 bit / 48 kHz Plus CA Recommendation

One also has to realize that buying CDs, ripping them, and then selling them is unethical, rips off the musicians who put the hard work in making the music, (and) not to mention that doing so is also illegal. I am glad to hear that you keep your CDs.

Hi Barrows -<br />

<br />

Just want to make sure I am reading your comment correctly. I assume you mean that reselling the RIP is illegal? If so, then I agree completely.<br />

<br />

Obviously there is nothing illegal about reselling a legally purchased CD. And, of course, artists only expect to benefit once from the sale of any individual CD.<br />

<br />

Thanks.<br />

<br />

Hook<br />

<br />

I suspect what Burrows means it's illegal to sell the CD and keep the Rip. <br />

<br />

A CD is the license to listen to the music as well as the physical ownership of the disc. You can't sell the disc without selling on that license. <br />

<br />

Eloise

is right. If you rip a CD, and then sell it, you are breaking the law. Personally I am not concerned about the law, but I am concerned that musicians/recording artists are properly compensated for their work, if they are not, the music we enjoy will suffer the consequences.<br />

Plus you are ripping off the artist: they have sold 1 CD, but now there are two consumers who have the music.

Hi Eloise -<br />

<br />

Do you know if the RTU license you described is universal? Also wondering if this specific scenerio has been more fully tested in UK and/or EU courts. <br />

<br />

I do see that the back of my CD says "Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws", but there is no reference I can see to an RTU license. <br />

<br />

I also recall reading somewhere that there is a "fair use" provision in the US copyright act. I think everyone agrees that ripping a CD and putting it in a shared folder is not fair. Appears that you guys agree that ripping a CD, and listening to the digital copy while retaining the CD, is considered fair (or that there is an RTU license that permits this). Or maybe there are RIAA lawyers who are still arguing against that as well!<br />

<br />

Would be interesting to know for sure if this buy/rip/sell/still listen to the rip scenerio had been tested against this US provision of fairness. Anyone heard of this actually happening? Would be great to hear from someone with a legal background who could quote chapter and verse.<br />

<br />

Just for the record, I have kept all of my CDs. Got to admit, not on moral grounds, but simply as a disaster recovery strategy.<br />

<br />

Thanks. <br />

<br />

Hook

IMHO the legal issues are not the most important here, although it would be nice to understand exactly what they are.<br />

More important though is that the musician gets paid for their work. If one chooses to rip a friends CD, as an example, one is ripping off the musician, plain and simple. When people share files, same thing. If we enjoy the musicians work, we should be willing to pay for it.<br />

Additionally, if musicians are not properly compensated for their work, their work will suffer, as they will have to find an alternative source of income, and spend less time on practicing their art and making music. While this may not be an issue for, The Rolling Stones, it is an issue for many working musicians these days, as file sharing is hurting their income to the point where they may have to pursue a different means of supporting themselves.<br />

If you care about music, please do not file share, be willing to pay for it-otherwise the music we care about will be compromised, or even cease to exist.

What I described was a more moral position than definitive legal position. <br />

<br />

As you say there is a "fair use" clause in US copyright as I understand it this gives you the right to make a "working" copy so long as you own the original. The UK actually is stricter and you have no right to make ANY copy though I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted for so called fair use.<br />

<br />

Eloise

Thanks for the 411 on the Tom Petty. I hadn't planned on purchasing this album, but now am going to grab the vinyl and download ... gotta get behind this!

I agree with the thoughts that this is a good move, going to high res. audio downloads etc. I buy as much high res stuff as I can find. I hesitate to buy anything under 24/96. Thats me, but there are MANY like me.<br />

<br />

So, I agree that we need to shoot higher - ie. 96khz, 192khz etc. Us audio nuts are always shooting for higher res. Not that there is THAT much of a difference now, but as data processing and delivery gets better and faster the whole scene could, and most likely will change. With USB 3.0 and other faster, fatter digital transfer protocols on the horizon we WILL be interested in higher and higher res. methods for our audio files. Jitter is one issue that is being addressed with better protocols. Resolution is another. <br />

<br />

Just as 1080p video will most likely be replaced with even higher res. formats in the future. Audio will certainly follow the same trends.

I didn't get anything in my bluray i ordered from amazon. There's some number on the bluray itself but no other info in the jacket regarding download; annoying.

Mine was on a small black insert card tucked into the slot opposite the disc slot. The insert card was separate from the pullout album notes which is a little bigger booklet. <br />

<br />

You did get the blu ray and not the CD right?

no such black card.

While I think its great that this download is available at all, and especially in a genre that usually only gets mp3 quality, I'm not sure I get the reasoning. I agree with others that it would be better to sell the download as a standalone format. <br />

<br />

If I get a download code for mp3 with a record then I assume that the download is for listening on my ipod etc while the record is for proper listening at home. This in my view is great as I can enjoy the record anywhere. To have to buy a BD dvd, or vinyl record then get a hi res download is a bit superflous I feel. I do not see the point in selling the record, and giving a download at the same quality. As far as buying the vinyl, my analogue front end is better than my digital one, so I would still be listening to the vinyl (I know this is not the case for everyone).<br />

<br />

Just seems weird to me, but at least they are beginning to offer hi res files, so shouldn't make too much of an issue out of it.<br />

<br />

Ryan

Hi Ryan -<br />

<br />

I prefer getting the download in the lossless FLAC format. While I agree that most of time I will listen to the vinyl, this does give me the option of streaming this high resolution digital copy to other rooms in my home.<br />

<br />

The only folks for whom this is truly superfulous are those who are already recording their vinyl in a high resolution format. At worst, it saves them the trouble!<br />

<br />

Besides, FLAC is easily converted to MP3 for listening on the go.<br />

<br />

Hook

For those who dont want to ( or dont have the equipment ) to listen to either the vinyl or the Audio BluRay, both of those are superfluous....why not just sell the download code at a lower price as an alternative?....others already do this....

Very true Hook, but my main point was to offer the download as a standalone copy. I do downsample flac to mp3 but I just feel that if you are going to go to the trouble of offering a hi res download then get it out there for everyone to download as they please (ie paying for it).<br />

<br />

All the best<br />

Ryan

I can do 24/96 and 24/192 at home with Roland Edirol or even TASCAM ...<br />

<br />

This is just wasting my time and $ on rubbish.<br />

<br />

Go to link below and get free 24/96 of bands ...<br />

<br />

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=24/96%20AND%20collection:etree<br />

<br />

I just bought my copy of the bluray! I am anxious to hear the hi-rez surround version of this new collection of songs. While I will certainly download the files, I prefer to have the bluray disc in my collection, not only to serve as a backup in the case of a hard drive failure, but also as a way to easily take the music with me to a friend's house for a listening session on their system.<br />

<br />

I'm not converted over to music files thru my home system yet, but in the meantime, I'll enjoy the hi-rez music bluray on my OPPO BDP-83SE player. I also think it is critical that all audiophiles support this. I want to see bluray used as the new physical standard for hi-rez music. The video world already has made it their standard, and there's tons of room on the disc for bandwidth if used solely for music. Downloads are great, but for me, the disc is not dead yet!

<i><br />

"I want to see bluray used as the new physical standard for hi-rez music"<br />

</i><br />

<br />

Not me. I don't want to be stuck with some format which can't be ripped to the computer. I'd rather get the files on a DVD-R blank regardless of whether it plays on Bluray or any other player. Bluray licensing fees are expensive too. Maybe alright for the average consumer but not for audiophiles.

"I want to see bluray used as the new physical standard for hi-rez music"<br />

<br />

<br />

"Not me. I don't want to be stuck with some format which can't be ripped to the computer".<br />

<br />

Why can't bluray audio files be ripped? I'm sure there's a program out there somewhere that will crack the encryption. I know that there are some people who rip bluray movies, then strip out all the extra preview files, and even the menus - why would bluray audio files be any different? <br />

Hi DMark1 - Blu-ray audio files can be ripped but it's a pain in the neck. There's no way Joe Sixpack the average audiophile is going to rip Blu-ray music or movies. In order to succeed we'll need a Blu-ray music disc that iTunes or Exact Audio Copy etc... can rip without user intervention.

"think it is critical that all audiophiles support this. I want to see bluray used as the new physical standard for hi-rez music."<br />

<br />

why? The name of this forum is "Computer Audiophile". I think it is very important that we put our emphasis on encouraging high resolution music distribution through downloads and as uncompressed files distributed via DVD or USB stick/cards. The last thing I would want to see is another compressed/processed DRM format which requires everyone to go out and buy new hardware, blu ray,become a new standard for music distribution. Right now there is only a single blu ray capable high end player that I am even aware of (Ayre), and as far as I know ripping blu ray to PCM on a hard drive is a time consuming and entirely inconvenient process. I entirely disagree, as audiophiles it is important that we support the distribution of high resolution music via download, uncompressed data files on DVD and/or USB sticks/cards-not a hardware based format that is living in the old school of physical media based playback.<br />

What is really important is to get record companies to realize that DRM is a lost cause, that no matter how DRM is implemented, it will be hacked, and that their efforts would be better spent on figuring out how to charge us a premium for high resolution music. This way they could easily make plenty of additional money from selling their back catalogues at 24/48, 24/96, 24/176.4, 24/192 as appropriate. As an example, I would be happy to pay $25.00 per album for uncompressed 24/96-24/192 files (native, from the master tape) of Led Zepplin's entire catalogue, distributed by download, as wav or aiff files on a DVD disc, or by USB stick/card.

Having supported by actually buying DVD-Audio, SACD, (and prior DAT, and almost ElCasette) I have no desire to support any other format.<br />

<br />

I have a super high end DAC that can take in anything from any port (including usb) and play it. Yes even 24/192.<br />

<br />

So I fully support high res music from various places. Even Blu Ray for that matter if it is lossless. I stay clear from lossy.<br />

<br />

But even though I have two PS3 which in theory play blu ray .. For music sorry it it not a viable option.<br />

<br />

So I support High Res music but give me the choice of formats or else keep it. I can find it elsewhere. Given that we pay for it, someone will deliver.

barrows:<br />

<br />

I hear your points, and I agree with them from a purely computer audiophile view. I just happen to not be there yet. I am still learning, and it seems complex to me right now. I am tiptoeing into hi-rez computer audio, and I believe it is the future, but I don't think the disc formats are dead yet. There are still some downsides to storing music files on a computer hard drives - namely cost and complexity of back up systems, lack of portability of the content to an audio buddy's place, difficulty in setting these sytems up for non-techies like me, etc.<br />

<br />

My point was that we should support pop artists and labels that are producing and releasing hi-rez music. I don't particularly care what form it is right now, if it's hi-rez (and preferably multichannel). For me right now, blu-ray is a convenient way to listen to this music without alot of hassle, because my OPPO BDP-83SE is so easy to use, and can play back uncompressed 24/192 multi-channel music. BTW, I believe this player was awarded an A rating from Stereophile, and it serves as the basis for the Ayre player, so I think it has some respectible "audiophile cred".

mpanwar: Can your super high end DAC play 24/192 multichannel? If so, I'd like to know what it is so I can look it up for my system. And, how much does it cost?<br />

<br />

My OPPO BDP-83SE has 32 bit ESS Sabre DACs and can play back 24/192 in 7.1 multichannel. It was $900, and also plays beautiful HD video, SACD, DVD-A, CD, and decodes HDCD.