>webstore sells album for digital download
>in MP3 and WAV only
>paying real money for a digital download of digital music that you download digitally
>>65020509
>not giving money to artist you like
>>65020509
Do you also steal CDs?
>>65020274
>only mp3
What more do you want?
>>65020524
Loads of people pirate shit, never seen a artist go bankrupt because of that
>>65020524
>not buying a physical album instead of getting scammed into buying something of literally no real value
>>65020541
>only tangible things must be paid
lmaoing at your outdated thinking
>>65020537
Do you pay for vapor?
i don't see the problem with this. you can download the wav and make it into anything codec you want. provided, of course, you aren't retarded in which case you can grt your handler to do that
>>65020509
there are people that pay for spotify. i really don't see the problem with paying for information, though it may be more economic on the individual basis to find other methods of downloading
>>65020557
good luck selling a digital album, or showing off your digital music collection when your grandchildren come to visit
>>65020626
>good luck selling a digital album
Why would I wanna do that?
>or showing off your digital music collection when your grandchildren come to visit
>implying I'd want shitty children to touch my supposedly valuable vinyls and CDs
>>65020569
when you pay for an album, you pay for the case, the artwork, the booklet, the CD, the PHYSICAL media through which the music is expressed. With how easily music can be pirated nowadays, it's getting to a point similar to actual art. You don't have to pay to look at the Mona Lisa, because you can find a picture of it anywhere. However, you would need to pay to actually possess the painting itself.
>>65020647
the point is that you CANT sell it, even if you wanted or needed to. you're being tricked into paying money for something that is of no worth, because the individual item in question did not cost anything for it to be made available for you to purchase.
>>65020749
Okaaay, what about the artist or artists who recorded it? Or the producer and sound engineers who mixed and mastered it? Where do they get their money from? What about the equipment? Was it given away for free?
>>65020799
the INDIVIDUAL copy that you own costs nothing to produce.
>>65021007
You didn't answer my question
>>65020274
WAV is higher quality than FLAC. Only a literal /mu/tant doesn't know how to convert audio files
>>65020524
>not giving money to the RECORD COMPANY of the artist you like
if bands or "artists" made money selling music they wouldn't play shows or sell tee shirts. They might get a dollar if you buy their album
and that's cool, but paying for a download is just cuckoldry
>>65020749
> the individual item in question did not cost anything for it to be made available for you to purchase
it still required labor for the music to be made you massive idiot
>>65021256
that word.. I don't think it means anything anymore
>>65021249
>WAV is higher quality than FLAC
Do you even know the concept of "LOSSLESS compression?
What are the differences between mp3, FLAC, and wav files?
>>65021282
i know. what I mean is that paying for a download mp3 or flac or whatever is 'bitch shit'
>>65021298
simply put : wav is uncompressed and perfect, flac is compressed and perfect, mp3 is compressed and imperfect
in before vinylfags say it's not perfect, but if you're a normal person you can't tell the difference
>>65021383
I wish I understood these things better.
So what's the advantage of having an uncompressed file if there are compressed versions available without any loss of quality or fidelity?
>>65021420
desu none. FLAC is the way to go I think. I never see 'wav' when I download music, it would be ridiculously large
I honestly dont think I could even tell the difference between FLAC and MP3 but I just get FLACs because it seems to be the gold standard
>>65021514
Interesting. So, CD quality. Is that mo3, FLAC, wav, or none of the above?
>>65021554
That was meant to be *mp3, pardon.
>>65020537
yes
>I pay for music
>>65020541
I have so many mixed feelings on this. On one hand I think your opinion is bullshit, but on the other hand I pirate all my music and buy it on vinyl when I find it.
>>65021554
flac and wav are cd quality afaik, basically perfect
>>65020537
Yes faggot
>>65021554
CD quality is CD quality. Digital download in lossless form is usually the same, but digital has the advantage of not using the same Red Book norms, so they may reach higher quality than CDs (for example 24-bit/96kHz in contrast of CD's 16-bit/44,1kHz, among other factors), but these are rare in sellable form (high quality vinyl rips are a thing too, but I think they're silly).
>>65021640
So I just have one more question: Why doesn't iTunes sell FLAC files? The same question can be posed for any digital music seller which uses mp3.
>>65021705
There are too many variables with vinyl rips. Vinyl is my preferred medium, but when I'm looking for digital files I get proper pissed when I accidentally download a vinyl rip.
>>65021774
They sell in ALAC, which is basically Apple's own FLAC.
>>65021789
So why is it after I delete a song from my library, the file ends in .mp3 when I see it in the recycle bin?
>>65021774
i consider iTunes a virus
>>65021961
Me too :( but I'm not sure I have very many alternatives. At least none that I know of. Spotify lost its glow. Tidal is very expensive, comparatively speaking.
What am I to do?
>>65021990
is this bait? learn how to use bittorrent, get VLC media player and go apeshit. The world is your oyster
>>65022015
I'm really happy using Apple Music for digital and buying vinyl. I get the appeal behind amassing a huge library of lossless files, but it's just not practical for me. If I want the convenience of digital, nothing is more convenient than streaming, and if I want quality/experience, honestly nothing tops having a few drinks and spinning your favourite record on vinyl.
>Buy phyical copy online
>Doesnt include digital copy
>>65021936
ALAC is an optional purchase choice.
