name a bigger waste of money

Digital music.

soda

Cable TV

wife

Toothpaste

>>74906913
>infinitely portable
>available in several formats
>fits on a hard drive rather than clogging up an entire wall in your house

Exactly

File: 135216367357.jpg (102KB, 578x504px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 578x504px

It's like a fidget spinner for grandpa lmao

children

>>74906952
You can also get it for free, which is why it's a waste of money, fucktard.

File: Screenshot_41.jpg (22KB, 282x274px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 282x274px

>>74906984
Damn...

custom 30" $180 plushie of a McChicken™

>>74906952
>Spending money on something you legally do not own

Also records do not occupy an entire wall

Supporting artists is not wasting money. In fact, it's one of the few things in my dreadful life I don't consider wasted.

>>74906984
not an argument

political campaign donations

>>74906889
Your mom

File: IMG_0313.jpg (19KB, 249x250px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 249x250px

>>74907082

>>74906889

A streaming service subscription

Enjoy losing your entire music library when stop being a good goy who pays up every month

File: 1483518475564.png (141KB, 439x290px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 439x290px

>>74906889

Buying it on iTunes

>>74906930
kek

File: 5378468644.jpg (81KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 640x480px

>>74907192
>service loses license for music
>sorry, we couldn't find [album you've been listening to for months]

Goddamn I hate streaming sites, back when I was a kid, once a rental store had something, it fucking had it forever. Hell, my local library still has all the CDs and movies that it had 16 years ago, as well as the new shit

>>74906953
fucking kek

Heath insurance

>>74907082
fuck off.

>>74906984
I'll gladly pay money to support artists and the platforms that treat them well

>>74906889
You, by your parents

File: tape.jpg (145KB, 1000x496px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1000x496px

>>74906889

ugghh this ?

i own a r2r... shits ludicrous

>>74908438
>>I'll gladly pay money to support artists and the platforms that treat them well
You shouldn't pay for something unless you actually get something in return. Don't be a cuck and give money to someone just to "support" them.

>>74908680
I get the music I want, high-quality, and easily available to me. Plus, it gives the artist an incentive to keep making more of what they make.

>>74908734
>I get the music I want, high-quality, and easily available to me.
Which you can get for free in the exact same way you get for buying it digitally.
>Plus, it gives the artist an incentive to keep making more of what they make.
Non-issue, the real money is in live performances. If they want more money they should play some live shows.

>>74908770
>Non-issue, the real money is in live performances. If they want more money they should play some live shows.
Mostly for artists on major labels. Independent artists or signed on small labels get a bigger cut on album sales

>>74908815
>Independent artists or signed on small labels get a bigger cut on album sales
That applies to live shows too.

>>74908841
Only if they want to. Bands on major labels are pretty much forced to. BoC, for instance, hasn't made a live performance since 2001, living on album and merch sales, and music licensing.

>>74908770
Live performances are expensive because of travel and time costs. There's also the planning, booking, and promotion, as well as ensuring that you have a large enough fanbase willing to see you wherever you go.

>>74908734
>I get the music I want, high-quality, and easily available to me.
Except mp3's have inferior sound quality and pretty much every CD you can buy has a download code so you can also put it on your phone. If it doesn't, pirate it, because you've already bought the CD.

Food

>>74909913
THIS

>>74908558
It's amazing how good r2r sounds.

File: cd.png (4MB, 2839x2825px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2839x2825px

>>74906889

>>74910516
OP here, yes, this is also equally true.

>>74908680
>Being this fucking retarded
Kya lad

File: 1495598326725.jpg (18KB, 248x189px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 248x189px

>>74907027
>>Spending money on something you legally do not own

>oh boy i can't believe i get to """own""" this record! i'll keep it in my collection and play it forever!
>plays record once every 3 years
>record gets objectively worsened while its sitting in storage
>its a pain in the ass to have to grab it everytime and play a track you want
>A-AT LEAST I OWN IT!!!! D-DIGITAL B-BTFO!!

ITT: unemployed peasants

>>74909877
Or you know....just rip from the CD...

>>74907082
>not an argument
not an argument.

>>74906953
its my fav 4chan post ever

>>74910791
If a CD has mp3's on it the sound quality wouldn't be any better. Unless you wanna convert the files yourself for whatever reason, you need a download code to get it on your phone, not your computer.

>>74907070
yup

>>74910516
Fuck you I still love CDs and cassettes, still play my music off of them all the time (mostly CDs)
I do agree with OP though, vinyl takes up a lot more space and I think people that think it has a "superior warm sound" can fuck right off, that's just pure autism right there.

File: 4L_ikQDvLFK.jpg (31KB, 361x248px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 361x248px

>>74910873
>converting lossy files

>>74910622
How am I wrong? I have never paid for a digital "copy" of any media and never will.

>>74910407
People literally don't know what real dynamics are... Even lossless 16 bit is mostly hammered to all fuck... Even 33 1/3 go through a compressor because of the groove spacing

Most 45's come close but real tape is final boss.. I have a few 3rd gen bootleg master tapes and Wow. I have no idea why hires still hammer the dynamics. Flat master tape and hi res transfers are where it's at - even my bootleg Sgt. Peppers destroys the modern remaster... I have no idea how they fuck it up al the time with these re masters - I honestly think they are working back from how the MP3 / MP4 finally sounds for the unwashed streaming masses :l

File: vinyl.jpg (72KB, 700x681px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 700x681px

>>74910999
>I think people that think it has a "superior warm sound" can fuck right off, that's just pure autism right there.

>>74906953
Lol'd

>>74911513
Hey buddy I go out of my way to get 80's 12" 45s and play it through a megabuck analogue rig so I can hear those digital 12bit drum machines and samplers unironicly

File: 12524634673.jpg (49KB, 556x561px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 556x561px

>>74906953
Goddamn

you can still download digital music
and pay money to support artist buying something you can touch

>>74906889
>name a bigger waste of money
concert tickets (i.e. live "music")

>>74912203
Elaborate.

>>74912219
which part of my argument confused you?

>>74912233
The complete lack of

>>74912824

Most acts suck live and sound better in the studio

>>74906916
this

>>74906889
I can name it anything I want? Okay, how about Douglas. Wait wait. Richard. Yeah, that's it. I'll name it Richard.

>>74906889
4chan

>>74906889
Your mom

>>74906889
Drugs

>>74907082
not a counterargument

File: james-murphy-coffee_jpg_630x420_q85.jpg (106KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 630x420px

>>74914931
You should give me your drugs then

>>74906889
Digital music streaming services. At least with vinyl you will every now and then get a dedicated better master compared to the digital counterpart.

>>74913289
Should probably get better taste in music then fag.

>>74910635
No, you literally do not own digitial music. """"Buying"""" digital music is legally renting it, you're spending money on something that when you die/when the company you're renting from can't give a shit anymore has no redeemable cash value.

>>74906889
Tidal

>>74906889
Food

>>74915076
This. You can resell physical media, hell, with CDs you can just rip the audio and sell it forwards if you like.

>>74915076
>Buy an album on bandcamp
>Literally have the files saved on whatever storage devices I want in whatever codec I want
In what way do I not own that product at this point? Unless they're going to hack my PC to remove the files they're mine until I delete them or in a worst case scenario the HDD or SSD the files are on stops working. Granted they could disable my ability to download the files again in the future, but that's true of pretty much any digital product.

water

>>74914931
more specifically, heroin

>>74915080
guide to free food?

8 Tracks

>>74908558
Local bar had a r2r with a bunch of hip hop masters. Sounds incredible, makes flac sound like junk

Vinyl = longevity.

Represses are for chumps tho.

>>74915398
>guide to free food?
Freganism
http://money.howstuffworks.com/freegan.htm

>>74910999
Fuckin kekd

>>74915501
What if it was a rare record not really distributed getting a repress?

>>74915501
Vinyl literally wears out due to needle contact. CDs don't.

File: l0HlVCDX1fIIJxkVq.gif (3MB, 629x346px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 629x346px

>>74915501
>Vinyl = longevity.
In what world do you live in where vinyl retains the same quality longer than digital mediums?

>>74915550
>In what world do you live in where vinyl retains the same quality longer than digital mediums?
Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.

I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.

>>74911107
>>74914931
Drugs are great

>>74915560
I didn't bring up codec differences nor lossy versus lossless codecs for that matter. Why are you sperging out out of nowhere? Is this pasta?

>>74915560
By being stored in a lossy format instead of in lossless, it's like food going stale and expiring, but that post isn't 100% right. I have a PhD in Digital Music Conservation from U of Florida. I have to stress that the phenomenon known as "digital dust" is the real problem regarding conservation of music, and any other type of digital file. Digital files are stored in digital filing cabinets called "directories" which are prone to "digital dust" - slight bit alterations that happen now or then. Now, admittedly, in its ideal, pristine condition, a piece of musical work encoded in FLAC format contains more information than the same piece encoded in MP3, however, as the FLAC file is bigger, it accumulates, in fact, MORE digital dust than the MP3 file. Now you might say that the density of dust is the same. That would be a naive view. Since MP3 files are smaller, they can be much more easily stacked together and held in "drawers" called archive files (Zip, Rar, Lha, etc.) ; in such a configuration, their surface-to-volume ratio is minimized. Thus, they accumulate LESS digital dust and thus decay at a much slower rate than FLACs. All this is well-known in academia, alas the ignorant hordes just think that because it's bigger, it must be better.

So over the past months there's been some discussion about the merits of lossy compression and the rotational velocidensity issue. I'm an audiophile myself and posses a vast collection of uncompressed audio files, but I do want to assure the casual low-bitrate users that their music library is quite safe.

Being an audio engineer for over 21 years, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. While rotational velocidensity is indeed responsible for some deterioration of an unanchored file, there's a simple way of preventing this. Better still, there have been some reported cases of damaged files repairing themselves, although marginally so (about 1.7 percent for the .ogg format).

>>74915627
>I didn't bring up codec differences nor lossy versus lossless codecs for that matter.
Vinyl doesn't degrade over time in the same way digital mediums do (at least the lossy digital mediums that the vast majority of listeners use)

>>74915560

Stop. Vinyl is so retarded that we actually need to bring real logic to the table instead of meme-ing each other to death.

>>74915076

Then you don't own your physical music either, dingus. Or any digital file you've ever made. Pick one. We aren't talking about real estate here, we're talking about 45 minutes of buttrock. Once you pay the price and the state of your storage device has been physically changed to store the data, it's just as much your property as a vinyl record. You own it and are free to give it away or even resell it if you can chump someone that hard. Don't act like the buttrock retains its value or something though, the original user is paying a fairly low price in order to have electrified music magically brought to his ears, and then the price has been paid. That doesn't mean you don't own it though, don't be an idiot.

>>74915627

Yes it's pasta

>>74915665

Just stop

File: mikro-pebbles.jpg (28KB, 510x342px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 510x342px

>>74915680
>real logic
Entirely pointless around audiophiles. Have some brilliant pebbles.

>>74915076
Who gives a fuck, we're literally renting everything until we die anyway.

File: Vinyl Fanboys (2).png (41KB, 1683x258px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1683x258px

>>74906889