The Awesome Uselessness Of CDs On Demand

So I was sitting around the house, buying CDs, or at least trying to buy a CD. Thing is, the band in question ("Denial Machine", it's not really important), a small American band, didn't seem to have actually released their album on CD in the UK. Sure, there was a download available, but no sign of the CD in the usual long-tail internet retailers. So before grudgingly accepting a lower-quality download, I tried Amazon in the states, just to see what the import price might be. And in addition to the usual CD and MP3 sources, they offered a "CD on demand" version. You buy, they burn the lossless files to a disc, print artwork, and ship across the Atlantic. Awesome. Except, it's kind of unnecessary. Got me thinking, "why no lossless download?". After all, there are sites out there offering music in nice high-bitrate CD-quality lossless.

The reasons for stores sticking to offering MP3 (or AAC) downloads are probably something like:

1. Offering downloads in a single format reduces customer confusion
2. MP3 is a popular universal format
3. Niche lossless formats typically require more knowledge or specialised software, which means more customer support
4. Most people, with their combination of ears and equipment, struggle to tell the difference between higher bitrate lossy (MP3) and lossless, so MP3 is fine
5. Lossless versions of files take three times as much space to store, a valid consideration for a store with many thousand albums selling in small numbers

The last point is obviously no longer valid when you have to store the lossless masters for your on-demand printing anyway. Got me thinking "what else stops them cutting out printing a CD?".

What about piracy/DRM? Not an issue, the CD is basically DRM-free WAVs, I'm only going to rip to FLAC and stuff the CD on a shelf, and not share the files around because I'm a nice guy. And anyway, the MP3s are DRM-free.

Offering lossless downloads means you have to start explaining the difference between lossy and lossless. You probably have to price accordingly, which means explaining why your "lower quality and no distribution costs" MP3 version currently costs the same as the CD, or pricing the lossless above the CD for delivery convenience. And your nice simple two-format "CD or download" options become confusing. This is a likely motive. Incidentally, Play.com seem to get by just fine offering downloads in both 256kbps and 320kbps.

Lossless files are big. Means long download times. Again, a possible reason. If you're on dial-up.

Thing is, I know the issues with buying lossless music, I'm OK with the higher prices. I'd really rather buy lossless directly than wait a month for Amazon to burn the lossless files to a disc and ship them (at great cost) so I can re-construct them on my hard drive. Of course, I'd probably be denied the ability to buy a download from a US site that has a store in my country anyway.

In the end, I bought the original CD, on import. It'll take a few weeks, but it's better quality and (postage costs aside) as cheap as buying the lossy download over here.

Look, the DIY approach of just getting your music out there and not relying on a record company to distribute it is great, and more or less necessary. And I understand that most people have accepted that lossy downloads are "good enough". Maybe one day I'll forget how things were in the 1990s and do the same.

CDs on demand are still better than lossy downloads, especially if all the nasty rumours about record companies trying to ditch CDs in favour of downloads are true. But please, everyone, consider just selling us music in 1990s/CD quality bitrate.