Digipaks. Why, oh why? (1 Viewer)

[Darren Pillans]

Am I the only human being on earth that thinks Digipaks are stupid, stupid, stupid?

They get damaged easily, will always wear on the edges, and eventually just wear all over.

I love The Police, and even though I purchased the 1995 remastered CDs, I'll be getting the redos.

But not if they're in friggin' Digipaks.

Now I have to wait until June to get them in Jewel cases from the UK.

Why does the US get Digipaks and the UK Jewel cases?

All seems damn stupid to me.

I'm done.

 

[Michael Hall]

I always thought the reason Digipaks were around back in the old longbox days was to be more environmentally friendly. I hope I'm not the only one who remembers this, but R.E.M.'s "Out of Time" came in a digipak that was opened up to be the length of a longbox in certain areas. I thought (and hoped) that the digipak would disappear once the longboxes had been phased out, but unfortunately, that hasn't happened.

I have many of the same gripes that you have Darren. No matter how well you treat them, they always end up wearing around the edges and on the covers, and don't even get me started on what happens if for some reason you get the disc and the hub in the center is broken. If that happens with regular CDs you can just buy another case; what do you do when it happens with a digipak CD?

I'm really looking forward to the US reissues of Queensryche's EMI backcatalogue this May, but more and more over the last few days I've been dreading that they may put them all in digipaks. Let's hope not.

 

[Marty M]

How soon we have forgotten packaging for albums. I remember the good old days.

 

[KerryK]

I'm surprised so many people prefer the jewel cases. Interesting.

Well, what do you guys think of digipak DVD packaging?

 

[BrianB]

I think of DVD digipacks as highly as I think of CD digipacks.... And I share the first poster's views on CD digipacks

Yes, they look good & provide options for more "unique" packaging, but they're just too darn fragile for my liking.

 

[Philip Hamm]

How soon we have forgotten packaging for albums. I remember the good old days.

I have about 300 LPs and I do remember the old days. Though they got beat up too, the difference is that CDs are so much more portable than old LPs. If you wanted to listen to your LP in the car, on the go, etc. you made a cassette tape of it. Thus, carrying the album around didn't screw up the LP cover. With CDs you carry around the CD itself and the digipak covers get totally hosed.

I hate 'em. Sometimes I make jewel cases for digipak discs and carry those around, leaving the digipak on the shelf permanently.

 

[LarryDavenport]

They are supposed to be fragile so you will eventually want to replace them. It's why Warner uses cardboard for their DVDs.

Thing is, I don't remember anyone complaining about cardboard covers for their vinyl LPs, and they used to split and tear all the time (not to mention get stained).

 

[Keith Mickunas]

What alternatives were there for vinyl? There wasn't really any. A plastic case would be costly and cumbersome. Same with LDs. The thing is, since the beginning there have been better alternatives for CD and DVD, that's why you see people complaining. Plus when the hubs can get broken easily in some cases, it'd be nice to have a replacement. This kind of packaging sucks. And it seems like most DVD box sets get some sort of special packing now.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Well, I like them. They make it look so much nicer. Since I never take them out of the house (I use mp3 for traveling), it's not a problem.

NP: Tony Levin Band, Double Espresso

 

[Justin Doring]

Digipacks for both CDs and DVDs SUCK!

 

[George_W_K]

What are digipaks? Anyone have a pic?

 

[Rachael B]

Do the plastic ones like Debby Harry and The Jazz Messengers come in count as digipacks too? They're roughly the same idea. There's a label that uses them, or has. I have a Les McCann album on the same label with one... and maybe a couple others...?

I don't have a pic George but have you seen the packaging that the Stones hybrids come in? That would be it.

 

[Frank Anderson]

Put me down as someone who can't stand either CD or DVD digipaks.

 

[KeithH]

I can't stand digipaks either. Sure, they are nostalgic and all, but they are awful. As has been said here, they wear out and look like trash quickly. And, if you accidently break the disc tray (e.g., break the "teeth", you're screwed. When I buy discs in digipaks, I always put them in jewel cases immediately. It really sucks when the booklets are pasted in or the text is printed right on the cardboard. Then I have no accompanying booklet in the jewel case. Even if I can put the booklet in the jewel case, I still have to make up my own back insert so I can see the title on my shelf (i.e., on the spine).

When I heard that the Stones remasters would be in digipaks, I hoped that they would be released in jewel cases soon after. That's what happened with the Peter Gabriel remastered CDs. Of course, the Stones discs are still in digipaks, without separate booklets!

It seems like the record labels are moving towards digipaks for reissues. I have not yet bought any of the AC/DC remasters since they are in digipaks. Had they been issued jewel cases, I would have bought Back in Black by now. I am hoping jewel cases will appear on shelves soon.

 

[KeithH]

George, in case you have not gathered by now, digipaks are cardboard packages used for CDs instead of plastic jewel cases. Next time you are at a CD store, check out the Stones, AC/CD, or Police remastered discs, as they are all in digipaks. Also, here is a picture of a digipak that I snagged from eBay:

[c] [/c]

 

[George_W_K]

Thanks for the pic! Now, I have to agree with the majority here, I don't like those either. I didn't know they had a name.

 

[KeithH]

George, no problem. An alternate name for a digipak is #%$&@.

 

[Mark All]

The first "digipak" I remember seeing on the market was U2's "Achtung Baby" (1991--the same year as REM's "Out of Time"). The marketing that went along with it at the time was that it was supposedly more environmentally friendly. I don't remember the term digipak being used at the time, and don't know where or when it originated. I think the way it's used now is to mean any CD that doesn't come in a plastic case.

I don't like most of the digipaks at all, but it is possible to do a good one. Spock's Beard put out a good one with "Snow" last year which is the best I've seen. It's really like a miniature hardback book with two CD inserts inside. Every other one I have looks and feels cheap and doesn't provide any additional material than a regular jewel-case insert would. Also, some are slightly taller than jewel-cases and won't fit on shelves in many CD racks that are made for jewel cases.

My favorite storage medium by far now is the new SACD case being used--not a jewel-case but designed in a similar way to DVD-Audio cases. I don't like DVD-Audio cases much because they are needlessly larger than the discs inside.

 

[Tony-B]

Someone tell Roadrunner Records that we don't like digipacks!!! They re-issue albums in digipacks with extra tracks, and usually music videos on the CD. Basically they are like a "special edition". Some examples are Spineshank -Height of Callousness, Slipknot's self titled, and Ill Nino - Revolution... Revolucion. I don't consider them a special edition if they come in a digipack.

 

[KeithH]

Here is a little history of the digipak, courtesy of Collectible Compact Disc Price Guide 2, by Gregory Cooper (pp. 65-66):

was one of the first to adopt this packaging. The digipak however, was also initially rejected as a replacement for the jewel box and the titles were returned to the jewel box/long box configuration. It seemed for a time that the alternative CD packaging search was dead.

Of course, we know all too well that the digipak has survived all these years.