Future formats

madmax

So what is the next format? What I want to do is find the music on a monitor screen, listen to a sample then pay $5 to $50 for a very high resolution downloaded copy. I want all of the surfing and downloading processes to happen in the backround. I also do not want one single company to control all sales. For example, no itunes type bs. I want to be able to plug in my stand alone Super DAC which takes the beyond SACD resolution data and turns it into better than LP sound and feed it into my preamp. I want the monitor (probably with a touch screen) to house all the processing and I want it to cost $299. I don't care how much the Super DAC costs. I would expect Super DACs to cost $500 for a low grade one, maybe $7K for a REALLY good one. As for music, I want to pick through all sorts of self produced or recorded material, some for almost free, as well as the latest release from whatever label.
madmax

Face

It is here, I just hope it catches on.

http://ghosts.nin.com/main/home

madmax

Cool, its a start.

Danny Tse

I don't know....for me personally, using a touch screen to buy music takes away the fun of flipping thru LP/CD/SACD/DVD-A at a brick-and-mortar store.

Yashu

It is here, I just hope it catches on.

http://ghosts.nin.com/main/home

I have been saying this for a LONG time. I have been insulted constantly for saying it by the people with large post counts. I have been treated like a heretic, but I still think this is the future. FLAC, and eventually as bandwidth increases, higher resolution FLAC/PCM digital. Quality Digital file sharing and sales will save the music industry. Either the big labels adapt, or the indies and artists that know how to self promote to their own fans will be the only area of innovation left in the music industry. We are already at a point where there is more music being made now than ever. It's just not coming from the RIAA anymore, and what does, isn't worth listening to. Even holdouts like JAzz and Classical are going out on their own. Pretty soon, the only reason to need one of the big labels is for older music that they still own the rights to, and even that will eventually fall into the public domain someday.

The artists are fed up with being treated like crap, and having the fallout of music lovers being treated like criminals casting a negative light onto their music. For the first time in history, there is not a monopoly on the production or distribution of music. Artists and music fans are more empowered than ever. It is a great time to be a music lover.

The last time I went into a record store, the best store in the entire city (pop. 2+ million), I could not find but one out of the 25 or so albums I was looking for. Just one. Without the internet, I don't know what I would do. It is hard to be a music lover without the internet. I hope that soon, I won't even need to wait for a physical copy to arrive... it is arleady moving to that point. It began with mp3, and now we have FLAC as a viable online distribution format. The sky is the limit here.

Face

No need for all the drama, but for once I agree with you.

phuz

I don't see physical media going away. Downloads and streaming will take over for the most part, but people are still going to want to easily move content from their home, to car, to office, or whatever. Also people will have a really hard time letting go of the concept of getting something physical for their money.

I'd say the next big media thing is going to be some sort of compact flash, SD, or chip based memory module that is small and easily managed. No moving parts or disks to get scratched or damaged. It's already being done with some devices, and soon you'll have your music, movies, etc. on them. Or at least will be able to put your downloaded content onto it so that it is portable.

Watch apple over the next couple of years. They have a vision and a direction that not everyone is seeing right now. Unfortunately all of their stuff is proprietary and they'll force everyone to use an iPod or iPhone to manage/carry their content. Although by the time they finally tie everything together and you have a coherent media management system that fits with your lifestyle, it might just be the best option available.

obieone

I still want to see someone come out with a software that'll write multichannel-like SACD/ DVD-A. You could load it on your pc-equipped with a highend audiocard, and convert 2 ch.> 5.1+. Be your own sound engineer, and mix it however you like.
Just a dream, I know.

Face

There is music software that can convert music to 5.1. IMO, you should never need more than 2(.2) for music.

madmax

There really is no need for something physical. Whenever you buy it you should have lifetime rights to download it. Beyond that there should be no hoops to jump through if you want to save to your hard drive or copy to a disc. Maybe online storage is a clickable option. The real key here (for me) is that it be a very high resolution copy. Less than SACD quality need not apply. I have no interest whatsoever if it were CD quality.
madmax

mantis

Having Physical media means you have to storou be it somewhere. I don't know about you but I'm sick and tired of buying racks , storing disc after disc. I perfer the hard drive way. Downloading it is what I would like.

Music servers for starters are way cool. Once you achieve cd quality, it sure beats loading and unloading disc's.

But I also long for a SACD and behond format. Lossless like Master MA from DTS or True HD from Dolby would be very cool for music. Multichannel or any amounts of channels is fine.
The Ps3 is the first step in that direction for me. I love storing my music on the hard drive. And now that I know I can get a larger internal hard drive, I plan on upgrading it. The ps3 also plays SACD but I have not experienced it yet as I do not have a new preamp or receiver at this time. So SACD is on hold with it. I haven't tried ripping Sacd into it yet or do I know it can. I hope it does. That would be way cool.

tonyb

Sony has a patent on this thing that streams it right to your brain.Sure takes the room out of the equation now don't it.

Face

mantis wrote: »

I haven't tried ripping Sacd into it yet or do I know it can. I hope it does. That would be way cool.

I don't believe you can. I just settle for the CD layer on my PC server.

cmy330go

I do really like chuck's idea, however I have grown quite fond of flipping through records. I really like having a physical copy, but having a burned CD, or just a copy on a portable device is simply not good enough. As of right now my favorite way of buying music is purchasing it on vinyl and then being able to download it via a coupon included with the record. To me that is the best of both worlds. Most of the time vinyl gives me the sound quality I want on my home system, while maintaining tangibility, and then the download is adequate for portable use.

Just my 2 cents worth.

amulford

Pretty soon every one will have gigabit streaming with direct OTA access. The technology is already there, it's just a matter of those making the money having the control pried from them.

sucks2beme

Digital Rights Management is too big of an issue.
No new format will be put into place without it.
On the flip side, a lot of starving muscians will
put there stuff out on the web in flac just to get
noticed. It'll be a strange ride over the next 5 years.
Watch, they'll make downloads with ads in them, since
we can't watch a damn tv show without those popups!
Radio has become mostly unlistenable, and tv is rapidly
getting there. Movie theaters run ads well into show time.

TroyD

Yashu wrote: »

I have been saying this for a LONG time. I have been insulted constantly for saying it by the people with large post counts. I have been treated like a heretic, but I still think this is the future. FLAC, and eventually as bandwidth increases, higher resolution FLAC/PCM digital. Quality Digital file sharing and sales will save the music industry. Either the big labels adapt, or the indies and artists that know how to self promote to their own fans will be the only area of innovation left in the music industry. We are already at a point where there is more music being made now than ever. It's just not coming from the RIAA anymore, and what does, isn't worth listening to. Even holdouts like JAzz and Classical are going out on their own. Pretty soon, the only reason to need one of the big labels is for older music that they still own the rights to, and even that will eventually fall into the public domain someday.

The artists are fed up with being treated like crap, and having the fallout of music lovers being treated like criminals casting a negative light onto their music. For the first time in history, there is not a monopoly on the production or distribution of music. Artists and music fans are more empowered than ever. It is a great time to be a music lover.

The last time I went into a record store, the best store in the entire city (pop. 2+ million), I could not find but one out of the 25 or so albums I was looking for. Just one. Without the internet, I don't know what I would do. It is hard to be a music lover without the internet. I hope that soon, I won't even need to wait for a physical copy to arrive... it is arleady moving to that point. It began with mp3, and now we have FLAC as a viable online distribution format. The sky is the limit here.

Since I'm probably one of the people Yashu refers to.....

I've been saying for awhile that this is where we are heading, in fact, I've started a couple of threads on this. My issue is, in terms of sound quality, it just isn't there yet. Argue it any way you like but the media itself nor the delivery of that media isn't where it needs to be for me to ditch my current setup.

While I agree that the music industry is fundamentally flawed, in terms of audiophiles it always has been and the current state of digital media isn't making that any better.

Now, in terms of access...yes and no. While downloading has the promise of offering greater choice and variety, it also has the ability to discourage it as well. Think of it this way, you can buy a record for, say, 15 bucks or you can pirate the mp3 or what have you for free on limewire. Ok, if you choose to steal the music off limewire, how does that benefit the artist? Sure, more people, theoretically, will listen to his music but if he can't make any money from it, how does that help him? If nobody is paying for it, he can't buy weed, pay his child support or put gas in his van. Ergo, he's forced to take a job flipping burgers at Waffle House who won't let him off to play gigs on Saturdays, which pisses the band off so they also go find new avenues. So, now, not only have we bankrupted the record companies, we've also killed off the up and coming bands as well, a nice little ancilliary benefit. Remember, no profit, no product. Music, like it or not, is a business. Bands NEED someone to distribute the product, plain and simple.

Now, as far as the **** you listen to, if there is no profit in it, nobody is going to waste thier money in putting it on CD, LP or give it bandwidth for download. Again, no profit, no product. While you may like Dick Nasal and the Nosepickers, if you are the only one, it's really irrelevant how you distribute it.

Now, I also disagree that just because hard copy media is not going to be mainstream do I think that we should just chuck all of our LP's, CD's, SACD's, tapes etc. Again, there is a market for all of that. As long as the market demands such items in enough volume to make them commercially viable, what's the freaking harm in it? Just because at this point digital downloads aren't where I think they need to be for me to consider it hifi doesn't mean I think we should crusade against them. I think mulitple formats can coexist.

For me, that's the takeaway. This isn't a zero sum enterprise. Multiple formats CAN coexist. Nothing is one size fits all. What works for me doesn't work for Yashu and vice versa. Yashu's opinion is if it doesn't work for him: kill it. It's worthless and it should cease to exist. I, on the other hand, believe that it all has it's place and as long as the market supports it, it should.

BDT

halo

Face wrote: »

It is here, I just hope it catches on.

http://ghosts.nin.com/main/home

Trent is a helluva innovator. He hates record companies (this dates back to the beginning of his career with TVT records). Thing is that they tried to control him and that was not going to happen. He's been pissing in the wind ever since. He did the same thing when he released Niggy Tardust's album. Get it for free (MP3) or pay $5 and get it in FLAC.

While he may hate the record companies, they did get him "out there".

sucks2beme

I think Cds, SACD, etc. are already dead.
Most of the world is moving away from it.
Doesn't mean we have to like it. But thats the way the world is.
Electronic distribution is where it's going.
There still will be a small market, kinda like tube gear.
Small groups of audiophiles will support a few "hard media"
retailers. Everyone else will go for downloading MP3 "top 40"
singles from online sources. The world will go back to AM 50's
style one hit wonders. And true lovers of music will be treated
like social outcasts.

Yashu

I still want to see someone come out with a software that'll write multichannel-like SACD/ DVD-A.

Sony will never allow this. There are only two places in the world that can make an SACD, so I doubt a simple drive for the PC is on the way. SACD (and DVD-A) is a closed format, which is why I have been against it. We need to adopt an open format that anyone and any artist can use. Everyone would benefit. We actually have one: DVD (physical media) and PCM digital (format, can be any bitrate, including 24/96 or anything really), but for some reason it never took off with audiophiles.

Artists are seeing the light with FLAC, so maybe things will get better with time.

Nothing is one size fits all.

For music, PCM digital. 'nuff said. Can be put on any recordable digital media or compressed like FLAC, or were you talking about commertial control by large corporations, not music? As far as my musical tastes... there are enough of me to support the artist, but that isn't the point. With Bittorrent (or any distributed p2p model), the bandwidth issue becomes effectively reduced to nothing. The artist can give away their music for a small price, make 50X more than they would on a large label (where they only make pennies, usually ~10c or less per album), AND, bandwidth becomes a non issue as the fans are contributing to the available bandwidth. The artist is again competing for the attention of fans with other artists, thus improving the quality of music in every genre.

The day that people are no longer told what to listen to by commercial radio and big labels is coming very soon, and it is already here for many of us. There is absolutely no way things could be worse under an open, democratic, system than it was under the system of the RIAA. Everybody involved in the art wins, even if a few large label execs/'talent' have to downgrade from a gulfstream 5 to a gulfstream 3.

TroyD

I think Cds, SACD, etc. are already dead.

Again, as you allude to, it depends on how you are looking at it.

We, audio enthusiasts, are NOT mainstream. We are a niche market and that's how a temper my comments. I could care less about mainstream. We never have been mainstream, we've always been a niche market. That being the case, if digital downloading is the 'standard'...who cares?

BDT

The Judge

Downloading American Idol songs......Dreamy.

F1nut

Yashu wrote: »

Sony will never allow this. There are only two places in the world that can make an SACD, so I doubt a simple drive for the PC is on the way. SACD (and DVD-A) is a closed format, which is why I have been against it. We need to adopt an open format that anyone and any artist can use. Everyone would benefit. We actually have one: DVD (physical media) and PCM digital (format, can be any bitrate, including 24/96 or anything really), but for some reason it never took off with audiophiles.

We have already shown that there are far more than 2 SACD pressing plants, something you continue to ignore. Another fact you continue to ignore is that there are recording studios all over the world that can "make" a DSD (SACD) recording, which can then be sent to one of the pressing plants. It works just like any other format. Duh!

For music, PCM digital. 'nuff said. Can be put on any recordable digital media or compressed like FLAC, or were you talking about commertial control by large corporations, not music? As far as my musical tastes... there are enough of me to support the artist, but that isn't the point. With Bittorrent (or any distributed p2p model), the bandwidth issue becomes effectively reduced to nothing.

And yet another reason why DSD is superior to any form of PCM. The high data rate process used in DSD avoids the quantization errors inherent in the PCM process used for the traditional CD and DVD. 'Nuff said!

The artist can give away their music for a small price, make 50X more than they would on a large label (where they only make pennies, usually ~10c or less per album), AND, bandwidth becomes a non issue as the fans are contributing to the available bandwidth. The artist is again competing for the attention of fans with other artists, thus improving the quality of music in every genre.

Gotta love the hypocrisy. Give away means just that, give away for free. A small price means it's not free, hence it isn't a give away.

The day that people are no longer told what to listen to by commercial radio and big labels is coming very soon, and it is already here for many of us. There is absolutely no way things could be worse under an open, democratic, system than it was under the system of the RIAA. Everybody involved in the art wins, even if a few large label execs/'talent' have to downgrade from a gulfstream 5 to a gulfstream 3.

Open, democratic system? Do you even know what that means? What you are suggesting is more like socialism. Couldn't be worse? They're still driving 1950's American cars in Cuba, while listening to the one and only radio station. You should pay them a visit, see how you like it.

halo

F1nut wrote: »

Open, democratic system? Do you even know what that means? What you are suggesting is more like socialism. Couldn't be worse? They're still driving 1950's American cars in Cuba, while listening to the one and only radio station. You should pay them a visit, see how you like it.

Maybe they'll keep him there

Poee7R

Personally Im happy with having a tangible product in my hands after I pay money for it.

The convenience is there with downloads/streams, but I dont mind having to break a sweat loading a cd. And there arent any format issue's between my car or house, office or living room, they play fine on every cd player I own as a matter of fact. And I like that. Look at the HD/BR war thats been going on the past few years, I dont really feel like doing that all over again with digital formats.

I was quite the Napster junky back in the Shawn days, even used to host open-nap servers back then, so I am a fan of mp3's etc, but I dont care to pay for them. With a cd I dont mind, as I get to caress and play with my cd's in a naugh... ahem sorry...

Any which way Im sure Ill be a naysayer for a while, but its inevitable. Digital downloaded/streamed media is the way of the future... I think.


Dave

TroyD

Yashu,

I'm not arguing the availability issue, per se. My primary interest in this scenario is sound quality and at this point, what you are describing is polishing a ****. I've yet to hear a download that can compete in terms of sound quality. I have an iPod that TLW has downloaded a bunch of mp3's to and I listen to it and it's convienient and great and all that. However, compared to my turntable/SACD player, it suffers by comparison in sound quality. As of right now, I don't view it as a viable alternative in terms of hifi.

The problem that I have with your business model is still one of distribution. Now, I'm no fan of record companies and mainstream radio, but, it's not just a case of just put it on the internet and people will come running. Someone has to promote these acts, that's what record companies do. Like it or not.

And your BS about Sony being the keeper of the keys on SACD is BS. There are a number of companies putting out SACD's. Recording in DSD is an expensive and altogether different process....some labels find it worth it (primarily audiophile) and some don't. It has little to do with Sony.

Again, I have no issue with digital downloading being the mainstream 'norm'. The problem you are going to run into if you take the recording industry out of the loop (which isn't going to happen completely) is who is going to promote acts to get them recognition? Again, you have to create demand. Without promotion, it just isn't happening. It is a lot more complicated than you make it seem.

BDT

jakelm

Im listening to Pandora right now and lovin it.

sucks2beme

For me, FLAC is where it's at.
I doubt if anyone in the industry will support it due to
it being hi-res with no DRM. Anyone can copy it to
to anywhere they want. And converting it to 5.1 is
also do-able. Down-conveting to MP3 for portable use
is also easy. You can re-create the cd with it.
Somewhere there is a lawyer waiting to snuff the life out
of it like they did with DAT.

TroyD

Actually DAT didn't need to be killed by the lawyers....in an interview Matt Polk said this about DAT:

If you remember back to the introduction of DAT, which is almost ten years ago now, the people thought that this was going to be the next greatest thing. But if you ask those questions…. Does it improve performance? Yes, it does. Is there an economic advantage? Well, no. Actually, it’s more expensive. Is it more convenient? Well, this is an interesting question with regard to DAT because the answer is really no. This is because people who were interested in making recordings already have huge libraries of cassette tapes. So, is it convenient for them to adopt a new recording strategy? Absolutely not. And, of course, does it improve access to the entertainment? No, it’s a push -- it’s the same as it was before. In fact, it’s even a little more complicated than before because of the perceived schemes for copy protection since it’s a digital medium, etc. And while DAT is a wonderful technology, it was a complete bust as a consumer technology.

Here is a link to the interview...it's a good read:
http://www.soundstage.com/interviews/matthew_polk.htm

BDT

sucks2beme

TroyD wrote: »

Actually DAT didn't need to be killed by the lawyers....in an interview Matt Polk said this about DAT:



Here is a link to the interview...it's a good read:
http://www.soundstage.com/interviews/matthew_polk.htm

BDT

But they piled on, anyway. Read away from this quote:

The Martyrdom of Consumer DAT

These two examples may seem like issues that have sprung up just recently with the popularity of the Internet. This however is not true. Few remember the grand plans consumer electronic makers had for something called Consumer Digital Audio Tape or DAT for short. This is because plans for Consumer DAT were quickly killed off by the RIAA.

DAT was supposed to be the original replacement for analog tape. It offered the sound quality of CDs and the recording abilities of a normal tape. The RIAA had nightmares of digitally perfect recordings being distributed through black market channels. Does this sound familiar yet?

This set the RIAA in motion lobbying government for restrictions on the DAT medium. As a result of the RIAA's lobbying a chilling precedence was set. A law was past requiring that all DAT devices be equipped with a chip that would allow copying a master tape in the interest of fair use, but would encode copy protection on those copies so that copies could not be recorded off of copies. This would have not been a problem had the chips not cost so much to manufacture and integrate.

DATs are in wide use today by recording professionals and audiophiles alike, but the cost of over $1000 for an average DAT deck keeps them out of the hands of consumers. The RIAA successfully suppressed the DAT medium. This seems trivial in the face of recordable CDs but the defeat of DAT set the stage for the uphill battle CDs had to face before finally winning out against the RIAA.


Believe me, this is the wave of the future for all new formats.
DRM is a must have, or guys in pinstripes will come calling.

Loud & Clear

cmy330go wrote: »

I do really like chuck's idea, however I have grown quite fond of flipping through records. I really like having a physical copy, but having a burned CD, or just a copy on a portable device is simply not good enough. As of right now my favorite way of buying music is purchasing it on vinyl and then being able to download it via a coupon included with the record. To me that is the best of both worlds. Most of the time vinyl gives me the sound quality I want on my home system, while maintaining tangibility, and then the download is adequate for portable use.

Just my 2 cents worth.

We have achieved complete agreement.