Death of the CD? Your thoughts...

Norm Apter

You know, in the run up to the release of the Beatles remasters I kept hearing an upsetting warning: that this release represents the last gasp of the CD.

Well, its disturbing to me. After I placed them on the CD rack yesterday and plopped them out of their cases, I realized how much I like this format. I like walking over to the CD rack and perusing it and the process of removing any given CD from its case and placing it in the CD tray. Not to mention, the sound of CDs on a good system still sounds so much better to me than digital format.

I guess its kind of analogous to my feeling about using dictionaries. I have to work with Chinese materials on a regular basis and have a whole slew of Chinese-English language paper dictionaries. Though there are any number of small electronic and online dictionaries available, I still prefer the tactile feel of working with paper ones (much like my preference for dealing with real CDs rather than the thought of flipping through an digital music server). That goes for English dictionaries and thesauri as well. (By the way, I'm not anti-tech by any means...I do own an ipod, have itunes and use all kinds of other computer programs, I just don't think of it as an optimal format for music selection and listening)

I suppose one thing that gives me hope against the naysayers, who support their claims by noting that digital sales of music will outstrip physical units for the first time in 2009 or 2010, is that folks must have once said (in the 1980s?) that vinyl was dead and gone and here just in the past 3 years there's been this big upsurge in vinyl sales.

Any thoughts on this issue? I know its been mentioned here and there, but I don't recall any threads dedicated to this issue. If so, sorry...

reeltrouble1

I believe some execs and bean counters at the large labels would very much like any further digital physical media to cease to exist. I believe there are others who do not.

Lets face it, if its on some server you sure can't give it to someone, someone writes a program, someone writes something to defeat it, but slowly and surely copy protection is gaining ground and I believe the ultimate goal. I do think though that CD and SACD will be with us for quite sometime.

RT1

sucks2beme

Their ultimate goal is that we not own anything copyrighted.
Books, music, movies, pay per use. Or a membership where all your
downloaded content dies when your membership expires.
That day will soon be upon us.

bobman1235

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

but slowly and surely copy protection is gaining ground and I believe the ultimate goal. I do think though that CD and SACD will be with us for quite sometime.

I can't say this is true - in fact, at least as far as audio goes, copy protection is LOSING ground - iTunes is the largest music store on the planet, and just recently dropped most of their copy protection schemes on music, and Amazon sells ALL of their MP3s without copy protection. Two years ago you couldn't buy anything online without copy protection.

As for CDs, it does seem that they are going the way of the dodo, but they're certainly still popular ENOUGH that they'll continue to be produced for quite some time.

reeltrouble1

well, each of my grandchildren have an i-pod. one lives in Pa, one in Ga, when the one from Pa. came to visit I took her i-pod (which I paid for, actually I paid for both, but that is the fun of grandchildren) and took to it my computer, she wanted me to download my CD playlist from i-tunes which I had done for the other grandchild, when I did, i-tunes said that her i-pod was not registered to my computer and I had to register it to my computer to get it to work, when I did i-tunes wiped the i-pod of all her downloaded material from the computer in Pa, the only way to get it back was to return to Pa, re-register and I suppose it then wiped the Ga tunes off.

I hope you are right Bob, but I am not downloading anything until I have to.

I would just rather buy the CD/SACD.

RT1

lunazul

Norm Apter wrote: »

I realized how much I like this format. I like walking over to the CD rack and perusing it and the process of removing any given CD from its case and placing it in the CD tray. Not to mention, the sound of CDs on a good system still sounds so much better to me than digital format.

I have to agree with you, but pulling out the vinyl LP is better still.
At least you can enjoy the liner notes without the use of a magnifying glass:D

bobman1235

Oh, no, you're totally correct RT1, there are systems in place, and Apple does prevent someone from just easily copying songs from an iPod to a new computer but the MP3s themselves are, for the most part, no longer tied to a single person. So while Apple doesn't make it easy to do the transferring, if someone were tech savvy enough to get the files from one place to another they would be able to play them without a problem.

I have no doubt that the industry would love to restrict this stuff as much as possible, but it seems that people are fighting back enough to keep the restrictions at least a LITTLE reasonable for most people.

Danny Tse

Death of CD? Maybe to the general masses who prefer their iPods and downloading, but not to me. While I do have an iPod and iTunes on my computer, I rarely use them. I prefer burning CDs for my car and portable CD players. Perhaps because I am a CD collector and that's the reason I buy about 10-20 CDs a month. Recently, I've come to appreciate all the different designs labored upon the CD....the creative label designs, the various packaging methods, the efforts to squeeze things into such a petite package, etc. Are you going to get that with downloads?

And I haven't even talk about the sound quality....

Btw, CDs are digital....most likely the first digital product most of us ever purchased. It steams me to no ends to read/hear things like "so and so finally gone digital". Hello?? So and so was on CD and CD is/was digital.

everpress

I don't see the CD going away. Even when I buy digital, or even vinyl, I burn a CD, and have my iTunes library backed up on DVDs... As far as music playback, I could careless if the CD stays or goes. If you rip something high enough, it'll sound fine, if you need better quality, buy the vinyl if it exists.
But when it comes to purchasing, I like having the physical artifact in hand... I like knowing that I own it.

BlueFox

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

i-tunes said that her i-pod was not registered to my computer and I had to register it to my computer to get it to work, when I did i-tunes wiped the i-pod of all her downloaded material from the computer in Pa, the only way to get it back was to return to Pa, re-register and I suppose it then wiped the Ga tunes off.

You needed to set iTunes to not automatically sync with the PC. Auto sync is the default, and if there are no songs on the computer then there will be no songs on the iPod after syncing.

dkg999

I think the CD format will be around for quite some time. You may have to buy them online as the death of the B&M music retailer is close.

BlueFox

Norm Apter wrote: »

Not to mention, the sound of CDs on a good system still sounds so much better to me than digital format.

CDs are digital format. A CD is simply a digital storage device with very limited storage space. Whether a digital file is stored on a CD or on a hard drive will make no differance in how it sounds during playback. The sound quality is determined by the DAC, whether in the CD player, or external.

Norm Apter

BlueFox wrote: »

CDs are digital format. A CD is simply a digital storage device with very limited storage space. Whether a digital file is stored on a CD or on a hard drive will make no differance in how it sounds during playback. The sound quality is determined by the DAC, whether in the CD player, or external.

Yes, sorry about my poor phrasing. What I was trying to get at was MP3 sound.

But I guess my larger point was about the preference for the mechanics of using a CD player vs. PC / digital server for music playback.

reeltrouble1

you are correct Norm.

all I can say is I believe downloading stinks and disagree with BF (big suprise), no matter what kind of pretty spin you want to put on it, just ends up stinking with pretty on top.

There are huge differences in digital playback, to think not just demonstrates an extreme prejudice, or total naievity, but then its going off topic, but maybe that's the plan.

RT1

BlueFox

Norm Apter wrote: »

Yes, sorry about my poor phrasing. What I was trying to get at was MP3 sound.

Yes, that is true. The easiest way to think of it is a CD contains lossless digital files, while an MP3 is a lossy digital file. Lossless means no bits are missing, while lossy means bits are missing, generally to reduce the size of the file.

As long as you deal with lossless files then sound quality should be fine. The only reason I have never bought a single iTune song is because they do not sell lossless files. On the other hand, there is nothing stopping a record company from releasing a CD that contains MP3 files. Maybe that is why some CDs do not sound very good.

vc69

Danny Tse wrote: »

Btw, CDs are digital....most likely the first digital product most of us ever purchased. It steams me to no ends to read/hear things like "so and so finally gone digital". Hello?? So and so was on CD and CD is/was digital.

Lol. Ya beat me to it! (Kids these days...);):D

Here is something to consider: NIN recently gave away " The Slip" for free as a download. It was available in many formats, one of them being 24/96 wave files. That is certainly superior to any lossy or even FLAC and even better than 16/44.1 (CD). Believe me, it sounds great. But because I am a collector, and Reznor also offered a limited edition CD + DVD of the album. I bought it. Granted, I am a huge fan. But the point is, artists can provide a hi-resolution download for free and still make money on sales of the same material.
Here is a link to a lengthy post he made about doing just that.
Trent Reznor is an exception to the rule but perhaps it will catch on if we, as a buying public demand it. In that, my hope is slim. We audiophiles do not represent the masses and in fact are but small minority.
In the long run, my hope is for material to be more widely distributed in this manner. As an audiophile, I love the idea of higher resolution source material. As a collector, I love being able to buy that material and the value-add of the accompanying DVD was a big bonus. The Beastie Boys recently reissued their catalog remastered. I bought "Paul's Boutique" and was able to immediately download a high-bitrate FLAC, all of the artwork in hi-res PDF the original panoramic cover photo. Later, a nice new digi-pac CD arrived. All for $15 or so.
Point is, as a consumer of music, I now have more and better formats available to me than ever before. I sure hope SACD doesn't go away, but alas, my hope is fading. Only consumer demand will drive it's future and it doesn't seem there is much in the way of demand. I hope I'm wrong. If we demand the higher resolution formats, whether downloaded or purchased on disk, the record companies will have to respond. But if Joe and Mary average consumer are willing to pay for low bitrate mp3's and listen to them. We are probably going to be screwed.

Emlyn

BlueFox wrote: »

Yes, that is true. The easiest way to think of it is a CD contains lossless digital files, while an MP3 is a lossy digital file. Lossless means no bits are missing, while lossy means bits are missing, generally to reduce the size of the file.

16 bit CD audio is not lossless to the original source, which is its major weakness. Granted it's not compressed, but there is plenty missing. Most mastertapes are held at 24 bit resolution. It bugs me that some download sites sell CD quality files as "high resolution" when they really aren't. DVD-Audio quality is at 24 bit, whether at 48kHZ, 96kHZ, or 192 kHZ. That's high resolution because nothing is lost from the original source. Blu-ray audio has the same potential. SACD is a whole other matter.

CD quality is good enough for most purposes, but I have been hearing people say that 24/96 downloads are the future but at a hefty price.

BlueFox

Emlyn wrote: »

16 bit CD audio is not lossless to the original source, which is its major weakness. Granted it's not compressed, but there is plenty missing. Most mastertapes are held at 24 bit resolution.

Yes. Thank you for the correction. It is ironic some hold the CD up as the best in digital sound when they could download the original hi-rez 24 bit song.

Personally, I think the CD will stay around for some time even if we have to burn our own CD, or better yet, Bluray with hi-rez tunes.

comfortablycurt

CD's won't be leaving my house anytime soon.

Like Norm said, half of the reason is the actual experience of collecting CD's, and selecting one to listen to.

A bunch of files on a hard drive IS NOT a collection. It's a data file. When you have hundreds of CD's displayed on a shelf...it's a collection. You actually look through them...selecting the right one, you pop the CD in, maybe thumb through the booklets and look at the artwork, read the lyrics etc...

Selecting a file on an ipod isn't quite the same, and never will be.

When friends come over you can say "hey, check it out, I just got this new CD". They say, "cool, let me check it out man". So you pop in the CD, and hand them the case for them to look out.

Now on the other side of the fence...

"Hey, I just downloaded a new album". "Cool, let me check it out". You then select the file, and that's the end of it. Nothing to look at...nothing to hold...nothing to collect.


Just my $.02

TECHNOKID

Norm Apter wrote: »

Yes, sorry about my poor phrasing. What I was trying to get at was MP3 sound.

But I guess my larger point was about the preference for the mechanics of using a CD player vs. PC / digital server for music playback.

I agree with you, I never feel the same playing my music from a computer as I do playing it from a dedicated player, doesn't matter how good the PC is, it just doesn't fell the same, not the same handling feeling. I see PCs as good communication and multi purpose tools but not as a dedicated piece of gear for either music or movies.

comfortablycurt wrote: »

CD's won't be leaving my house anytime soon.

Like Norm said, half of the reason is the actual experience of collecting CD's, and selecting one to listen to.

A bunch of files on a hard drive IS NOT a collection. It's a data file. When you have hundreds of CD's displayed on a shelf...it's a collection. You actually look through them...selecting the right one, you pop the CD in, maybe thumb through the booklets and look at the artwork, read the lyrics etc...

Selecting a file on an ipod isn't quite the same, and never will be.

When friends come over you can say "hey, check it out, I just got this new CD". They say, "cool, let me check it out man". So you pop in the CD, and hand them the case for them to look out.

Now on the other side of the fence...

"Hey, I just downloaded a new album". "Cool, let me check it out". You then select the file, and that's the end of it. Nothing to look at...nothing to hold...nothing to collect.


Just my $.02

You jusy nailed it, even if download was as good or better quality the key words are "physical media collection" this is what I've been hearing in this debate all along: ownership of a physical media. Many people think this way and will not change before a long long time so I can't see CDs disappearing for a long long time. I feel a few generations has to disappear before the concept of owning physical medias totally disappear.

Cheers!
TK

F1nut

comfortablycurt wrote: »

CD's won't be leaving my house anytime soon.

Like Norm said, half of the reason is the actual experience of collecting CD's, and selecting one to listen to.

A bunch of files on a hard drive IS NOT a collection. It's a data file. When you have hundreds of CD's displayed on a shelf...it's a collection. You actually look through them...selecting the right one, you pop the CD in, maybe thumb through the booklets and look at the artwork, read the lyrics etc...

Selecting a file on an ipod isn't quite the same, and never will be.

When friends come over you can say "hey, check it out, I just got this new CD". They say, "cool, let me check it out man". So you pop in the CD, and hand them the case for them to look out.

Now on the other side of the fence...

"Hey, I just downloaded a new album". "Cool, let me check it out". You then select the file, and that's the end of it. Nothing to look at...nothing to hold...nothing to collect.


Just my $.02

It's nice to see that someone your age GETS IT!

vc69

Emlyn wrote: »

CD quality is good enough for most purposes, but I have been hearing people say that 24/96 downloads are the future but at a hefty price.

What hefty price? Why would that format be more expensive? Is that what you meant by "price"? I was able to download 24/96 wav files for free from the artists website. What is preventing other artists from offering the same format for the same price as say a 128kbps mp3? I am not quite as married to owning a disc as I am to getting the highest possible fidelity. I would love to be able to buy hi-res format media, but if the highest resolution is available only as a download, I'm downloading.

Erik Tracy

comfortablycurt wrote: »

CD's won't be leaving my house anytime soon.

Like Norm said, half of the reason is the actual experience of collecting CD's, and selecting one to listen to.

A bunch of files on a hard drive IS NOT a collection. It's a data file. When you have hundreds of CD's displayed on a shelf...it's a collection. You actually look through them...selecting the right one, you pop the CD in, maybe thumb through the booklets and look at the artwork, read the lyrics etc...

Selecting a file on an ipod isn't quite the same, and never will be.

When friends come over you can say "hey, check it out, I just got this new CD". They say, "cool, let me check it out man". So you pop in the CD, and hand them the case for them to look out.

Now on the other side of the fence...

"Hey, I just downloaded a new album". "Cool, let me check it out". You then select the file, and that's the end of it. Nothing to look at...nothing to hold...nothing to collect.


Just my $.02

Change out the word CD for cassette, or LP, or whatever media is the current & predominant media.....video used to be VHS, then DVD, then for a bit HD-DVD, now Bluray.

Media is just media - the pace of obsolescence is ever increasing

Content is king and will reside on whatever media is marketed and successful.

But I agree - a collection means something tangible, not a screen dump of a directory listing.

CDs will eventually go obsolete - guaranteed.

Danny Tse

Erik Tracy wrote: »

CDs will eventually go obsolete - guaranteed.

To many people, CD is already obsolete. However, for those of us who appreciate the fun and pleasure of having a physical medium*, CD is still viable....especially given that it will most likely be the last successful music-oriented physical medium introduced to mass consumers.

*An administrator of an internet radio station once told me that I'm "the last person on the planet buying CDs"

Erik Tracy

Danny Tse wrote: »

To many people, CD is already obsolete. However, for those of us who appreciate the fun and pleasure of having a physical medium, CD is still viable....especially given that it will most likely be the last successful music-oriented physical medium introduced to mass consumers.

Not disagreeing - I still buy and use CDs - I have a 'collection'...I still have a Beta tape collection and a decrepid snowy Beta player - some day CD owners will be faced with obsolescence.

Maybe not now, but ANY media is doomed to obsolescence because of the pace of technology.

Danny Tse

Erik Tracy wrote: »

Maybe not now, but ANY media is doomed to obsolescence because of the pace of technology.

Not disagreeing....which is why I loaded up on portable CD players while they're still around. I'll have to do the same with SACD players as well.

BlueFox

Personally, I would rather listen to music than play with the plastic box in which it was shipped. However, being an old geezer (60 in a few days. ugh!) I like CDs, and DVDs, for backup, but I am sure I will outgrow that. Just as I stopped using pencil and paper to jot down thoughts, or outline a document.

mmadden28

I don't care what format it's in. If it sounds good and I like the content and I can play it on whatever I want without restriction (other than the appropriate compatible player) then I'm happy. I don't mind putting the CDs and SACDs in and such, but its not why I enjoy audio. I enjoy audio for the sounds that come out of the speakers and the music I enjoy listening to. I don't need a ritual to make my listening experience better. I also don't have any qualms about anybody that does enjoy the ritual of a collection--that is each persons individual desire. I know there are quite a few on this forum that also enjoy the ritual of Vinyl as well and that's all well and good if that's what makes them happy.

I personally never really cared too much for pictures in the liners--Most of my digital files have the covers displayed when the song plays. And in fact if its done right you can have all the liner notes and lyrics in the metadata of the files as well. The only thing I ever used the liner notes for was when I was a teen and wanted to learn the lyrics (back before the 'net for you 'yungins). I used to trash the jewel case and the liners :eek: (except for my favs) and put all the CDs in a binder (much more convenient) especially if I wanted to take them somewhere with me-which I did a lot as a teen when I went to my friends houses and wanted to share my collection. Only recently have I started checking out the liner notes for some classical and other more unique and new music styles I'm being introduced to lately and albums I've been getting as of late. I kep everything aymore-if for no other reason than possible resale later if I decide I don't want it any more (yeah right - like this pack rat will ever sell anything)

Right now though, I'm a big fan of convenience. Having access to any song I want to hear at any time at a moments notice is what I like. I don't like searching ad trying to decide--tires me out really. So right now I'm really digging my SqueezeBox Duet through my DAC and Tube Pre and my SDS SRS 2's.

My goal, while I haven't achieved it yet is to completely re-rip all my CDs to FLAC or equiv, so that I have the best the CD has to offer (perhaps without jitter), while maintaining the convenience. I'll save the SACDs, DVD-A, really hi-res downloads and eventual BluRay Audio for the critical listening or the most desirable of my musical tastes-(and I've been doing that at an alarmingly increasing rate. ) Besides, with a shared library, I can listen to that music on any of my remote wireless or wired media players in any area of my house that I so choose to do so, I don't have to run all the way down to the basement to get my Debbie Gibson or Shawn Cassidy CD if I want to listen to it when I'm getting a bubble bath on the 3rd floor (sometimes I'll play both at the same time :eek::rolleyes: and listen for hidden messages).

Did I mention how much I'm really digging my SDS SRS 2's??

Emlyn

vc69 wrote: »

What hefty price? Why would that format be more expensive? Is that what you meant by "price"? I was able to download 24/96 wav files for free from the artists website. What is preventing other artists from offering the same format for the same price as say a 128kbps mp3? I am not quite as married to owning a disc as I am to getting the highest possible fidelity. I would love to be able to buy hi-res format media, but if the highest resolution is available only as a download, I'm downloading.

Freebies from an artist's web site would be free whatever format they are in. From a site like HDtracks for a rock CD, an individual downloaded track is $1.49 in CD quality (high resolution to some) and $2.49 per track in 24/96 quality. There's not a whole lot available yet besides classical. Whole CD's aren't too much more expensive as downloads...$11.49 vs. $15.49. HDtracks is competing with sites that sell compressed tracks at $0.99. The price difference may close over time, but I doubt it. Where there's a consumer choice and a quality difference between the choices, a price differential will be in place.

I've never downloaded music myself and intend to keep buying CD's. But, the 24/96 downloads are appealing to me because they should provide the same quality as DVD-Audio for lower cost than when DVD-Audio discs first came out. They're still more expensive than CD quality audio though.

xj4094dg

My CD collection has grown dramatically since I've been able to preview so many different types of music without having to buy it all. When I find something I like, it goes into the physical collection. The overall quality (read music I personally like) of the collection is improved by the fact that I haven't purchased a lot of music I don't like. I'm enjoying more music now and therefore buying more. I think its way cool.

obieone

Is there a correlation between file size and SQ? It seems that the cd's I've got that have noticably better SQ, are also friggin HUGE!