The End of the compact disc? I doubt it.

[Shockeye]

The Washington Post's team of journalists has once again done some really top-notch reporting.

"The new format is no format," predicted Petersen, a 24-year industry veteran who also owns a record label, a recording studio and a music-publishing company. "What the consumer would buy is a data file, and you could create whatever you need. If you want to make an MP3, you make an MP3. If you want a DVD-Audio surround disc, you make that."

Maybe I missed the part where the shit from the online stores at least matched the quality of a CD. Oh that's right, I didn't miss anything. Downloaded music still sounds like shit.

Record executives devote a lot of thought to the future of the product they've long manufactured. "Five years from now, absolutely there will be CDs. Ten years from now, though, there will be fewer," compared with other digital music options, said Larry Miller, the 47-year-old CEO of the Or Music label, a Sony Corp. offshoot that gained notoriety this year for its biggest act, Los Lonely Boys, the Tex-Mex trio nominated for four Grammys. "As far as another [physical format], if it exists, I haven't heard about it. . . . When I look three to five years in the future, I believe that 20 to 25 percent of music purchased will be downloaded."

Wait a minute, I thought there weren't going to be anymore compact discs. I'm so confused.

Sitting at your laptop, pressing a few buttons and cueing up Bob Dylan may not seem very rock-and-roll. Will air-guitaring give way to air-mousing? And with each listener compiling his own version of an album, will there even be "albums" anymore? Are we looking at a mixed-up, mix-tape future?

Air-mousing? That's not funny, it will never be funny, and the editor of this piece should have removed it for being completely stupid. Shit like this makes geldon appear intellectual.

"I think CDs are going to be around for a long time," said Petersen. "The cassette was a silly format. It was never designed to be a high-fidelity format. Plus like LPs, you had to flip the media over halfway through. Music buyers are still replacing all their favorite albums on CD."

Downloadable music is not a high-fidelity format yet either. Until it is that majority of people will not be making their purchases online. Until a online music store gives you the option of lossless quality, CDs cannot and will not die.

"I think there will always be a market for the physical product," said Steve Blatter, 38-year-old vice president of music programming for Sirius Satellite Radio, a company that intends to thrive on the consumer's desire to customize musical options. "If you just want to listen to music on your computer, think about what you have to go through to listen to that Ashlee Simpson song.

"There is a simplicity to the CD player."

Only person in this whole article who says something somewhat intelligent is the guy from Sirius radio.

Until I start seeing high quality (read: lossless) formats there is no reason to buy anything from an online music store. Does that make me an audio snob? No. That makes me someone who wants what CDs offered me 25 years ago, HIGH QUALITY. I shouldn't have to be paying the same amount of money for less. That's just stupid.

[stray]

I don't think lossless is absolutely necessary. 192kbps, perhaps 256, is a decent tradeoff for fast delivery. Sound quality at that rate isn't go to be bad unless it's really scrutinized. I will agree though that "CD Quality" downloadable music is hype. For some reason, people want to believe it, even though it's nowhere near the truth.

[Shockeye]

Why should there be a trade-off? We're talking about replacing compact discs and that means music of the same quality. 192 is not compact disc quality. If I am paying money then I want the same quality, no trade-offs accepted.

[Fabricated]

Lossless is the only way I would take music from an online service, but I have no interest in using online music services since they insist I use some proprietary piece of shit software to get music. iTunes is the least offensive of the bunch, and even it is a bloated, ugly piece of shit.

For personal ripping though, I tend to stick to .ogg for playing on my computer, and MP3 for my Nomad Xen.

[stray]

Well, there's no point then. The amount of time it takes to go to the store and buy a few albums (with liner notes even!) isn't going to be much longer.

Then again, I'm probably talking out of my ass. What's the average size of a lossless MP3 (5:00 song)? How long would it take to download 10 of them on broadband?

[Murgos]

Lossless and MP3 don't go together.  It's a contradiction in terms, MP3 is a compression format and therefore lossy.

But around 80 MB a song for a straight 1:1 digital cd rip.

[Shockeye]

Hail to the Thief by Radiohead.
Thoughtful tunes that glide from soft to panicked, quiet to soaring, guitars always present. 14 tracks, 56m29s total time.

                                                                                               

Format.	Output size, bytes.	Ripping time, minutes seconds.
Wave	599,019,736	4m36s
FLAC	391,721,051	5m50s
Monkey's Audio	371,117,694	6m02s
MP3 - 256k	108,701,696	9m41s
Ogg Vorbis - 256k	107,228,378	10m39s

Information obtained from here.

[Shockeye]

FLAC has the most hardware and software support. The best player out there that has FLAC support is the Rio Karma.

Apple has a lossless format, ALE - Apple Lossless Encoder, that iTunes supports encoding to and the iPod and iPod Mini will read. No iPod Shuffle support, but there isn't enough room on one of those things anyway.

[schild]

CDs will never disappear until Best Buy can figure out how to replace the 12 aisles of music near the front of each store.

It's just that simple.

Also, getting rid of cds means Joe Redneck needs to learn how to use a computer. This is America, folks. Not Japan.

[Polysorbate80]

Now, a real purist would point out that CDs themselves involve some loss of quality as compared to, say, something like vinyl.

But then, albums were a pain in the ass.  I don't miss them, gimme CDs any day.

[schild]

Now, a real purist would point out that CDs themselves involve some loss of quality as compared to, say, something like vinyl.

That's bollocks. With a remotely decent setup, CDs are arguably better. Vinyl purists are nothing more than audio hippies.

[Trippy]

Now, a real purist would point out that CDs themselves involve some loss of quality as compared to, say, something like vinyl.

That's bollocks.

No it's not.

With a remotely decent setup, CDs are arguably better. Vinyl purists are nothing more than audio hippies.

You guys are talking about two different things. Poly is talking about how the digitization of an analog wave form results in an approximation of the original and therefore represents a loss in quality. And then you have the whole digital to analog conversion process which can introduce additional error. You are talking about how CDs sound in your typical stereo system compared to records and in that situation I would agree that CDs are arguably better. No clicks or pops, better S/N, dynamic range, frequency response, etc. (not talking about audiophile record equipment, just your standard consumer model).

[schmoo]

Now, a real purist would point out that CDs themselves involve some loss of quality as compared to, say, something like vinyl.

That's bollocks. With a remotely decent setup, CDs are arguably better. Vinyl purists are nothing more than audio hippies.

No.  The best vinyl is much better than CD quality.  However, you have almost certainly never heard the best vinyl recordings, unless you listened to certain classical music labels 30 years ago.  Almost all of the pop and rock vinyl albums produced were limited in audio range to much less than vinyl is capable of, sometimes as bad as 50-12000 Hz.

The problem with vinyl records is that they degrade with use, not that the quality is bad.

[schild]

No.  The best vinyl is much better than CD quality.  However, you have almost certainly never heard the best vinyl recordings, unless you listened to certain classical music labels 30 years ago.  Almost all of the pop and rock vinyl albums produced were limited in audio range to much less than vinyl is capable of, sometimes as bad as 50-12000 Hz.

You can't take the best of a genre to be the average. That's just silly. On average, vinyl is crap compared to CDs. And yes, I've gone out of my way to hear recordings on the best audio shit money can buy.

[Shockeye]

If you need better quality to your CDs just put some green marker on them. Easy enough.

[stray]

I'd also like to point out that anything above 192kbps quality is out of range of what we're even capable of hearing. Whether a track is "CD Quality" or not only matters to our heads, not our ears.

[MahrinSkel]

What always gets lost in this debate is that "audio quality" is a non-starter for the typical listener.  128kbps through a decent set of stereo speakers or headphones is more than good enough for most uses, 192kbps through a decent 5.1 sound system is better than 99% of the non-MP3 home stereo systems (and even counting the computer, not much more expensive).  People didn't switch from LP to CD because they thought the audio quality was better, they switched because the CD's were harder to damage, didn't degrade in quality every time they were played, and were more portable.  CD's were superior to both records and cassette tapes in all of those areas.

An MP3 (or equivalent alternative) is effectively impossible to damage and is incredibly portable.  Sure, a "golden ear" thinks it's distorted and muddy, and unless routed through a $5K+ stereo system it's also tinny and flat.  But such people are rare freaks, *most* of us can't tell the difference and don't care if you can.

--Dave

[Krakrok]

I don't think I have ever bought an audio CD or if I have you could count them on one hand. I stream music all day long off Shoutcast for free. MahrinSkel is right, frankly the majority of consumers don't care about audio quality.

Radio quality on $20 computer speakers is good enough for me.

Which brings us down to what do you get when you buy an audio CD?

You get a piece of plastic which gives you a licence to listen to the music contained on it.

You don't need the piece of plastic if bandwidth is wireless and ubiquitous via satelite.

[Shockeye]

I'd also like to point out that anything above 192kbps quality is out of range of what we're even capable of hearing. Whether a track is "CD Quality" or not only matters to our heads, not our ears.

There are many Metallica tracks that I can think of right now that sound like shit at anything below 256.

To some of us it matters to our ears. I'm sorry if yours suck.

[Ironwood]

There are many Metallica tracks that I can think of right now that sound like shit

What's your point ?

[SirBruce]

This reminds me of those crazy old "THE HUMAN EYE CAN'T SEE MORE THAN 24-30 FPS!!!" arguments.  They were quite common back when 3D graphics card were being introduced, but thankfully you don't see them that much anymore.

Bruce

[Righ]

I'd also like to point out that anything above 192kbps quality is out of range of what we're even capable of hearing. Whether a track is "CD Quality" or not only matters to our heads, not our ears.

Are you confusing sampling rate with frequency? Even a person with damaged hearing can tell the difference between a cymbal recorded at 192Kb/s and 256Kb/s.

[Roac]

MP3 is a compression format and therefore lossy.

Right, that's why compressed ZIP files are unable to unZIP, to recreate the original file. 

Notice: there is a difference between lossy compression and lossless compression.  The latter does exist.

[stray]

I'd also like to point out that anything above 192kbps quality is out of range of what we're even capable of hearing. Whether a track is "CD Quality" or not only matters to our heads, not our ears.

Are you confusing sampling rate with frequency?

No, I'm not confusing them. I'm just throwing out the "192" number because the frequencies being kept at that rate are roughly in the same range of what humans can hear (of course, a 192 sampling rate is relative, depending on the quality of the original). Point is: The frequency range being recorded on a CD is twice as much as what humans are capable of hearing. For "listening" purposes, you don't need all of it.

Oh, and why isn't anyone bitching about the inferiority of CD's to DVD audio? DVD is 4 times better.

[Signe]

No.  The best vinyl is much better than CD quality.  However, you have almost certainly never heard the best vinyl recordings, unless you listened to certain classical music labels 30 years ago.  Almost all of the pop and rock vinyl albums produced were limited in audio range to much less than vinyl is capable of, sometimes as bad as 50-12000 Hz.

You can't take the best of a genre to be the average. That's just silly. On average, vinyl is crap compared to CDs. And yes, I've gone out of my way to hear recordings on the best audio shit money can buy.

If you have listented using serious top end equipment, you would know how incorrect this is.  Listening to good vinyl, even using valve amplification, which will emphasise mid-range sound, you would see how wrong you are.  If you are ever lucky enough to find someone with equipment that I can only dream about, you would recind that statement instantly.  This is one of the very few things that Righ and I have thrown serious money at, but there are others who have spent hundreds of thousands on some extroidinary kit. 

Although, you can't hear many of the frequencies that vinyl can produce, I'm one of those people who think you can feel them.  CDs do an excellent job of emulating vinyl for all but the most elite purist, perhaps, but I still think they are emulating somethig they can't fully reproduce... yet.  Whether it'll be CD that ultimately does the job, I do think it'll get done... eventually.  I don't think we're there quite yet.

I believe what Schmoo said is somewhat correct, but there are many rock (and other) vinyl recordings that are as well produced as the best classical.  Nearly all the music we own has been transferred to CD... not for quality, but for longevity.

[Roac]

Sure, a "golden ear" thinks it's distorted and muddy, and unless routed through a $5K+ stereo system it's also tinny and flat.  But such people are rare freaks, *most* of us can't tell the difference and don't care if you can.

Somewhere in there, there's a good corollary to online gaming and sites like this one.

[Lum]

This reminds me of those crazy old "THE HUMAN EYE CAN'T SEE MORE THAN 24-30 FPS!!!" arguments.  They were quite common back when 3D graphics card were being introduced, but thankfully you don't see them that much anymore.

Actually that was a mangling of the fact that broadcast quality TV is 29.97 FPS.

[schmoo]

I believe what Schmoo said is somewhat correct, but there are many rock (and other) vinyl recordings that are as well produced as the best classical.  Nearly all the music we own has been transferred to CD... not for quality, but for longevity.

Since posting that I remembered the Motown records I had, where the recording and mixing was exquisite, and the record quality was almost as good as the German labels I mentioned.  The lower-quality stuff was mostly British labels (like a lot of the Jethro Tull albums I had, unfortunately).

"valve amplification", how quaint. :)  Years ago I was the techie guy in a store that sold high-end audio equipment. I had all the latest audio gear (no vacuum tube valve stuff, but good transistor equipment).  It's amazing what a few thousand dollars of equipment will do for the sound quality of a good album.

[stray]

"valve amplification", how quaint. :)

Check out the guitar thread. As far as instruments and mics go, valve technology is still the standard by which others are judged. Far from odd, at least when it comes to creating music.

[WayAbvPar]

Sure, a "golden ear" thinks it's distorted and muddy, and unless routed through a $5K+ stereo system it's also tinny and flat.  But such people are rare freaks, *most* of us can't tell the difference and don't care if you can.

Amen. I' don't begrudge those who care the right to choose their platform, but I want it convenient and fast. And full of calories and cholesterol if possible.

[Polysorbate80]

People didn't switch from LP to CD because they thought the audio quality was better, they switched because the CD's were harder to damage, didn't degrade in quality every time they were played, and were more portable.  CD's were superior to both records and cassette tapes in all of those areas.

That's pretty much it.  CD audio (Redbook standard of 44.1 kHz 16-bit audio) involves sampling of analog signals.  The actual loss is small.  I think an overwhelming majority of people don't even notice it it all, and the benefits of having something that doesn't wear out through normal use, is easily portable, and won't be eaten at the whim of your tape player is well worth it.

Perhaps I should have used a different example--maybe DVD vs. film for Schild the movie-phile?  There are similarities.

[Righ]

Check out the guitar thread. As far as instruments and mics go, valve technology is still the standard by which others are judged. Far from odd, at least when it comes to creating music.

The harmonic distortion produced by valve amplification is pleasing to the ear. It may not be literally "high fidelity", but enthusiasts are willing to spend high prices and sacrifice frequency extremes in order to gain the "warmth" in the mid-range that valves produce. And while Gabriel may be producing for the flat, clipped sound of push-pull trannies, Conny Plank is not.

As far as the whole "can you hear the difference" crap is concerned, yes, I can, and my tired old ears are nearing 40 years old. Max Townshend wrote years ago when CD was first introduced by Sony and Philips that it would take significantly higher sampling resolution and bandwidth to use a digital technology to replace what could be recorded with analog equipment of the day. Since that time, studios have implemented technology that has met or exceeded Townshend's stated benchmarks, and with SA-CD and DVD-A, consumer electronics companies are trying to sell it to us.

Marketing and the mass consumer reaction will determine the future audio formats. Quality, be it technical or perceived, will not.

[SirBruce]

What you need is the proper disgronification circuitry.

Bruce

[Llava]

I notice no difference between MP3 quality and CD quality.  I guess I'm a freak.  Oh well, I'm a freak with money to spend on products.  From my perspective, CDs are currently the better product... but only because the presentation of MP3s isn't as professional and doesn't include the decoration and convenience of a CD.  Yet.

(I should note that by convenience, I mean that it comes with its own reusable, labeled case.  With MP3s, I have to buy and label my own cases, and they still won't be as recognizable as the cover art for CD books.  In terms of portability, for me, CDs and MP3s are equally convenient because I can rip or burn as I like.  Though it's nice that CDs come in a format that my car can play right out of the box whereas I (and most people, I'd wager) would have to buy a completely different device to allow my car to instantly play MP3s.)

[schmoo]

"valve amplification", how quaint. :)

Check out the guitar thread. As far as instruments and mics go, valve technology is still the standard by which others are judged. Far from odd, at least when it comes to creating music.

I know, I was referring to Signe referring to vacuum tubes as 'valves'.

Vacuum tube amplifiers create a certain kind of distortion that a lot of musicians like, me included when I was playing guitar regularly in the '80s.