Is the death of the CD looming?

[Corsair]

Now here is exactly why I agreed to lay this topic to rest. Personal opinions are one thing, but personal assaults are completely fucked up and ridiculous! I don't recall stating that CDs were going away, I believe that the consensus here is that it will become a niche market. Comments about the internet...taken totally out of context again. This was a statement about the disconnection with the "real world", people who spend their lives in their little cave, only connecting through the internet instead of interacting face to face. Who cares where you met your fiancee, nobody targeted you. If the shoe fits, wear it! If you hover in your little cave and socially interact with a PC screen, then you will take this personally. I don't rightly give a fuck! Since when did an opinion on a message board become negative and bitchmoaning? It's an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

I personally will not support a MP3 file or FLAC or whatever. That doesn't mean that I am against YOU supporting it. Its a personal choice. Same with using the internet to meet people IF you have opportunities to meet in the "real world". The "grumpy old man nonsense" theory is a bold and, frankly, retarded statement.

My wife and I have been to every Progpower since IV (with the exception of the Therion year), and if I had to total the amount of people who I go to see on a year to year basis as compared to "the music" I'd place that number at less than 5. I go solely for the music. I don't even bother to stay in midtown anymore, due to rising costs. I am there to see the bands. If I make a few friends along the way, great! If not, oh well.

See you in the dealers room! Boy, I sure hope nobody has setup an internet kiosk where you can purchase your music and hook your iPod right up to grab it. I'll feel like a total asshat carrying my bag of cds around that I can't even listen to until I get back home on Monday. At least I will still feel connected with my past.

First off, I wasn't making any personal attacks, and i'm sorry if you feel attacked or in any way threatened by my post.

Not only was the post not directed at anyone personally, I also feel that you missed the point of my post entirely. Let me explain myself:

Grazing over a majority of the posts in this thread, one gets the impression that many of the veteran posters around here are very much set in their ways. Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all, at least 'til it starts to take a condescending, or superior attitude towards anything that doesn't fit quite so nicely into the expectations that they have come to feel entitled to be placated with, comes off somewhat thusly:

Yes, you are entitled to whatever opinion you might possess, and the right to voice that opinion, but when what is being said essentially amounts to "Back in *MY* day...we (x) and WE LIKED IT! You whippersnappers nowadays (y) instead of (x) and will never understand or appreciate (x) Like we did!" - consider that it might actually come off as insulting or condescending, to those who (y) regardless of intent. Samewise, you ought to then expect those who (y) might come right back and assert - "(y) is fine, and your attitude about it is ridiculous and irrational. Let's walk uphill both ways in 3 feet of snow, while we're at it." Getting all defensive about it just makes your day worse.

Given the subjective nature of experience, and that mutability of cultural trends, it seems like a waste of time to feel threatened (Again, I'm not referring to you personally.) by new technology and the convenience it brings or even lament it's encroachment. Get used to it.

As far as the "nobody cares [...] fiancee." It goes both ways. I don't rememebr who posted it, it may have even been you, posted something about where they met theirs (at a record store) - no, nobody really cares about that either; it's merely to assert the idea that indeed - things have changed in the way we interact with each other, but that doesn't mean it's a better or worse way to go about it, and that associating that 'new' way with being a basement dwelling troglodyte with no meaningful social life is a little bit insulting. No, a person being insulted by an assertion does not mean taht it applies to them. If I were to say that your attachment to an obsolete medium meant that you were a regressive, senseless neanderthal, who is ruled by illogical and childish notions - If you feel insulted by that, and display an emotional reaction to the statement, it does not mean that it's true, and in fact, it just makes me seem like a bellicose asshole.

Anyways, you're being condescending and don't even realize it; yet are very quick to point out when others are doing it. Be careful in doing so, as it becomes very easy to venture into hypocrisyland, going down that road.

 

[TribunalRecords]

The ploy is in the packaging of said product. Do l have to map out everything for some people?

Music is intangible. Remember that. I understand there has to be a way to transfer it to consumers. But, when the packaging and the tangible "product" overshadows the music and makes people feel they have to "hold it" to enjoy it, therein lies the rub. You fell for it.

again, i guess we all "fell for it" beginning in the 50's and 60's when people may have wanted to turn the intangible enjoyment of music on their radios to the tangible and therefore purchasing an LP and/or a 45 single to listen to in their own homes whenever they wanted to rather than wait for the radio to play the song again.

again, you are speaking about this from the digital age, where you apparently never went through the era of hearing things on a magical box aka a RADIO and then wanting to have the music to enjoy whenever. again, not about the packaging, but the personal enjoyment of this "intangible" art while not having to rely on someone else to provide it to you on their time table (aka radio stations).

once again, i fell for nothing but the advancement of an art form.

you can see it however you want, but you obviously didn't grow up in the 60's, 70's or 80's. because to listen to music you had to own it, know someone to make you a cassette copy, listen to the radio or sit in front of your television and watch MTV. those where your options to enjoy music back then.

naturally, the game has changed which i understand completely being a label for over 10 years now, but i don't do things as a ploy and convince people that they need to hold something tangible. i provide my releases for people like me who WANT something tangible and come from an era where that was important to us. if it's not important you or other like-minded digital folk, then naturally you won't be purchasing my CD only releases.

 

[Up&Away]

you can see it however you want, but you obviously didn't grow up in the 60's, 70's or 80's. because to listen to music you had to own it, know someone to make you a cassette copy, listen to the radio or sit in front of your television and watch MTV. those where your options to enjoy music back then.

You assume too much in order to advance your argument. l'm in my mid 40s. Again, l know music had to be placed on a medium in order to transfer it to consumers back in the day. But, record companies began elaborate packaging in order to "up" the price. Sheeple became accustomed to this. And now, some can't do without it.

The need for that elaborate packaging has gone away. So has much of need for alot of consumers to spend $ on it. Alot of us just want the music. The record industry hates this fact and has basically been fighting digital tooth and nail.

if it's not important you or other like-minded digital folk, then naturally you won't be purchasing my CD only releases.

Correct. But, l'm not seeing anything that interests me in your lineup in the
1st place.

 

[TribunalRecords]

The need for that elaborate packaging has gone away. So has much of need for alot of consumers to spend $ on it.

as a consumer myself i completely agree. they took the wrong path long ago when they raised prices on CDs rather than lowering them across the board to compete with the downloading issues. and it's cost them in the long run. who knows what would have happened if they lowered prices from the get go.

i speak of "they" as the major labels and big players in the industry. i can luckily keep my CDs prices lower since i don't have offices in NYC or LA.

Correct. But, l'm not seeing anything that interests me in your lineup in the
1st place.

naturally, haha.

 

[fishfire]

Sell me a memory stick that I can plug it into the console of my F-150, and let me listen to all the music I need for the 5 hour trip to Rochester. Sell me the lyrics on download through kindle or IPAD. Bam. Done. Sold. (Sure beats the crap out of some 19.95 a month napster service). I still love CD's but it is the music I want most of all, and I want the artists PAID for their creative work. So, build me a better breadbox, put more music at my fingertips than I can dream of, make sure the artists get paid so they can keep creating great music. That is what I want as a consumer.

 

[Exploding Ned]

To those who buy only (or mostly) digital downloads... you are the reason for CDs declining sales, whether you want to admit it, feel bad about it, are proud of it... or whatever. And not necessarily because of the physical act of buying the downloads, but because of the fact that you do not have the aural capability to comprehend that a download is nothing but a heavily compressed and somewhat distorted version of what the artist intended the album to sound like. In the same vein as people on here putting forth common bands as "oddballs" as suggestions for future PP lineups, being "just fine" with digital downloads (paid or stolen), abruptly shows just how low in the spectrum many people's idea of good sound quality lies. Thankfully there will always be a loyal audiophile fanbase for me to enlighten music to. Otherwise, I'd go to Sears and sell tires for a living.

 

[dcowboys311]

To those who buy only (or mostly) digital downloads... you are the reason for CDs declining sales, whether you want to admit it, feel bad about it, are proud of it... or whatever. And not necessarily because of the physical act of buying the downloads, but because of the fact that you do not have the aural capability to comprehend that a download is nothing but a heavily compressed and somewhat distorted version of what the artist intended the album to sound like. In the same vein as people on here putting forth common bands as "oddballs" as suggestions for future PP lineups, being "just fine" with digital downloads (paid or stolen), abruptly shows just how low in the spectrum many people's idea of good sound quality lies. Thankfully there will always be a loyal audiophile fanbase for me to enlighten music to. Otherwise, I'd go to Sears and sell tires for a living.

Is it really such a bad thing if CD sales decline while digital purchases increase? Musicians are still making money either way.

There are sites that offer FLAC downloads, for cheap, if not free. Bandcamp comes to mind (mostly donation based).

 

[skyrefuge]

To those who buy only (or mostly) digital downloads... you are the reason for CDs declining sales

At least we know now that it's not piracy that's the problem! Woo hoo!

but because of the fact that you do not have the aural capability to comprehend that a download is nothing but a heavily compressed and somewhat distorted version of what the artist intended the album to sound like.

I bet you don't have the aural capability either. When you did your blind ABX listening test comparing a 256kbps AAC from iTunes to the CD version, how did you set up the test, what was the song, what was your score out of 10 trials, and what were the characteristics you used to identify which version was which? (I assume you've done such a well-controlled test, otherwise you would not speak with such authority).

I can't tell the difference between 192kbps mp3 and CD, and feel absolutely no shame in that, because I know that it's the simple truth. I'd feel much more shame if I spent a boatload of money on audiophile googags to make my listening experience better, and then upon testing found that I'd just been fooling myself and none of it makes any difference to my ears.

abruptly shows just how low in the spectrum many people's idea of good sound quality lies.

And what about yourself? You like *CD*-quality? 44kHz@16bit? lolz! Since the artist was probably recording at 96kHz/24bit, how is CD not a compressed and distorted version of what they intended? Luckily the "loyal audiophile fanbase" knows how crappy CD is, and did such a good job of supporting the high-resolution SACD/DVD-Audio formats. Oh wait, except they didn't...well, at least you can still get 96kHz/24bit tracks if you want. Know where? Downloads! So I would not count on audiophiles saving the physical music distribution business...they're already moving on to electronic distribution.

I think you'll do a much better job keeping your business alive by playing up the physical, "hold it in your hands", collector desire expressed by many here than by playing up the audiophile aspect.

Neil

 

[Savage Pumpkin]

At least we know now that it's not piracy that's the problem! Woo hoo!



I bet you don't have the aural capability either. When you did your blind ABX listening test comparing a 256kbps AAC from iTunes to the CD version, how did you set up the test, what was the song, what was your score out of 10 trials, and what were the characteristics you used to identify which version was which? (I assume you've done such a well-controlled test, otherwise you would not speak with such authority).

I can't tell the difference between 192kbps mp3 and CD, and feel absolutely no shame in that, because I know that it's the simple truth. I'd feel much more shame if I spent a boatload of money on audiophile googags to make my listening experience better, and then upon testing found that I'd just been fooling myself and none of it makes any difference to my ears.



And what about yourself? You like *CD*-quality? 44kHz@16bit? lolz! Since the artist was probably recording at 96kHz/24bit, how is CD not a compressed and distorted version of what they intended? Luckily the "loyal audiophile fanbase" knows how crappy CD is, and did such a good job of supporting the high-resolution SACD/DVD-Audio formats. Oh wait, except they didn't...well, at least you can still get 96kHz/24bit tracks if you want. Know where? Downloads! So I would not count on audiophiles saving the physical music distribution business...they're already moving on to electronic distribution.

I think you'll do a much better job keeping your business alive by playing up the physical, "hold it in your hands", collector desire expressed by many here than by playing up the audiophile aspect.

Neil

Well Neil probably doesn't like Cd's as much anymore because he's riding his bicycle all the time. Kinda hard to change Cd's when a semi is about to pass you on the road.

 

[Exploding Ned]

At least we know now that it's not piracy that's the problem! Woo hoo! I bet you don't have the aural capability either. When you did your blind ABX listening test comparing a 256kbps AAC from iTunes to the CD version, how did you set up the test, what was the song, what was your score out of 10 trials, and what were the characteristics you used to identify which version was which? (I assume you've done such a well-controlled test, otherwise you would not speak with such authority). I can't tell the difference between 192kbps mp3 and CD, and feel absolutely no shame in that, because I know that it's the simple truth. I'd feel much more shame if I spent a boatload of money on audiophile googags to make my listening experience better, and then upon testing found that I'd just been fooling myself and none of it makes any difference to my ears. And what about yourself? You like *CD*-quality? 44kHz@16bit? lolz! Since the artist was probably recording at 96kHz/24bit, how is CD not a compressed and distorted version of what they intended? Luckily the "loyal audiophile fanbase" knows how crappy CD is, and did such a good job of supporting the high-resolution SACD/DVD-Audio formats. Oh wait, except they didn't...well, at least you can still get 96kHz/24bit tracks if you want. Know where? Downloads! So I would not count on audiophiles saving the physical music distribution business...they're already moving on to electronic distribution. I think you'll do a much better job keeping your business alive by playing up the physical, "hold it in your hands", collector desire expressed by many here than by playing up the audiophile aspect. Neil

I'm not "playing up" the audiophile concept as much as noting (correctly) the inferiority of downloads vs. the physical CD or vinyl. Whether a person can pick up on that aspect or not is exclusive to them alone, and I respect that... even if I don't agree with it. And, before you get into how good my hearing ability is, I can blindly tell the difference in sound between a digital piano and an acoustic one, among other things. Not going to go into all of that, but suffice to say that there are a few of us who can tell the difference, and while I'm not necessarily dissing anyone who can't tell the difference, I am however making it known that I and many others, CAN, and we WILL NOT buy downloads for that very reason. I have plenty of customers who agree with me on that point. You can talk all the tech stuff you want, all I know is what my ears can tell me. And I stick with keeping the sound right for me... not what someone else or some trend tells me I should do. Sorry if that offends, but that's the way it is for me. And yes, piracy IS the problem, among other things, probably the main reason I hate downloading capability. And yes, I agree, playing up the physical item in your hands is a main selling point I use frequently. And finally, I prefer vinyl, but for convenience sake (in the vehicle, at the shows) I play CDs as well.

 

[skyrefuge]

I can blindly tell the difference in sound between a digital piano and an acoustic one, among other things. Not going to go into all of that

That's not what I asked. I asked if you can tell the difference between a purchased electronic download and the CD version of the same song. Differentiating pianos tells me nothing about your ability to differentiate between audio compression types. Unless that's one of the "other things" that you aren't going to go into, but please, go into it!

I am however making it known that I and many others, CAN, and we WILL NOT buy downloads for that very reason. I have plenty of customers who agree with me on that point.

It's quite possible that you CAN tell the difference, but I will say that it's amazing how many people who *think* they can tell the difference suddenly lose that ability when tested in a controlled environment.

You can talk all the tech stuff you want, all I know is what my ears can tell me. And I stick with keeping the sound right for me... not what someone else or some trend tells me I should do.

If you haven't done a controlled test to determine what audio quality level is ideal for you, then your adherence to CD-quality is doing exactly "what someone else or some trend tells me I should do." There is an extremely broad range of audio quality levels, from AM radio to 192kHz/24-bit digital audio. CD-quality sits in an unremarkable position at the middle of the pack. Good compared to AM radio, but mediocre compared to 192kHz/24-bit.

If you were truly going by what your ears told you after performing controlled tests, it would be quite a coincidence that your hearing ability perfectly matched the 44kHz/16-bit digital audio of the CD format, and not something lower or something higher. Certainly not an impossible occurrence, but that's why when I hear people pledge their allegiance to CD-quality over all other quality levels, I must ask if they've done controlled listening tests, or have simply made their decision by following the "trend" that record companies led them to follow by pushing the CD format.

"Trusting your ears" in an uncontrolled environment is extremely unreliable, because it involves our unreliable brains, with all their biases, prejudices, and emotions that seriously cloud the truth of the matter.

Neil

 

[TwizstedJesus]

It's quite possible that you CAN tell the difference, but I will say that it's amazing how many people who *think* they can tell the difference suddenly lose that ability when tested in a controlled environment.

There is a difference between somebody who has a high end stereo and somebody who listens on a $40 boom box from Walmart. Can you tell the difference in the reproduction? Of course you can, because a higher quality stereo is going to reproduce the sounds alot better. I don't have a $10000 stereo because somebody "told me" it sounded better. It DID sound better. My own ears told me that! Some controlled listening tests are not going to change WHAT IS. When somebody makes an MP3 stereo that can bring out all of the musical details that us audiophiles love, maybe there will be a warming to the process, but I don't believe that is going to occur anytime soon.



If you haven't done a controlled test to determine what audio quality level is ideal for you, then your adherence to CD-quality is doing exactly "what someone else or some trend tells me I should do." There is an extremely broad range of audio quality levels, from AM radio to 192kHz/24-bit digital audio. CD-quality sits in an unremarkable position at the middle of the pack. Good compared to AM radio, but mediocre compared to 192kHz/24-bit.

Totally true about the broad range of audio quality levels between AM, cassettes,different types of cd's, etc...but I'm pretty sure nobody conducted "controlled listening tests" and decided that FM sounded better than AM. Their ears told them that. Same with cds compared to cassette, 8-track to vinyl etc... Hell, I can tell the difference between music recorded on old school Analog equipment and recorded digitally with Pro-Tools and the likes.

If you were truly going by what your ears told you after performing controlled tests, it would be quite a coincidence that your hearing ability perfectly matched the 44kHz/16-bit digital audio of the CD format, and not something lower or something higher. Certainly not an impossible occurrence, but that's why when I hear people pledge their allegiance to CD-quality over all other quality levels, I must ask if they've done controlled listening tests, or have simply made their decision by following the "trend" that record companies led them to follow by pushing the CD format.

I don't think that we're pledging our allegiance to CD quality over all other quality levels, but the fact remains that many available formats just DO NOT compare.

"Trusting your ears" in an uncontrolled environment is extremely unreliable, because it involves our unreliable brains, with all their biases, prejudices, and emotions that seriously cloud the truth of the matter.

Neil

The bottom line, once again, is personal opinion. My opinion is...and you can quote me here..."Perfume doesn't mask the smell of shit. A download, 9 times out of 10 does not compare to what you hear on a CD"

 

[dcowboys311]

The bottom line, once again, is personal opinion. My opinion is...and you can quote me here..."Perfume doesn't mask the smell of shit. A download, 9 times out of 10 does not compare to what you hear on a CD"

This is flat out wrong. FLAC files are EXACTLY what you get on the CD. No quality loss at all from an audio standpoint.

I don't even buy downloads...I like having physical media...but all of these arguments against them using sound quality as a factor are completely and objectively wrong. It's not a matter of opinion.

 

[dcowboys311]

Another factor in people "hearing differences" is the equipment you use to play the music. If you have a top of the line stereo system but are running crappy $25 dollar computer speakers, of course it's going to sound worse. But that problem lies in your equipment, not the files. The files are fine.

 

[Exploding Ned]

Best to you Neil for being that "tech speak" savvy, I salute you for it. As I said though, I do prefer vinyl's sound quality, an audiophile or similar pressing, or an SHM CD maybe, something along those lines. And like I did say last post, I generally use CDs more for convenience than anything else. No I can't always tell the difference between sources... but the majority of the time I can. Heavily analyzing the point isn't going to change what my ears tell me they like. Simple.

 

[Exploding Ned]

This is flat out wrong. FLAC files are EXACTLY what you get on the CD. No quality loss at all from an audio standpoint. I don't even buy downloads...I like having physical media...but all of these arguments against them using sound quality as a factor are completely and objectively wrong. It's not a matter of opinion.

Actually, the sound of a download is usually more compressed than a physical CD or vinyl.

 

[TwizstedJesus]

I'm basing my opinion on MP3 or the likes of your typical download. FLAC is a whole different ballgame, and its also a hog which will kill your hard drive space, that is, if you can find the music you are looking for in FLAC format. Hence the statement...

A download, 9 times out of 10 does not compare

. iPod users certainly are missing out on higher quality music formats unless they can afford to own 10 different iPods, which would enable them to download FLAC. Hell, the one thing that I do download, Black Crowes live shows, I download in FLAC format!

 

[cslebn]

Oh, You'll never see me texting at a show. Any show. That shit drives me nuts too.....:hotjump:

Sadly I was texting between bands at last year's show. Technology blows. Both because they were having problems back home at work (and I was giving tech support to them) and secondly because they had a link to me. Those bastards!

 

[dcowboys311]

Actually, the sound of a download is usually more compressed than a physical CD or vinyl.

Yeah, if you're downloading at 128.
FLAC is literally, bit for bit, the exact same thing from a CD.
The difference is not noticeable to most if you encode at v0.

 

[dcowboys311]

I'm basing my opinion on MP3 or the likes of your typical download. FLAC is a whole different ballgame, and its also a hog which will kill your hard drive space, that is, if you can find the music you are looking for in FLAC format. Hence the statement.... iPod users certainly are missing out on higher quality music formats unless they can afford to own 10 different iPods, which would enable them to download FLAC. Hell, the one thing that I do download, Black Crowes live shows, I download in FLAC format!

Well those iPod earbuds aren't exactly the greatest headphones in the world either. It's not really fair to compare that to a stereo setup because it's two different listening environments.

I never really have a problem finding FLAC downloads, but I also don't really care to download anything in that format. v0 does the job just fine.