|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
86.90.47.106
The fact that EMI decided to release the Genesis albums on SACD/DVD prooves that the music industry does not want to wait for bluray/HDDVD to release high-rez sound. Probably it will take years to have the players sold to be profitable. In the meantime SACD will prove itself as a solid replacement for cd, and is there to stay. Haven't been so optimistic for months!!
Follow Ups:
This is because here in the US, the Warner Music Group still holds the reissue rights to most of the Genesis material. And you know Warner's stance on Hi-Rez...
Deutsche Grammophon stopped releasing SACDs, but then recently issued one title (Stravinsky/Bartok by Salonen), which is probably due to contractual reasons.Sony Japan just released a dozen jazz SACDs, which are all reissues from the audiophile Three Blind Mice label.
Some pop SACDs are being released because the artists insist on multichannel remixes, as the same albums have already been reissued on CD multiple times.
There are so many other examples that show that almost no company (except for a few small classical and audiophile labels) has a consistent SACD policy, and that decision to release a title on SACD are being made based on individual circumstances. This is also true of these planned Genesis reissues.
You can't revive a format with just a batch of releases by one artist.
There are a LOT of new issues on the Japanese HMV and Tower sites. Too bad for American collectors, however, as it makes collecting these things VERY expensive.
d
I would be happy if the Genesis SACDs come out. And, - I certainly will buy a couple. These have been in the works for years. And, just because the recordings get redone, doesn't mean that they'll ever see release. Hopefully, they won't get jammed up like the Eno SACDs.But, I don't think that this has anything to do with the rapid disappearance of SACD, blue-ray, or Dual Disk... all are becoming novelties, and going the way of vinyl. All the while, the archaic dinosaurs, the major label industry players, try to struggle against the rising tide, - refusing to learn how to swim; their death is near.
And, I couldn't be happier. With all they've done to exploit and bamboozle both their artists and the consumers, - I wish them a happy and quick death. For years, the majors have grubbed in the dirt for every single penny, not letting up. Now they SAY that they're providing more value, - by raising prices? When really, it's too late, they've already lost, and there is no more value in physical media.
My hard drive is filling up, and although it's going to take a while for them to disappear, - CDs and all physical formats are essentially irrelevent.... With their continued investment and losses in SACD, DVD-A, Dual Disc, and now blue-ray, - it only serves to exacerbate their losses, and provide us the amusement of watching them die
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
Suppose shiny discs do go extinct and downloading becomes the standard distribution mechanism for music. How does that eliminate the major labels? It seems to me that only the distribution mechanism is changing, so one set of middle-men (e.g. Tower) are being replaced by another set of middle-men (e.g. Apple).There will always be indie artists & labels who will sell their music directly to the consumer on their own web sites, just as they currently sell CDs that way. And these guys will still be dependent on word of mouth to reach people who may be interested in their music.
New artists sign predatory contracts with major labels because they want to make it big time and need the marketing power of a major label to reach a wide audience. I don't see why selling music by download would change that.
are still overly focused on the draconian process of "fixed" media, - one CD per band: and preventing the fair sharing of music. What you say MAY be becoming true, - as Universal is one company that is adding an Internet presence to their material.Indie labels and individual artists MAY be able to compete even marketing-wise with the majors, - with the abundance of blogging, and POD-casts and IPOD list sharing, - word of mouth has the potential to achieve a good bit, and labels can't market individual songs today, via conventional marketing tools, as they could complete records and CDs years ago. Yes, if the labels change, they will become more successful....
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
I have no for the collapsing "record industry" but there are some other folks who will suffer collateral damage.Admittedly a small number, perhaps, but classical music listeners are not well served by the collapse. The various hi-rez formats show their advatange best when reproducing the sound of acoustic instruments recorded in real time in an acoustic venue. It is those subtleties that produce what people recognize as "natural sound."
I was thinking this as I was listening to a new Pentatone SACD last night of some Mozart flute concerti, recorded by a very talented young flautist. To my ear, the limitations of RBCD are most evident when reproducing acoustic instruments that produce a lot of high frequency overtones, such as masssed strings and flutes. All of these "digital nasties" were blessedly missing from this recording which was made from a fairly intimate perspective which, IMHO, suits Mozart particularly well.
So, if SACD does not survive, even as a niche medium, some of us will not be well served.
There is no PentaTone disc of both Mozart flute concertos. Bis has an SACD of Sharon Bezaly playing these. After I reviewed this for sa-cd.net, the owner of Bis wrote in one of the threads there that Bis SACDs are now PCM recordings. He didn't say what the Mozart flute concertos disc was recorded in, but I suspect it's no more than 24bit/48 kHz. Bis agrees on the superiority of SACDs, and apparently their plan is to move into pure hybrid SACD single inventory releases. However, he is sceptical on the superiority of the DSD recording medium, and alluded to the flute SACD as to what could be achieved on low fs PCM if all elements in the recording chain are done well.
a pretty good recording, and a pretty good mastering job on SACD to beat out redbook with some of these "top tier" redbook players. Peter Gabriel's SACDs are not too disparate from his redbook remasters on the Meitner player. Something that probably isn't worth the cost of the purchase difference per CD vs SACD. Same with Diana Krall. I have not found her SACDs to be much better than redbook...I know that there are only two examples there, but I am betting that in your experience, you've come across some poor SACD implementations...
Finally, good sound at any event, be it acoustic or otherwise, is a happy rarity. Mostly, - venues suck for sound quality. It was a real eye opener to me to go to the SF Opera: the sound was worse than more than a few "Rock" shows that I've been to...
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
I agree completely with your contention that a well-recorded Redbook CD played on a top-tier Redbook player (single box) or transport with a high-quality DAC often equals or even exceeds the sound of SACD. Granted it is often very hard (and probably unfair) to compare the Redbook and SACD versions on a hybrid disc, since you never really know exactly whether the different versions were mastered the same, etc. But I've found in most cases the difference to be negligible and often a draw between sonics of the two formats - the SACD may excel in some ways, whereas the Redbook may actually do better in others. There are certainly some SACD recordings that when compared to previously-issued Redbooks of the same do sound much better, but in this scenario, you most likely have to factor in any subsequent improvements in the mastering process itself, or conversely the fact that the older Redbook versions may have been recorded using outdated PCM technology. I would also argue that I have not been completely convinced of the technical superiority of the DSD encoding process in general, given my somewhat negative impressions of many native DSD recordings.With regard to the future of SACD or for that matter any so-called hi-rez formats, I would not mourn their demise or relegation to niche status if this meant that more effort were re-directed toward producing the highest quality Redbook CDs - we know this is already possible - and it is not that expensive. Redbook is also relatively easy to convert to a number of excellent lossless file formats that can be loaded to hard drives or iPODs - something that currently cannot be done at all with native SACD/DSD recordings - and probably never will be.
HowdyIt sure depends on the players involved. There are some very good CD players out there that just don't do justice to SACD IMO. Conversely I don't think I've ever heard the same material on CD and SACD where the SACD wasn't very noticeably better (once again IMO) with CD and SACD players I enjoy.
It is very easy to compare red book and SACD sound using hybrid disks. Whenever I did such comparisons, SACD was always clear winner. I am speaking of purely acoustic music.For music created elecronically, SACD indeed does not add much on top of what regular CD can do, unless a band wants surround effects as a part of presentation.
I agree that not all SACDs are equally good. Particularly, I dislike DG mixing. But it was the same bad on their CDs and LPs as well.
I don't think SACD will become extinct in the near future. First, sound quality of SACD hardly needs any improvement. Second, the format is well established now, and for a sizeable group of people who appreciate it, there is no way back. These folks will create a sustainable demand, which, if not met by major labels, will be met by minor manufacturers. Third, downloads of classical music, although available, just don't appeal to consumers, and it is not going to change anytime soon.
One should not heap everything in one pile. SACD is a future of classical, jazz and other kinds of acoustic music. Ipods and downloads is a future of pop/rock.
and I do often like to play the devil's advocate; throw things out there and see where they land...The thing is that we amount to a small minority of music consumers.
I've heard some pretty crappy jazz recordings on SACDVinyl isn't really "dead" and it isn't going away... but more slowly than I overexaggerate, vinyl is getting harder and harder to find. And, - more and more vinyl junkies are becoming impressed with some of these SOTA Universals that everyone is raving about. (Yes, many are really expensive, but at least some heads are being turned).
Redbook, in reality, is a lot closer in quality than many manufacturers will have you believe. In fact, some Universal player manufacturers are making strides to pay a lot more attention to their redbook section to make a more SOTA player. I cannot PROVE this, but it is my belief that many SACD makers, - especially a couple of years ago, purposely built and/or paid less attention to their Redbook sections in order to make their SACD sections sound better. IMO, this was the case with more than one unit, - to call out Marantz, - IMO, their SA-11 had a very nice SACD sound, but their Redbook was crap. If one went and stuck a $950 Benchmark DAC on that player for Redbook, - one improved it greatly. The Marantz with a Benchmark on it brought Redbook a LOT closer to SACD. Grab yourself an Audio Aero Capitole MKII SE redbook CD player and play it back to back with any $4k or $5K SACD player and play the hyrbrid CD/SACD of Patricia Barber: I've done this, and the difference was not that dramatic or evident...What you say about pop/rock is true for sure. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is the reality.. It's not the format itself, - it's the old money making paradigm of the majors. Some artists are becoming aware, PG, Bjork, Sting, and others are caring more about compression, and their recordings.. It's not the genre, it's the people in it...
Quality downloadable higher resolution digital files are here, - just so obscure that it's not really worth mentioning. But, it is something that is coming to a computer near you. As it is, - my downstairs neighbor and I have 1000 + CDs, playlists, movies, etc, on a file server in the basement that links to 6 different and very quiet laptops located around the house that control 6 music systems. When we're having a party in the backyard, we can turn the music up or down with a laptop, look up the band information, change or create a playlist, pick a song that someone wants to hear,... so many options... Upstairs, playing ITunes through my APL's AKM DACs, - it's extremely difficult to discern any difference at all between the CD and my Apple Lossless computer. I have a friend who has Gordon Rankin's Wavelength brick: he's sold every single one of his redbook CDs.
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
People still prefer books to downloadable PDF files, and they still prefer renting DVDs instead of downloading time-limited movies. The existing physical formats - although they have reached their commercial peak - are still highly successful.The reason why NEW physical formats fail (SACD, DVD-A, Dualdisc, maybe also Bluray and HD-DVD) is not that people prefer downloads, but that they are happy with the quality that the existing formats (CD and DVD) are offering.
In my view, the most successful innovation would be to include on CDs and DVDs compressed versions of the music/movies that can be easily transferred onto portable players, thus giving people the best of both worlds (except that the CD/DVD has to be bought/shipped to them and cannot be downloaded instantly).
Your statment:"The reason why NEW physical formats fail (SACD, DVD-A, Dualdisc, maybe also Bluray and HD-DVD) is not that people prefer downloads, but that they are happy with the quality that the existing formats (CD and DVD) are offering."
I believe is on target and correct. However, there is a larger change afoot. As the parent of two teenage kids I can tell you that those CDs you talk about are irrelevant to them. They don't even think in terms of albums as we do. You get songs from the internet one at a time...period. At a High School ROTC picnic, one of my son's friends had a Led Zeppelin T shirt on. Of course I got all excited and started asking about his favorite Zeppelin albums? In return, I got a blank state. He had no idea of what I was talking about. My son's friend liked Led Zeppelin and had many of their songs but he had never listened to a Led Zeppelin album. All of his Led Zeppelin songs and all of his other music was LEGALLY downloaded song by song. To these kids, the whole concept of an album is obsolete.
Neither of my kids collect albums either. The idea of having fond memories about hanging out at a record store (as many have mentioned in the discussions about Tower Music)is as alien to them as my dad's stories about trying to hand-crank the car on a cold day were to me.
This is a huge change in the way recorded music is thought of and purchased and it it not something that is fully understood by the recording industry as yet. Yes, old farts like myself will still buy albums and like vinyl, silver discs will be around for a while. But I don't expect my children or their friends to be buying many of the them - now or in the future.
If I were making a fresh start of it -- no sunk investment or behavioral patterns to break -- I'm sure I'd be downloading singles. That Mahler 8 is one helluva single, though! But, I (and all of the other Seniors) aren't "starting new". That said, I'll extend Bruce from DC's concept about folks not being well served by the demise of SACD to be that of the demise of ALL "physical media" where folks have sunk cost. To put it another way, apart from Sweet16 Pop (which is not my cuppa), if/when the first MAJOR Classical release is issued -- exclusively -- as a "digital download ONLY" -- no CD for me! -- I won't be amused. I -- EYE -- am "their audience". If they reject ME, they're making an odd decision. What would be the approach?...Y'all gotta CHANGE? Or, "we don't need to appeal to the old audience, we've got all of these NEW ONES we can sell to (Yeah...right). I'm just not seeing it. CDs (maybe some SACDs or DVDs) MUST CONTINUE TO CO-EXIST for classical music (due to the existing base of fans/listeners/collectors) for the forseeable future.One can "buy in" to "digital file only" and be OK going forward, I think. But, as an exclusive marketing/availability strategy for the "sources" it is impossible -- my opinion only, but I think it will prove to be right. I've read it elsewhere, BTW -- CDs (as a kind of "default format") are recovering their viability...and that comment has nothing to do with "sound quality".
I do not have any downloaded songs. My collection is all vinyl, CDs and SACDs. Sordidman is the audiophile of the future. But a self-described "Senior" is talking to a self described "Old-Fart". If I was a record company executive I would not be pleased about the age of my demographic.
I'm not crazy over the prospect of having to download music.1. I'm not very computer literate.
2. I would have to change a lot of hardware, which would cost money.
3. I believe that digital storage via hard drives and computers have a long way to go. They just are not reliable enough at this point in time.
They're reliable enough to keep all of your financial, tax, personal and medical data. Every business, you deal with, including the one you work for, every doctor and every governmental agency has the majority of its data sorted on a computer. These data are far more important than music collections,even for us. All of it is backed up daily and is put on mirrored drives. We have known that hard drives fail for a long time and every business has dealt with that fact since the first IBM mainframes. It is a solved problem and has been for a long time.Whether you feel you have enough expertise to trust your own software collection to a hard drive is a different story, but with cheap external hard drives, backing up these days is pretty easy and you can purchase an off the shelf computer with mirrored drives.
My medical data is on paper, I know, I see it everytime I visit the Doctor. I have a file.I get a financial statement on paper from my bank every month.
I admit, I don't have much expertise when it comes to computers.
HowdyI admit I haven't tried ITunes or any other online music in the last year, but:
I have nothing against artists (and the rest of the chain for that matter) getting compensated and not ripped off, but DRM as implemented has lots of problems and completely undermines backing up the music you own.
How many times have your been screwed out of access to music you own because some idiot key wasn't backed up, etc. I avoid it by technically breaking the law and using something like Total Recorder to make a clean but unprotected copy of each thing I buy so I won't have to worry about the next media player being able to deal with, say RealJukebox 1.0's DRM.
When they stop being paranoid and making the lives of their honest customers hell I'll consider buying more material for digital download: right now I'm quite happy with the selection of music I can get on SACD/CD, etc.
Note that I purchase most of my software as downloads instead of CDs or boxes and have had great luck even when I've had to get it back from backups after a computer crash. I would have lost the DRM versions of music I had if I hadn't also backed up my unDRMed versions of it.
It amazes me that most software companies can make a very profitable living selling across the net but the record companies are clueless.Apple makes record profits with i-tunes and Sony's answer is to put rootkit trojans on their customer's computers. Like you, I buy my software over the net and when I purchased a new computer, I transferred it over with no problems. The bottom line is that this is a solved problem. You can make money selling music over the web. The record companies just haven't figured it out yet.
Once a company becomes a large cap institution, changing course is like turning a super-tanker on a dime. It's very difficult to do and many fail. Just look at GM and Ford, failing while Toyota sells more expensive cars AND grabs increasing market share. Kodak owned the film business. But they didn't see the digital revolution coming and will never be a major player again.
The record companies have a lot of assets and sooner or later they might actually figure it out. But meanwhile, business abhors a vacuum and more nimble companies will step in to grab their market share. Apple already has. Micro$oft definitely sees an opening here. They need more products to grow significantly and they can match any record companies dollar for dollar. Look what Walmart did to the supermarket industry. Micro$oft could do the same.
BTW where audio goes DVD-V's follow. The film studios need to think about the transition as well, which they are not.
I wasn't amazed that you were right, I am amazed that that the record companies are so clueless. But you already knew that (grin).
You won't download music. Neither will I. The CD is not going away anytime soon and there will be enough vinyl to keep us happy for a while. But we are the last generation that will collect silver or black plastic discs. Silver disc swill always be a niche prodcut but the vast majority of today's kids will buy music the way they always have - on the internet song-by-song. Big record companies don't make money selling niche products and retail record stores are already an anachronism.The times, they are a changing. Watch for companies like Apple and Micro$oft to begin producing their own songs and signing on big-name groups while the big record companies flail.
Sorry to burst your bubble Sordidman, but it's just going to be a different batch of big companies. Apple understands the new business model. Sony does not. Apple will continue to succeed, Sony will continue to lose market share.
The Interent notwithstanding. The socialist paradise will fail as it has always failed. It's a chimera.
I agree with you.....Big business is closing down the once open internet quicker than you can say universal access...
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
The Hi Rez formats weren't profitable enough for the big companies due to "consumer indifference" among those that buy CDs (or LPs for that matter). It is unclear that the folks who buy CDs/LPs will embrace either digital downloads or the "keep it on a hard drive" approach. The MP3 crowd is NOT THE SAME as the audiophile crowd. Liner notes and artwork DO MATTER. Also, I think the attractiveness of a "home music library" (as with physical books, to your point) cannot be underestimated. There is something very fundamental in the human psyche with regard to the "collector mentality". "A Gentle Madness" as one book title calls it!:-) Personally, I like to "handle the media"...peruse the library, pull out recordings and read their exact contents, contemplate my options, put the recording in the player, settle in and crack the liner notes (a "little book"). Hey, it could just be me -- but I don't thinks so.
NO HI-REZ FORMAT HAS EVER BEEN PROFITABLE...C'mon now, you really don't think that Sony, Philips etc. etc, has EVER made a profit from Hi-Rez....???
Don't be silly.. why do you think that they're all running away from it??
Sheesh, - it's been a losing proposition from the get go. Hi-Rez is Sony's tax write off....
Sony has lost more money on SACD that it's a joke around the company....What do you mean audiophile crowd? A few of us here do not constitute a crowd. Go out on the street and take a poll: 99.9% of people that you encounter will have NO CLUE what SACD is. As Nefertiti said, - people are perfectly happy with the low quality of their low res downloadable IPOD files. Finally, you're going to get far more pictures, better liner notes, maybe even have a nice AIM or Email with the artist and do your browsing online; so much more than a crappy little bit of CD artwork... And, is the artwork on the CD any good anyway? Haven't you noticed a precipitous decline in "cool" CD covers? Why? Why spend money on cool cover art when you need it for marketing the crappy music that no one is buying? Seriously, - it's been a long time gone from the days of old and cool 12" by 12" album cover art. This is especially the case with classical and jazz. Diana Krall is wearing longer and longer pants....
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
Sordid is correct. The masses are perfectly happy with mp3 @ 128 or even lower. Very few people sit still long enough these days to actually critically listen to anything. The majority of listening is either done via headphones, while doing whatever, or done in the car. I got into 2CH in 1969 and have always subscribed to the audio mags and spent inordinate amounts of money (albeit a very relative term) on systems. That being said, when I invested in high quality front projection video, my listening habits changed noticeably. Whereas nearly every Friday nite previously was spent sitting in the sweet spot and sipping wine with my wife, we began to spend those times in front of the screen. Video, I believe, started eroding 2CH, even high end 2CH and of course downloading has pretty much delivered the near fatal blow. It's true that we 2CH/multi-CH audiophiles represent but a wee island in the sea of music marketing. All the big companies will blow in whatever direction the marketing winds are blowing and right now they are blowing in our faces. It pains me to say it but it sure seems like the masses have spoken and things are about to change. CD/SACD have become the republican party of music sales. Cue the death knell.
Oh great. Now I have to stare at a computer screen in order to play music and read liner notes. No thanks.
.
I think the only way the download format will conquer is when the quality of the downloads is improved to the point that they at leas equal redbook standards. Also, consistant digital booklets are needed to satisfy at least classical and jazz listeners who want to know who did what. When and if that occurs, then the disc format may well be in serious threat of extinction
.
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
.
.
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
I was pretty sure your "facts" were just your unsubstantiated opinion.Posting an actual fact is quite different from posting your opinion and expecting everyone to take it as self-evident.
From Sony Corp financials and the RIAA....http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2005yrEndStats.pdf
Sony DVD player, and Universal player, hardware sales, - from 2004 to 2005 also report a 20% to 43% reduction....
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hirez&n=216444Sony doesn't sell universal players.
DVD player sales are on the decline because the market is saturated. The players that are selling are the ones that offer uprated features (like SACD/DVD-A compatibility).
"The Hi Rez formats weren't profitable enough for the big companies". What the heck are we disagreeing about on that front?
.
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
Nice post above by the way... I agree that there is no consistent policy about what gets released, - it's all contingent on what, and how well, things are negotiated on an individual basis.As far as formats... I'd just like to ADD to you point that another reason why the new formats fail, is that the VALUE is not there. Why would anyone want to pay $25 for that remaster of the Sting CD that was they was overpriced for the regular CD version at $15.98; when they only wanted 1 song for their IPOD anyway, - it is much easier for them to download it from the ITunes store.
I don't have that many SACDs, but I've never purchased one in a store, and I probably never will. I also don't think that I've seen a SACD, (any SACD), in a store for under $18.98. This is absurd when most of the SACDs that I buy online cost around $13.00.
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
Your hard drive is also a physical format. And unlike CDs and LPs, which with proper care last at least 20 or 30 years, your hard drive will almost certainly fail within 6 or 7 years. They are like light bulbs, they are expected to fail. Backups are also physical media. Unless you want to stream all your music from a server (I don't) you will use physical media.
Yes, that is correct.I stream from a server in the basement with backup tape and backup hard drives in place. True, all hard drives do fail..
Once we are able to download higher quality files from music sites, and if "the industry" continues to behave so badly, it will be a good thing, and break that 1 CD/media per act paradigm.
The recording industry tried very hard to stop record stores from selling used products. Yesterday, at Amoeba, - I had trouble buying $90 worth of CDs used, (after selling a bunch of CDs), that were equal to, or less, than what I could new ones for online. All of these CDs will be dumped to the server, and more than a couple will go back for sale....
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
Tape is absoulutely the worst backup medium I've ever used. I used to do regular backups at work on 8 mm tape. Eventually, I actually wanted to restore something from a backup. Probably half the tapes wouldn't work. Some would play part way then quit. I will never use tape again. I would urge you to back up to a 2nd hard drive or (effectively the same thing) use a RAID configuration with 2 drives.
I've had similar experiences at work, I'm an IT Manager.Yeah, - we use RAID as our music server backup at work, - but we do also have an old Colorado tape drive, - (the server hasn't been backed up to tape in a while).
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
Except that I have LPs that sound excellent that are more than 40 years old . . . because they have had proper care. Even my LP of "Kind of Blue" which is just under 40 years old, still sounds great, pitch problems and all.Moreover, unlike various digital formats, the LP seem less likely to become obsolete because no device exists that can read them. LP playback is a simple mechanical system.
right?I mean, you've taken great care of your records. Well, as they say, s%&t happens. You could drop a box during a move, the cat could pee on them, some silly sod could spill his rum & coke on them....
The likelihood that you could get them back diminishes every day. The liklihood that you could get them back for a reasonable price diminishes every day. The liklihood that they're re-issued on CD or SACD or whatever diminishes evey day. But, - the liklihood that you could download them from someone JUST LIKE YOU, INCREASES every day.
Also, nowadays, people are finally starting to build more value into their players. The new Meitner, my APL, Audio Aero, Ayre, and a host of other fine players are coming out that sound great and do a better job of, - if you want that sound, - competing with vinyl. I'm still waiting to hear a vinyl rig that competes with my APL, and I'm not sure that I'll hear one that competes with the SOTA APL player...
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
I thought the argument was about the death of physical media. I'm not going to get into the "CD vs. vinyl, which sounds better?" debate. That's irrelevant. CD, as a physical medium, is less fragile than a vinyl record and, for that reason alone, has triumphed in the marketplace against vinyl. RBCD can certainly sound very good.The big question is whether, 40 years from now, there will be easy access to a player that can play that CD.
But the likelihood that there's a "download" that provides the resolution of a CD, SACD or vinyl record is pretty much incalculable. Because there's no such thing today.
MP3 and similar lossy compression schemes are fine for the typical pop song, at least as long as pop music is stuck where it's been for the last 35 years or so, as something that is played on electric guitars and a drum kit. You lose something, but you don't miss it.
And, as the other guy said, a hard drive is also a physical medium; it's just more compact . . . and more fragile.
Resolution of a CD at least is EASILY available to download. Here is one interesting and apparently legal site that provides digitized LPs for free download and you can see they are using pretty darn good equipment to digitize. Format is lossless flac, which decompresses back to the original CD. Now obviously this music is not for everyone.But while the lossless formats are far less frequently used than the mp3 format, there are still a ton of them out there. Particularly for classical music, many of the peer-to-peer sharers care about quality and they provide ape or flac.
And if you like the whole jam band thing (I don't), you can spend your whole life listening to concerts that are always CD resolution or higher, the jam band concert websites don't go for mp3 quality either.
" MP3 and similar lossy compression schemes are fine for the typical pop song, at least as long as pop music is stuck where it's been for the last 35 years or so, as something that is played on electric guitars and a drum kit. You lose something, but you don't miss it. "What's at issue is not what audiophiles think, but what sells, - the two are largely separate. MP3 is fine, but hi-rez formats are too expensive, and not worth it, as far as the public at large is concerned. The point is that with MP3, - one doesn't have to waste a lot of money on a whole record, - when most people, - only want one or two songs.
A backed up hard drive with 1,000 CDs worth of music is less fragile than 1,000 12" records, and can be played over and over again without the pops and clicks, that one ALWAYS has to listen past, no matter how clean it's kept...
Thoughts from above hit the people down below. There are people in this world who have no place to go
For me, over time, this has gone round and round. Like many, I sold off my vinyl ( and some cassettes) and went to CD in the 80's. After about 10 years, I started looking for vinyl again. I have carried both formats for the years since as well as R2R tape. I am happy with SACD for the most paprt but the price and availability are issues. I lost a trucklaod of music when my hard drive and computer went out within a few weeks of each other. I am done with that format... What to do??
Sadly I couldnt agree more with your comments.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: