Highres audio to take over CD

[utomo]

as we know highres audio now become popular now.

when do you think highres audio will take over the cd market ?

and what is the barrier ? Price, easy to buy, etc

 

[ID.]

I'll wait for lossless (ie. CD quality) downloads to become the standard before I start commenting on hi res becoming the norm.

 

[steve_1979]

as we know highres audio now become popular now.

Apart from a tiny insignificant market made up of audiophiles it's still not very popular.

when do you think highres audio will take over the cd market ?

Never.

and what is the barrier ? Price, easy to buy, etc

Spotify, YouTube and all of the other new music streaming options. That's what the vast majority of people use now.

 

[andyjm]

when do you think highres audio will take over the cd market ?

and what is the barrier ? Price, easy to buy, etc

Unlike HD video where there is a clear and obvious improvement to the customer's experience of using the product, HiRes audio is indistinguishable from CD quality audio when the music is sourced from the same master.

It may be that HiRes is the only way to access better masters as recording companies have mixed the CD release for the iPod generation, but that is a poor reason for HiRes adoption.

My personal view is it will go the way of SACD and DVD-Audio.

 

[drummerman]

Imho no.

Streaming services such as spotify etc. are still not mature markets/formats and there are uncertainties about their sustainability in light of artist fees etc.

There are billions of cd's out there and they are still made.

If you want one format that will always be here buy vinyl but even so, cd's will be with us for years yet.

 

[ellisdj]

I think people are missing the trick with the push for high def music formats.

I think as much as its about it being able to sound better - non compressed etc I think its also a push to the Industry to produce better.

If all music was high def it would have to be produced to sound really good - there would be a higher expectation of it - the fact that the market is still mp3 and cd biased they can get away with it sounding just ok, or even crap at times.

Surely this push has to be a good thing and everyone remotely interested should get on board with it to aid it along the way - not be slagging it off as I keep reading

 

[ellisdj]

Also the flip side for those producing knock out music the compression required for cd isn't crippling it.
I still think it will increase the average quality standard of music for sale which is great.

I hope they stick to wav not flac.

 

[jcbrum]

24bit audio files are utterly pointless for domestic replay systems. It's as simple as that.

JC

 

[andyjm]

Also the flip side for those producing knock out music the compression required for cd isn't crippling it. I still think it will increase the average quality standard of music for sale which is great.

I hope they stick to wav not flac.

I will probably regret asking this, but why WAV not FLAC?

 

[Al ears]

24bit audio files are utterly pointless for domestic replay systems. It's as simple as that.

JC

Curious. Guess I'll just have to stick with vinyl then.

 

[jcbrum]

24bit audio files are utterly pointless for domestic replay systems. It's as simple as that.

JC

Curious. Guess I'll just have to stick with vinyl then.

By all means, if you wish. But 16 bit digital will provide fidelity of which vinyl is incapable, and is much more convenient for library and streaming use.

JC

 

[abacus]

Also the flip side for those producing knock out music the compression required for cd isn't crippling it. I still think it will increase the average quality standard of music for sale which is great.

I hope they stick to wav not flac.

Unless you have an old system that cannot do gapless FLAC then there is not much point in goinge for WAV, as you loose the tagging and the file size is usually double that of Lossless FLAC.

NOTE: the sound of FLAC and WAV files (Assuming they use the same bit rate) is identical.

Bill

 

[Gazzip]

I don't think it will ever be a universal format. Why, because "ordinary" folk don't "listen" to music in the same way that Hifi people "listen" to music. The current status quo is absolutely satisfactory for the majority so why would the industry change it, especially as the benefits are audibly marginal/debatable?

 

[davedotco]

I think people are missing the trick with the push for high def music formats.

I think as much as its about it being able to sound better - non compressed etc I think its also a push to the Industry to produce better.

If all music was high def it would have to be produced to sound really good - there would be a higher expectation of it - the fact that the market is still mp3 and cd biased they can get away with it sounding just ok, or even crap at times.

Surely this push has to be a good thing and everyone remotely interested should get on board with it to aid it along the way - not be slagging it off as I keep reading

Hi Ellis,

In this case I think it is you who are missing the trick.

For whatever reason, the record companies deliberately produce poor quality product at CD standard, even when they have good masters. They can then make a better fist of producing a better version of the same master (or use a better master if one is available) to produce a 'premium' product that they can charge more money for.

That's it in a nutshell, hi-res that we can charge more money for being the point here! The fact that the same 'premium' quality product could be produced at CD standard and sound the same as the hi-res version is not something that the record companies are going to admit to.

It's a con, pure and simple, making the music lover pay a premium price to have the music produced to the higher standard it could and should have been produced to in the first place.

 

[manicm]

As long as cd sales are still healthy,which they are,then the rise of lossless and hires downloads are inevitable. The naysayers ignore the rise of dacs, and portable hires players from the likes of Sony, that tells me there is a market for higher quality audio. And had anyone downloaded an MP3 from Amazon or 7digital lately? They're simply awful.

 

[Al ears]

24bit audio files are utterly pointless for domestic replay systems. It's as simple as that.

JC

Curious. Guess I'll just have to stick with vinyl then.

By all means, if you wish. But 16 bit digital will provide fidelity of which vinyl is incapable, and is much more convenient for library and streaming use.

JC

I am not sure what you mean by 'fidelity' can you explain . Do you mean frequency range?

 

[matthewpiano]

For me its all about CD and vinyl, with Spotify for trying out new music before I purchase the CD. Hi-res files hold no interest for me at all.

 

[luckylion100]

For me its all about CD and vinyl, with Spotify for trying out new music before I purchase the CD. Hi-res files hold no interest for me at all.

+1

Hi fidelity can do one... ;-)

If the quality of the vinyl replay I'm enjoying today with my new purchases is anything to go by. The average age of the records I've purchased today is 30 years and the clarity, warmth and rich texture is second to none, blows my digital set up away. No comparison!

I totally agree with Mathewpiano, my listening experience is the same but for the fact my CD player is still in its box under a bed.

 

[The_Lhc]

Also wav is my preference, I have no meta data or storage issues so I chose wav.

How do you know what tracks to choose then? WAV is pointless.

 

[ellisdj]

It's that negativity that will stop it happening proves my point.

Whether cd can be better is past the point - lots of cds do already sound excellent but sometimes you buy one and it's below a standard that should be acceptable and yet it sadens me because I like the music on the album.

If the same cd we're released in high Def the obvious compression, or poor mastering or whatever it is would not pass to be sold I don't believe. I believe it would have to be better to pass approval

I would happily pay more for a guarantee of good sound quality.
Presently it's a roulette with very little option

Also wav is my preference, I have no meta data or storage issues so I chose wav.

 

[The_Lhc]

As long as cd sales are still healthy,which they are,then the rise of lossless and hires downloads are inevitable. The naysayers ignore the rise of dacs, and portable hires players from the likes of Sony, that tells me there is a market for higher quality audio.

How many people do you think are actually buying the 500 pound player from Sony, never mind the £1000+ devices from the likes of A+K? I'll tell you, not many. That isn't a market. It may come but the overwhelming majority of people that listen to music really, really, don't give a monkey's about what format their music is, as long as their phone plays it.

And had anyone downloaded an MP3 from Amazon or 7digital lately? They're simply awful.

That's a ridiculous generalization, I've downloaded a lot from those sites, there's rarely anything wrong with the quality.

 

[ellisdj]

Also wav is my preference, I have no meta data or storage issues so I chose wav.

How do you know what tracks to choose then? WAV is pointless.

I don't get that comment all my music is ripped I don't stream anything presently. I rip it as wav and store as is

 

[The_Lhc]

Also wav is my preference, I have no meta data or storage issues so I chose wav.

How do you know what tracks to choose then? WAV is pointless.

I don't get that comment all my music is ripped I don't stream anything presently. I rip it as wav and store as is

Well, yes, I got that much, but without tags how do you identify the tracks you want to play?

 

[davedotco]

It's that negativity that will stop it happening proves my point.

Whether cd can be better is past the point - lots of cds do already sound excellent but sometimes you buy one and it's below a standard that should be acceptable and yet it sadens me because I like the music on the album.

If the same cd we're released in high Def the obvious compression, or poor mastering or whatever it is would not pass to be sold I don't believe. I believe it would have to be better to pass approval

I would happily pay more for a guarantee of good sound quality. Presently it's a roulette with very little option

Also wav is my preference, I have no meta data or storage issues so I chose wav.

You already are, 'Perfect sound forever', remember that?

The record company can produce great product, but often choose not to, because they can charge more for a 'premium' quality product.

It also leaves enthusiasts open to exploitation, there have already been reports of supposedly hi-res material, sold at 'premium' prices, that are no more than upsampled CD files, record companys and distributers are shameless when it comes to exploiting their customers, don't let them.

 

[ellisdj]

Also wav is my preference, I have no meta data or storage issues so I chose wav.

How do you know what tracks to choose then? WAV is pointless.

I don't get that comment all my music is ripped I don't stream anything presently. I rip it as wav and store as is

Well, yes, I got that much, but without tags how do you identify the tracks you want to play?

That's what I said I have no problems metadata rips to wav the same