The future of music and cd

[chebby]

Cds killed the turntable in the early eighties - but it didn't.

Well it did pretty much.

Vinyl sales have increased year-on-year for five consecutive years and achieved UK sales of 168,296 LPs (Jan - June 2011) which are up 55 percent on the same period last year.

However... how many downloads do you think were sold?

Here are some UK figures for 2010...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/12/uk-music-download-sales

Well, £316,000,000 was spent on downloads in 2010.

I think that dwarfs LP sales. It's nice that vinyl is doing well and that - as a format - it is still providing enjoyment, but it still remains a tiny, freakish little blip in overall music sales.

 

[hammill]

I disagree. Streaming may be the way forward, but I would still say more than 50% of those who come in for demos, still have and use CD players. Some of those are buying new CD players, as they're not interested in streaming at all.

"Streaming may be the way forward..." you're kidding right?

A snippet from Clare's Sonos blog...

"What I can offer is some insight into how Sonos goes about its business – a business that has doubled in size for the past two years, and which is aiming for a $250 million turnover this year."

...$250,000,000 and that's just one company devoted to streaming/multi-room hifi.

Put's things in perspective a bit.

Add in all the people using network players, DACs, computers, NAS drives, iPods/iPhones/iPads and other hifi capable phones, MP3 players and tablets (including some that outsell even Apple's equivalent devices), Spotify, iTunes, Amazon, LastFM, internet radio, AirPlay etc.

It's not "the future" or "the way forward" and there is no "maybe". It's here, it's now. The primacy of the stand-alone CD player (in a traditional 'seperates' system) has surely passed.

Even car manufacturers have begun to drop the CD format.

It might become a bit of an inconvience for me one day if CD manufacture falls off the cliff (I like to buy the CD and rip from them) because CD quality downloads may never happen on a large scale nor encompass as much choice as CDs have. I won't miss the players though.

Although I would agree with you that streaming is the way forward, I do not know anybody who streams audio ( I have played with the streaming capability of my Oppo but that is all). Most young people I know do download most of their music, but if they play it through speakers at all, it is a via a direct connection to an "mp3" player. I would bet that nobody apart from me has even heard of Sonos. I could see some of them using a Brennan but most would find the idea of setting up a Sonos and a NAS as scarey and providing functionality they simply don't want. I would agree that people are not buying new CD players - they either use their blu-ray/DVD player or are happy with those that they have, so as an investment for the future Sonos is a better bet , but it will be many years before streaming solutions get anywhere the installed base of CD players.

 

[plastic penguin]

Cds killed the turntable in the early eighties - but it didn't.

Well it did pretty much.

Vinyl sales have increased year-on-year for five consecutive years and achieved UK sales of 168,296 LPs (Jan - June 2011) which are up 55 percent on the same period last year.

However... how many downloads do you think were sold?

Here are some UK figures for 2010...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/12/uk-music-download-sales

Well, £316,000,000 was spent on downloads in 2010.

I think that dwarfs LP sales. It's nice that vinyl is doing well and that - as a format - it is still providing enjoyment, but it still remains a tiny, freakish little blip in overall music sales.

It would be patently unfair [and wrong] to say that LPs have the lion share of the market - it hasn't probably since the mid-80s. Likewise, it's not unreasonable to state that there are always going to be a demand, with certain suppliers/areas, where the TT will find a demand. Certainly the newer formats have left an indelible mark on the older formats, but I can't see a time, not in the foreseeable, where the turntable becomes redundant.

Personally, I embrace different formats: it makes buying music far more accessible, and at some point down the line, I'll take the plunge.

 

[chebby]

Although I would agree with you that streaming is the way forward, I do not know anybody who streams audio...

Only one of our friends is into 'hifi'. He has been streaming audio for a couple of years now. (Apple iMac, CA DacMagic, Primare i30, ATC SCM11s.) He sold his old Rega Apollo CD player shortly afterwards.

A number of colleagues use streaming (wired and wireless) and NAS drives for both music and movies. We were all at a week long course recently and the subject came up a few times.

My older brother is a real traditionalist who still uses my (very) old NAD/Mordaunt Short/Yamaha/Dual system. He only got a home computer recently and only because of a photography course he is doing. He wouldn't dream of using iPlayer or iTunes or connecting it to a hifi and thinks DACs are a brand of trousers.

 

[hammill]

He wouldn't dream of using iPlayer or iTunes or connecting it to a hifi and thinks DACs are a brand of trousers.

My mother in law does not know what a glockenspiel is, so he is probably quite knowledgeable in comparison. I am not surprised about DACS, but the number of people who still don't know what a blu-ray is or that BBC 7 (now radio 4 extra) exists does worry me.

 

[MajorFubar]

but it will be many years before streaming solutions get anywhere the installed base of CD players.

I think that's very true. It's one thing us sat here typing away on our PCs, Macs and iPads which can stream and download music and we're debating whether this technology has already usurped the older formats, but we're not exactly representative: there are tons and tons of people out there who don't even use or own a computer, ipad or whatever.

I can put a piece of music on CD, take it to any house in my street or to any street in my town for that matter and I bet everyone can play it, even if only through their cheap Binatone music system. No other format is so universally standard.

Just because most new music purchases are via downloads doesn't mean most people in general download music. They don't. It's probably more accurate to say that most people don't buy new music at all, but of the people who do, most are likely to download it.

 

[Anonymous]

It's not "the future" or "the way forward" and there is no "maybe". It's here, it's now. The primacy of the stand-alone CD player (in a traditional 'seperates' system) has surely passed.

I haven't had a CD player in the house for a couple of years now. Any CD I get (which is few, because they are mastered so appallingly) I just rip to the Apple and play it over the Airport Express.

As a bonus anyone with an iPhone or iPod Touch can play their stuff on my system over the wi-fi. And where would we be without playlists!?!

 

[Anonymous]

Streaming and cloud based music (Spotify etc) is the future. I use a couple of squeezebxes in the house and will probably pick up another receiver. I was tempted to go for a SB Touch for the 24/96 support, but after exhausting testing, I am certain I can't hear any difference (I bought some HD music from Linn, downsampled etc)..

24 bits is totally unnecessary for playback purposes, the dynamic range of CD already being much higher than vinyl, and the increase from 44.1 to 96 only adds frequencies from 22 KHz to 46 KHz, which I know for a fact I (and most human beings) can't hear.

I was swayed toward 24/96 after listening to some, but my theory is that these are simply better masterings. CD has of course suffered the "loudness wars", and that has damaged its reputation. Even so, a well mastered CD will always sound as good as, or better than its equivalent vinyl release, and any better is (to me), inaudible.

MP3 set to above 190 VBR is almost transparent too, not that I would buy anything less than 256, and preferably the FLAC.

I've all but stopped buying CDs other than the artists I have an illogical attachment to. I download some, in FLAC and occaisionally MP3, and I use Spotify to build up playlists of albums. That £10 a month has probably saved me £30 in CD purchases that get listened to once or twice then forgotten about.

Optical disk is on its way out for music, Vinyl is for diehard touchy feely types. The future of music is streaming from your own collection and streaming from the cloud.

 

[eggontoast]

Streaming and cloud based music (Spotify etc) is the future. I use a couple of squeezebxes in the house and will probably pick up another receiver. I was tempted to go for a SB Touch for the 24/96 support, but after exhausting testing, I am certain I can't hear any difference (I bought some HD music from Linn, downsampled etc)..

24 bits is totally unnecessary for playback purposes, the dynamic range of CD already being much higher than vinyl, and the increase from 44.1 to 96 only adds frequencies from 22 KHz to 46 KHz, which I know for a fact I (and most human beings) can't hear.

I was swayed toward 24/96 after listening to some, but my theory is that these are simply better masterings. CD has of course suffered the "loudness wars", and that has damaged its reputation. Even so, a well mastered CD will always sound as good as, or better than its equivalent vinyl release, and any better is (to me), inaudible.

MP3 set to above 190 VBR is almost transparent too, not that I would buy anything less than 256, and preferably the FLAC.

I've all but stopped buying CDs other than the artists I have an illogical attachment to. I download some, in FLAC and occaisionally MP3, and I use Spotify to build up playlists of albums. That £10 a month has probably saved me £30 in CD purchases that get listened to once or twice then forgotten about.

Optical disk is on its way out for music, Vinyl is for diehard touchy feely types. The future of music is streaming from your own collection and streaming from the cloud.

There are some really big sweeping statements in this post but just to pick up on two. 24/96 music and anything above 190VBR mp3s are pointless right :?

 

[Frank Harvey]

I disagree. Streaming may be the way forward, but I would still say more than 50% of those who come in for demos, still have and use CD players. Some of those are buying new CD players, as they're not interested in streaming at all.

"Streaming may be the way forward..." you're kidding right?

Sorry Chebby, I didn't mean 'may' in the sense tha you read it, I meant it in the other way, which I've been trying hard to think how to explain it. I meant 'may be the way forward' as in that's going to be the way forward, not as in it 'may be' the way forward, if you see what I mean. Unfortunately, everything can be read two different ways

 

[chebby]

There are some really big sweeping statements in this post but just to pick up on two. 24/96 music and anything above 190VBR mp3s are pointless right :?

I have a few 24/96 downloads (some classical stuff from Linn Records) and plenty of Apple Lossless rips from CDs and 256k AAC VBR rips from CDs too. Also a few iTunes 256k AAC downloads.

I have only been ripping to Apple Lossless on a serious scale for the last month (thread here) and the results - compared to 256K AAC VBR - are noticeably better, but not astoundingly so. It really depends on the content.

I don't think I have any of those "loudness wars" type recordings on CD, possibly because I am not into the kind of material that tends to suffer such treatment.

The biggest differences between 256K AAC rips and ALAC rips are actually more apparent with well recorded voice/speech material which suprised me as I had always assumed it would be less demanding than music.

There is a gulf between (music) tracks I have ripped from CD in 256K AAC and the same tracks I had originally downloaded in 256K from iTunes. The iTunes Shop download versions get massacred in the process somewhere, which is why - wherever possible - I have eliminated virtually all my old iTunes downloads and bought CD versions to rip instead.

The gulf is far bigger between 256K CD rip and 256k iTunes download than it is between an ALAC rip and a 256K AAC VBR rip from CD.

The two WMA 24/96 downloads from Linn Records (Handel and Tallis) were both superb but too much 'faff' (not having them on iTunes along with everything else) so I imported them to iTunes in AIFF.

However, Linn does not offer enough choice for me to continue using them and £18 per download is a bit 'rich' for my blood!

 

[eggontoast]

I have a few 24/96 downloads (some classical stuff from Linn Records) and plenty of Apple Lossless rips from CDs and 256k AAC VBR rips from CDs too. Also a few iTunes 256k AAC downloads.

I have only been ripping to Apple Lossless on a serious scale for the last month (thread here) and the results - compared to 256K AAC VBR - are noticeably better, but not astoundingly so. It really depends on the content.

I don't think I have any of those "loudness wars" type recordings on CD, possibly because I am not into the kind of material that tends to suffer such treatment.

The biggest differences between 256K AAC rips and ALAC rips are actually more apparent with well recorded voice/speech material which suprised me as I had always assumed it would be less demanding than music.

There is a gulf between (music) tracks I have ripped from CD in 256K AAC and the same tracks I had originally downloaded in 256K from iTunes. The iTunes Shop download versions get massacred in the process somewhere, which is why - wherever possible - I have eliminated virtually all my old iTunes downloads and bought CD versions to rip instead.

The gulf is far bigger between 256K CD rip and 256k iTunes download than it is between an ALAC rip and a 256K AAC VBR rip from CD.

The two WMA 24/96 downloads from Linn Records (Handel and Tallis) were both superb but too much 'faff' (not having them on iTunes along with everything else) so I imported them to iTunes in AIFF.

However, Linn does not offer enough choice for me to continue using them and £18 per download is a bit 'rich' for my blood!

I agree with you on all your points chebby, I'm not sure Booble does though.

Not so long ago I got into quite a heated debate on another forum where there were a vast majority of posters saying that there was no audible difference between 320CBR LAME 3.98 and FLAC files. They all demanded to see proof from the posters who said "of course you can hear a difference" needless to say I used the Foobar ABX plugin and provided a log file of a 100% pass. However during doing this test I initially used Miles Davis 'kind of blue' album which IMO an exceptionally well mastered album. I run the test a few times and with this album I could not conclusively pass the test :O the second piece of music I used was Pachelbel's Canon, I had no problems with that.

 

[MajorFubar]

Not so long ago I got into quite a heated debate on another forum where there were a vast majority of posters saying that there was no audible difference between 320CBR LAME 3.98 and FLAC files. They all demanded to see proof from the posters who said "of course you can hear a difference" needless to say I used the Foobar ABX plugin and provided a log file of a 100% pass. However during doing this test I initially used Miles Davis 'kind of blue' album which IMO an exceptionally well mastered album. I run the test a few times and with this album I could not conclusively pass the test :O the second piece of music I used was Pachelbel's Canon, I had no problems with that.

Proof, if any were needed, that the success-rate of audio-compression, just like JPG compression, depends entirely on what's being compressed. It will vary from recording to recording. Which is why heated disagreements are pointless really because there's not a definite correct answer

 

[rendu]

It is like the song...."love is in the air.... every time I look around..."

Love = Music... therefore... Music will be in the air..... via cloud, spotify, wi-fi or whatever comes next but it will be in the air..... :bounce:

 

[simon3102000]

Funny this should crop up me just coverting to sreaming my music and ditching the cd player, im very impressed so far, the qaulity sounds awsome! People make it out that streaming audio sounds like a tin can or something but with the right gear its good and from where im sitting i cant really tell it apart from my cd player, rescent music ripped in lossless but got about 20gb ripped in 256 i think but that still sounds prettey good, having a dacmagic helps alot though, i done a unboxing and setup vid on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdv-DIrEzw4

 

[Anonymous]

Streaming and cloud based music (Spotify etc) is the future. I use a couple of squeezebxes in the house and will probably pick up another receiver. I was tempted to go for a SB Touch for the 24/96 support, but after exhausting testing, I am certain I can't hear any difference (I bought some HD music from Linn, downsampled etc)..

24 bits is totally unnecessary for playback purposes, the dynamic range of CD already being much higher than vinyl, and the increase from 44.1 to 96 only adds frequencies from 22 KHz to 46 KHz, which I know for a fact I (and most human beings) can't hear.

I was swayed toward 24/96 after listening to some, but my theory is that these are simply better masterings. CD has of course suffered the "loudness wars", and that has damaged its reputation. Even so, a well mastered CD will always sound as good as, or better than its equivalent vinyl release, and any better is (to me), inaudible.

MP3 set to above 190 VBR is almost transparent too, not that I would buy anything less than 256, and preferably the FLAC.

I've all but stopped buying CDs other than the artists I have an illogical attachment to. I download some, in FLAC and occaisionally MP3, and I use Spotify to build up playlists of albums. That £10 a month has probably saved me £30 in CD purchases that get listened to once or twice then forgotten about.

Optical disk is on its way out for music, Vinyl is for diehard touchy feely types. The future of music is streaming from your own collection and streaming from the cloud.

There are some really big sweeping statements in this post but just to pick up on two. 24/96 music and anything above 190VBR mp3s are pointless right :?

Not pointless, no. I buy CDs and if possible FLAC, sometimes 320 MP3. But I cannot ABX 190 VBR from FLAC or WAV, can you? foobar2000 and the ABX comparitor plugin will help you try.

Before I tried that, I was convinced I heard the advantage of 24/96 and even 16/44.1 lossless over my own EAC rips at 200 VBR. But I cannot ABX them.

I checked the spectrum of a Linn 24/96 download, and while there is info way above 20 Khz, it looks false as though it's been added. I have listened to both that and a self downsampled 16/48 version and I cannot tell them apart.

As I said, I think the reason it sounds better is because it's mastered better.

Either way, I am now content listening to 128K shoutcast streams through my Avi ADM9's without worrying too much.

Try this test if you dare.

http://mp3ornot.com/index.php

 

[eggontoast]

But I cannot ABX 190 VBR from FLAC or WAV, can you? foobar2000 and the ABX comparitor plugin will help you try.

I guess you missed the post above covering this.

 

[Anonymous]

But I cannot ABX 190 VBR from FLAC or WAV, can you? foobar2000 and the ABX comparitor plugin will help you try.

I guess you missed the post above covering this.

nope. 320 MP3 and FLAC. Well done if it's true, but there was probably a problem with one of the rips imo.

Did you pass the mp3 test?

 

[chebby]

Did you pass the mp3 test?

We've had these tests (possibly this one too) before.

For every person who says they hear a difference, there is always another one to tell them they didn't really. (It's the equipment or the phase of the lunar cycle or whatever.)

Fed up with people demanding we test our hearing. 'scienceguys' was at it the other day too.

Doctor, test thy self.

 

[Lee H]

Did you pass the mp3 test?

We've had these tests (possibly this one too) before.

For every person who says they hear a difference, there is always another one to tell them they didn't really. (It's the equipment or the phase of the lunar cycle or whatever.)

Fed up with people demanding we test our hearing. 'scienceguys' was at it the other day too.

Doctor, test thyself.

I'd hazard a guess that a significant percentage of Booble's posts relate to this site and demand we post results. It's all getting rather tiresome.

 

[manicm]

There are some really big sweeping statements in this post but just to pick up on two. 24/96 music and anything above 190VBR mp3s are pointless right :?

I have a few 24/96 downloads (some classical stuff from Linn Records) and plenty of Apple Lossless rips from CDs and 256k AAC VBR rips from CDs too. Also a few iTunes 256k AAC downloads.

I have only been ripping to Apple Lossless on a serious scale for the last month (thread here) and the results - compared to 256K AAC VBR - are noticeably better, but not astoundingly so. It really depends on the content.

I don't think I have any of those "loudness wars" type recordings on CD, possibly because I am not into the kind of material that tends to suffer such treatment.

The biggest differences between 256K AAC rips and ALAC rips are actually more apparent with well recorded voice/speech material which suprised me as I had always assumed it would be less demanding than music.

There is a gulf between (music) tracks I have ripped from CD in 256K AAC and the same tracks I had originally downloaded in 256K from iTunes. The iTunes Shop download versions get massacred in the process somewhere, which is why - wherever possible - I have eliminated virtually all my old iTunes downloads and bought CD versions to rip instead.

The gulf is far bigger between 256K CD rip and 256k iTunes download than it is between an ALAC rip and a 256K AAC VBR rip from CD.

The two WMA 24/96 downloads from Linn Records (Handel and Tallis) were both superb but too much 'faff' (not having them on iTunes along with everything else) so I imported them to iTunes in AIFF.

However, Linn does not offer enough choice for me to continue using them and £18 per download is a bit 'rich' for my blood!

Funny, my experience with AAC 256k seems to be the reverse to yours - the flaws of my iTunes CD 256k AAC rips were all too apparent when playing my iPod/rDock on my Solo Mini - compared to 320k MP3s and my regular AIFF rips on iPod.

 

[eggontoast]

nope. 320 MP3 and FLAC. Well done if it's true, but there was probably a problem with one of the rips imo.

:rofl: now I didn't know that was coming did I, there is something wrong with your rip, you didn't install Foobar correctly, your PC must play MP3's really badly, you were dressed on the wrong side when doing test blah de blah de blah

 

[Anonymous]

I think one only has to listen to Linn Classical radio @ 320mps to realize that streaming is already here. The sound quality is seriously impressive for an Internet radio station.!

 

[byakuya83]

I buy all my music on CD for a number of reasons; CDs are cheaper (£10 for 2 in HMV), if the CD is crap I can sell it on or give it away, I have a backup copy and it gives me something to do when boring trips to the high street.

Everything I buy on CD is then ripped to iTunes. I don't even have an iTunes account as I don't intend to buy any digital products. I use my iPod Touch in the car and at the gym.

Am thinking though I might go back and re-rip everything in lossless format. There appears to be an option that reduces the file size of any track before synching to the iPod.

My only concern is that volumes seem to differ and I am never quite sure whether things are ripped and sound as they should or whether adjustments have been made by the software.

 

[chebby]

It seems there is at least one thing - from the past and present - we can always be sure of in the future. There will always be someone to tell us we aren't listening right.