CD's going bye-bye: Interesting article

[itschris]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426121,00.html

 

[BMXTRIX]

It's an interesting way to go, but I think with how popular the iPod is, the target is missed and this isn't likely to take off.

You see, if I go into a store and buy a CD, I likely want the physical media so I can play it on, oh I don't know... my CD player.

If I want it on my iPod, I've gotta insert the SD card, open explorer, add the files to my iTunes library, then load them to my iPod.

Yes, that's not hard.

But, since I have configured iTunes to rip CDs as soon as I put a disc in my CD player, it seems like I would instead just buy a CD, open iTunes, and stick a CD in, and I would get the exact same results.

To have dozens of very small SD cards to lose doesn't sound fun. To not be able to play the cards in my car without an external MP3 player doesn't sound convenient.

To think that people savvy enough to do what is necessary to get the files to their various digital players are willing to pay CD pricing (!!!) instead of simply downloading the content is definitely questionable.

I think it is a huge leap of faith to expect this to work, especially since most people haven't even heard of it.

The biggest plus may be a bunch of 1GB Micro SD cards to have in excess.

 

[ErinH]

why 320kbps?! Can we not have lossless formats (.wav specifically)? I can’t imagine the cost being that much more for a 256mb card over a 1gb card. Of course, the way the music recording industry is, I probably wouldn’t care that the newest emo CD (should replace this with SD) has horrible dynamics and 1000 rounds of clipping.

 

[itschris]

Exactly. I view my IPOD as nothing more than an "on-the-go" source. I don't care about the quality that much while running around the block or when I'm at the gym. For critical listening however, it's the cd player.

I will never full embrace the online music industry until they provide high quality lossless music files. I simply refuse to pay .99 for an inferior copy that has no tangible material. I can get most CD's for $10-$12 and I'm actually paying the same amount from Itunes and I don't get the quality, I don't get the disc, I don't get the liner notes... nothing. When I think about it... I feel like we're really being duped.

 

[rnatalli]

I'm all for replacing anything that uses moving parts. 320kps would be fine by me as I can't tell between that and a CD.

 

[gus6464]

why 320kbps?! Can we not have lossless formats (.wav specifically)? I can’t imagine the cost being that much more for a 256mb card over a 1gb card. Of course, the way the music recording industry is, I probably wouldn’t care that the newest emo CD (should replace this with SD) has horrible dynamics and 1000 rounds of clipping.

Because there is barely any difference between an mp3 at 320k and FLAC. Also .wav is not a lossless format but fully uncompressed music. 10MB a song is a big difference compared to 50MB a song when you have a 4GB player.

 

[emorphien]

I'm not sure what I'd want to replace CDs with, I still buy quite a bit (as well as some vinyl and occasionally DVD-A or SACD). Moving away from moving parts wouldn't be bad. I do find the choice in format a bit weird (MP3, regardless of bitrate).

Wonder if this means I'll have to replace the CD player with a CD/card reader player in the future

 

[Phil Taylor]

I still prefer the warmth and depth of my vinyl collection - pops, clicks and all.

 

[ErinH]

Because there is barely any difference between an mp3 at 320k and FLAC. Also .wav is not a lossless format but fully uncompressed music. 10MB a song is a big difference compared to 50MB a song when you have a 4GB player.

I can certainly hear a difference. And, what's the compression ratio of 320kbps compared to lossless (not just .flac).

Actually, though I can't hear it, there is even a difference in flac vs. wav from the screenshots of recording software I’ve seen.


What's the difference b/t 'fully uncompressed' and 'lossless'. CDs are .wav format so how is that not the single best definition for lossless?

 

[JerryLove]

What's the difference b/t 'fully uncompressed' and 'lossless'. CDs are .wav format so how is that not the single best definition for lossless?

"1,200,000,000" Fully uncompressed number.
"1.2E9" Compressed but lossless.
"1E10" Compressed and lossy.

Lossless compression will uncompress to be identical to the original. Examples abound in the computer world (basically every file-compression: ZIP, RAR, LZH, etc).

 

[ErinH]

^ duh.

smacks head.

 

[gus6464]

5 minute song:

wav - 50mb
flac - 30mb
mp3 (320k) - 10mb

Ability to actually hear an audible difference between the three - priceless....

BTW using a poor ripper and encoder like itunes will definitely yield a poor mp3 compared to using EAC/dBPowerAmp and LAME.

 

[Hi Ho]

why 320kbps?! Can we not have lossless formats (.wav specifically)? I can’t imagine the cost being that much more for a 256mb card over a 1gb card. Of course, the way the music recording industry is, I probably wouldn’t care that the newest emo CD (should replace this with SD) has horrible dynamics and 1000 rounds of clipping.

Ummm... 256 MB is less than 1 GB (1000 MB). WAV files could easily fit on the 1 GB card. It would actually hold slightly more than a CD which is 700 MB. I agree that the format should be lossless. I buy everything on CDs and would not pay to buy an inferior compressed copy.

 

[fmw]

I can certainly hear a difference. And, what's the compression ratio of 320kbps compared to lossless (not just .flac).

Perhaps in a sighted listening session. You wouldn't hear a difference in a bias controlled test, however. I haven't even been able to get an audible difference between wav and 256 mp3.

What's the difference b/t 'fully uncompressed' and 'lossless'. CDs are .wav format so how is that not the single best definition for lossless?

In one case you are using the computer definition of compression which means that the file is reduced in size temporarily so that it can be restored completely at playback. It doesn't affect the file in the final analysis. In the other case you are using the digital audio definition which means that data is removed from the file. There is yet a third kind of compression which reduces dynamic range by lowering loud parts and boosting quiet parts of the recording. That is the analog audio definition.

Undithered digital audio would be the best definition if you talked to recording engineers. Most recordings these days are made at a 24 bit depth. Then they are dithered to 16 bits at mastering for red book. The recording engineers will tell you they can hear differences in effects tails that are lost in the dithering but I think it may be bias as well. I've done bias controlled tests with 16 bit recordings vs. 24 bit vs. 24 bit dithered to 16 and I can't get a statistically significant audible difference anywhere.

Strangely, they like to use 24 bits to get additional headroom and then they remove that headroom and more with limiting and compression (analog audio definition.) It has always been a head scratcher for me.

 

[fmw]

No thanks. I swore off dongles back in the early 90's.

 

[ErinH]

BTW using a poor ripper and encoder like itunes will definitely yield a poor mp3 compared to using EAC/dBPowerAmp and LAME.

I use dbpoweramp for all my ripping/encoding.

Ummm... 256 MB is less than 1 GB (1000 MB). WAV files could easily fit on the 1 GB card. It would actually hold slightly more than a CD which is 700 MB. I agree that the format should be lossless. I buy everything on CDs and would not pay to buy an inferior compressed copy.

I realize that. I was talking in terms of manufacturing... I wouldn't think a 1gb would cost the company much more money (if any at all) to produce than a 256mb card. 512mb might have covered the .wav files, but the next step is 1gb so that’s why I chose that.

 

[ErinH]

Perhaps in a sighted listening session. You wouldn't hear a difference in a bias controlled test, however. I haven't even been able to get an audible difference between wav and 256 mp3.




In one case you are using the computer definition of compression which means that the file is reduced in size temporarily so that it can be restored completely at playback. It doesn't affect the file in the final analysis. In the other case you are using the digital audio definition which means that data is removed from the file. There is yet a third kind of compression which reduces dynamic range by lowering loud parts and boosting quiet parts of the recording. That is the analog audio definition.

Undithered digital audio would be the best definition if you talked to recording engineers. Most recordings these days are made at a 24 bit depth. Then they are dithered to 16 bits at mastering for red book. The recording engineers will tell you they can hear differences in effects tails that are lost in the dithering but I think it may be bias as well. I've done bias controlled tests with 16 bit recordings vs. 24 bit vs. 24 bit dithered to 16 and I can't get a statistically significant audible difference anywhere.

Strangely, they like to use 24 bits to get additional headroom and then they remove that headroom and more with limiting and compression (analog audio definition.) It has always been a head scratcher for me.

Maybe you're right and my testing wasn’t completely valid. However, it does seem to me that my .wav version of “higher love” – Steve Winwood sounds more dynamic than when I encoded it to 320 for my shuffle. I A/B’d them on my home stereo.


FWIW, I’ve A/B’d a few 24bit CDs to 16bit. I couldn’t tell a difference at all. From then on I’ve not bothered with locating 24bit CDs. The only thing I can think they might give you benefit in is maybe a lowered noise floor?

 

[BMXTRIX]

I realize that. I was talking in terms of manufacturing... I wouldn't think a 1gb would cost the company much more money (if any at all) to produce than a 256mb card. 512mb might have covered the .wav files, but the next step is 1gb so that’s why I chose that.

Ah, then the confusion comes because in the article they say already that they intend to release the 60-100MB or so of music on a 1GB card already, not a 256KB card, so when you talk about going up in size, it seems confusing as they already have stated the size you are suggesting they use.

Which makes it look like 80% of the card will be empty... or available for them to market crap to us and provide nice spyware to load onto our PCs.

Count me out.