IS CD Dieing?

[Jordan]

I've noticed a lot of people mention and trying to compare all these new variations of media out now, But is either of them really going to replace the good old CD someday?


Tape..Dying
8-Track...Dead & buried
Record...Buried except for mixers.
SACD, DVD-Audio, HDCD, DVD...The Futurers

 

[highfihoney]

I've noticed a lot of people mention and trying to compare all these new variations of media out now, But is either of them really going to replace the good old CD someday?


Tape..Dying
8-Track...Dead & buried
Record...Buried except for mixers.
SACD, DVD-Audio, HDCD, DVD...The Futurers

hdcd is all but gone & sacd is soon to follow,i cant see any of the format's you listed being able to replace the standard cd & not because of sound quality issues.

sooner or later somebody will come up with a new format that is as revolutionary as cd was compared to tape & vinyl but until then i think good ole cd's are going to be it.

 

[PENG]

In terms of sound quality alone, we are pretty much at the point of rapid diminishing return. CD goes up to 20,000 Hz, SACD and DVD-A goes much higher, but for 2 channel material, how many of us can hear the difference. I tried many times flipping between, CD, HDCD, Stereo, Multi (SACD) on recordings that contain all of these formats. Sometimes I thought I heard subtle differences but that's the extent of it. CD is here to stay for a long time.

 

[Doug917]

I think CDs are here until media servers come down in cost and the studios figure out licensing for downloading music that is acceptable to the masses.

 

[Dan Driscoll]

ITape..Dying

Not dying, dead.

8-Track...Dead & buried

Dust to dust...

Record...Buried except for mixers.

Nope. Vinyl is alive and well, as a niche product. There are a lot of people with very expensive systems who believe vinyl sounds better than any digital media, despite the distorion and limited dynamic range inherent to the format. In fact, vinyl is the #2 format today, behind CD.

SACD, DVD-Audio, HDCD, DVD...The Futurers

Nope, probably not the future, for a number of reasons. The first is the format war between SACD & DVD-Audio. Consumers don't like format wars.

Another is the still very limited catalog available in either format and the lack of big selling releases by major artists. Most of what has been released on SACD and DVD-Audio has been classical, which can sound great, but doesn't sell.

Another is that a well produced and authored CD can sound almost as good as an SACD or DVD-Audio recording, or even better if the SACD/DVD-A was poorly authored.

Except among serious audiophiles and enthusists, the trend is toward low resolution, portable music formats. Far more music is played on MP3 players than on high end or even mid-range stereo systems.

DVD-A and SACD have better resolution, frequency response and dynamic range, but you need pretty good and fairly expensive equipment to really hear the difference. So in the mass market the only real advantage to SACD and DVD-Audio is the multi-channel capability. But the studios and artists have done a very poor job of exploiting that advantage. I have a universal player and a moderate collection of SACD and DVD-A disks, but I'll be the frst one to tell you that frankly, most of the MC mixes I've heard suck. With a very few exceptions, the high resolution stereo tracks sound a lot better, IMO.

So for the time being, I expect CD will continue to rule the roost. We will have to see what happens when the next high resolution audio formats arrive, with Blu-Ray and HD DVD disks.

 

[WmAx]

In fact, vinyl is the #2 format today, behind CD.

That's a really distant 2nd place; sort of like if I raced a top performing drag racing car with a ford fiesta that had four flat tires and was out of tune, and only had 1st gear working, and I came in 2nd.... by pure technicality.

Another is that a well produced and authored CD can sound almost as good as an SACD or DVD-Audio recording, or even better if the SACD/DVD-A was poorly authored.

They will sound exactly the same according to credible perceptual research. That is, no research has ever shown an advantage for playback of using bandwidth or dynamic range exceeding that of CD. In fact, it's almost impossible to find something that uses the entire dynamic range of a CD. I don't know of a single recording(even among audiophile recordings) that uses the full range in actual music playback. One or two may exist, but they must be very obscure. Of course, then you have to have very special equipment, such as a full size line array or a massive horn speaker, to be able to have sufficient SPL to use that dynamic range. Anything of lesser SPL ability would not be capable of using the full CD dynamic range.

DVD-A and SACD have better resolution, frequency response and dynamic range, but you need pretty good and fairly expensive equipment to really hear the difference.

No one of credibility has shown an audible difference for musical program on any equipment, regardless of cost.

So in the mass market the only real advantage to SACD and DVD-Audio is the multi-channel capability.

Correct.

-Chris

 

[tbewick]

Hello Chris,

I know of a Dolby Digital release - Shine - that has a peak at 108 dB in a scene where Rachmaninov is being played on a piano.

Don't you think that newer, more advanced audio formats could improve audio quality, in the sense of being more forgiving of playback equipment? For example, Dolby Digital has dynamic range control, which allows you to playback films of enormous dynamic range on very basic audio equipment. Audio CD does not have this ability, and is surely one of the reasons why recordings are usually so highy compressed. Perversely, LP's usually have greater dynamic range than a typical CD's, despite their technical inferiority.

 

[WmAx]

Hello Chris,

I know of a Dolby Digital release - Shine - that has a peak at 108 dB in a scene where Rachmaninov is being played on a piano.

Sounds like the film makers went all out on that scene. That sounds like one heck of a high SPL. To get that kind of SPL in real life from a [1]piano, you may have to be sitting beside the piano, or have the piano located in a very small closed room. Even then, you may have to have the lid open and place your ears near the soundboard.

Don't you think that newer, more advanced audio formats could improve audio quality, in the sense of being more forgiving of playback equipment? For example, Dolby Digital has dynamic range control, which allows you to playback films of enormous dynamic range on very basic audio equipment.

This technology is simply a dynamic compressor. It can be applied to any source. Many recievers have a 'night' mode that is simply a compressor that reduces dynamic range. Some car audio CD players also have such a feature(though it's named differently), as well as many portable audio players.

Audio CD does not have this ability, and is surely one of the reasons why recordings are usually so highy compressed. Perversely, LP's usually have greater dynamic range than a typical CD's, despite their technical inferiority.

Early CDs had a good deal of dynamic range, and as you mention, LPs, which are from eras where the average consumer level equipment was of average lesser dynamic ability than today. The compression amounts used today appear to be the result of a loudness competition between releases, not a result of technical limitations of average equipment. What excuse is there to make it rational to have an average 6 dB dynamic range, as some albums aspire today?

-Chris

[1] Figure 4.[from http://www.acoustics.org/press/146th/Wogram.htm ] SPL peak measurements from playing position: Left: Upright Piano Right: Grand Piano
http://www.acoustics.org/press/146th/WogramPic6.jpg

 

[hifiman]

Is CD Dying?

I've noticed a lot of people mention and trying to compare all these new variations of media out now, But is either of them really going to replace the good old CD someday?


Tape..Dying
8-Track...Dead & buried
Record...Buried except for mixers.
SACD, DVD-Audio, HDCD, DVD...The Futurers

Tape - dead

8 - track - Why are we even talking about something that been dead, buried, and already turned to dust?

Vinyl - Long dead except for a few people who just can't let go of the past.

HDCD - A product with questionable assets that never developed into anything more than a curiosity.

SACD & DVD-A - The industry killed it before it ever hit the shelves.

DVD - Very powerful format. Well-liked and accepted by the public. This could be the one-size-fits-all solution.

Hi-Def DVD's - I'm betting they will suffer the fate of SACD & DVD-A for the same reasons.

300+ gb hard drives that get cheaper by the day - filled with media in any number of formats, and unprecedented portability - the new reigning champion.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

300+ gb hard drives that get cheaper by the day - filled with media in any number of formats, and unprecedented portability - the new reigning champion.

Yep, especially portable memory. Don't be surprised when Steve Jobs finds a way to turn his Ipods into lossless music and video libraries.

The receivers of tomorrow will be laptop computers hooked through digitally amplified HD DVRW's via WIFI.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

300+ gb hard drives that get cheaper by the day - filled with media in any number of formats, and unprecedented portability - the new reigning champion.

Even with terrabyte harddrives (1024Gigs), you still have the cureent music problem, you can't put anything on your HD thats better than CD: you can't rip SACD/DVD-A to my knowledge, and a super-duper audio format (lets say 200gigs per album) will require you to buy a new HD every time you want some new music.... HD's may get cheaper, but they'll never be as cheap as a CD to manufacture.

Fact is CD remains hypothetically perfect for mono & 2 channel recordings. If a CD sounds bad, blame the mixer, not the format. And if you took a mukltichannel DTS-CD and a SACD of the same material with the same mix levels and played them on the same system maybe 1% of people with any training would be able to identify which format they were listening to without prior knowledge.

Tape..Dying
8-Track...Dead & buried
Record...Buried except for mixers.
SACD, DVD-Audio, HDCD, DVD...The Futurers

If anything will kill CD it will be MP3. Consumers will pick convenience over quality 99 times outa 100.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I would consider records not to be #2 but to be a distant #3 to the non-physical formats of downloadable music.

Sure, there are people that care a great deal about audio, but the majority simply don't. They often DO care more about video when combined with audio, but the jump to CD was enough and MP3 is a heck of a lot better than cassette tapes ever were. For many, MP3 is the ideal format - small, portable, and doesn't get ruined by a few scratches.

Some may say that the ONLY thing that matters is audio quality, but overall quality takes into account all the things that matter for a specific medium. Cost, versatility, portability, convenience, etc. I don't know the numbers, but would be interested in knowing how tape sales compared to record sales prior to the days of CD. No question that tape was far inferior to records... but it had a lot of other qualities that made it valuable to people.

Yes, MP3 may not be CD, but it can be very close, and over a pair of headphones on the bus, who can tell anyways? All people know is that it is very convenient, and very versatile - and quality is darn good.

 

[hifiman]

Even with terrabyte harddrives (1024Gigs), you still have the cureent music problem, you can't put anything on your HD thats better than CD: you can't rip SACD/DVD-A to my knowledge, and a super-duper audio format (lets say 200gigs per album) will require you to buy a new HD every time you want some new music.... HD's may get cheaper, but they'll never be as cheap as a CD to manufacture.

Fact is CD remains hypothetically perfect for mono & 2 channel recordings. If a CD sounds bad, blame the mixer, not the format. And if you took a mukltichannel DTS-CD and a SACD of the same material with the same mix levels and played them on the same system maybe 1% of people with any training would be able to identify which format they were listening to without prior knowledge.

If anything will kill CD it will be MP3. Consumers will pick convenience over quality 99 times outa 100.

I disagree about hard drives not being cheaper to manufacture than CDs. Today it's not even a challenge to find 200 gb hard drives that can be had for $60-$70 after rebates. That's a lot of CD-Rs with the added convenience of speed, portability, and adding and deleting files.

As for your comment that MP3 will kill the CD. That's essentially what I have said when I wrote that hard drives (probably should have added flash memory too) were the new reigning champion. The music industry really didn't want us having higher quality music in the form of SACD and DVD-A. The majority of the consumers couldn't have cared less about it anyway. Most people are perfectly happy with 128k (CD quality ) MP3s.

 

[highfihoney]

mp3 is surely convient but i wouldnt go as far as saying it's quality is good for 2 channel,from what ive heard cd is a far superior sounding format.

 

[Duffinator]

Long Live the King

mp3 is surely convient but i wouldnt go as far as saying it's quality is good for 2 channel,from what ive heard cd is a far superior sounding format.

Oh here we go again.

And I'm not talking Elvis but CD. It will be awhile until the CD is dethroned.

My advice, enjoy your favorite music on your format of choice and not worry about which format is going to survive.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

mp3 is surely convient but i wouldnt go as far as saying it's quality is good for 2 channel,from what ive heard cd is a far superior sounding format.

Download a WAV file and you'll never hear the difference.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Since only half of Americans have computers, and less have internet, I don't see downloads making the CD go away. Not for a decade or two anyways.

 

[Hi Ho]

MP3-type formats are the future, at least for me. Since I got my ZenMicro Photo I have not listened too or burned a single CD. I play it through my car, my theater system, and headphones.

I have compared identical songs from Napster (128k WMA) and the original CD and I'd be willing to bet that 99.999999% of people would not be able to hear a difference in a blind test, probably more like 100%. WMA definetly sounds better than MP3 at the same bit-rates.

It looks like SACD/DVD-A will have come and gone before I ever buy a compatible player. There isn't much bluegrass on those formats anyway.

Now that I have 8 GB worth of music in a device 1/4 the size of my wallet I won't be turning back.

 

[tbewick]

Hi Chris

I think the main reason why CD's have such limited dynamic range is because the average person listens to their music on a low-fi stereo, radio or a TV. If pop or classical recordings were made to have a more realistic dynamic range of the live performances, the CD would sound worse on basic equipment. The excess of treble energy or 'hotness' of many recordings nowadays no doubt is there to make the recording sound better on basic equipment.

It's a shame that an equivalent of dynamic range control isn't widely available on audio CD. It has been an effective feature in allowing everyone to enjoy film soundtracks, either on playback equipment of limited dynamic range, or on a high quality home cinema system.

 

[AudioSeer]

Slim Devices Squeezebox + FLAC is the ticket. The little device measures as good as very high end cd players (100 ps jitter). Also, you get can get near bit perfect rips from your CD's using EAC.

There is no substitute to having your entire music collection at your fingertips.