The Death of the Music CD 483
Rick Zeman writes "According to the Washington Post, the next new music format will be...no format. From the article: 'What the consumer would buy is a data file, and you could create whatever you need. If you want to make an MP3, you make an MP3. If you want a DVD-Audio surround disc, you make that.'"
I doubt it (Score:3, Informative)
data file? (Score:3, Informative)
you mean raw pcm data, kinda like a wav file, or CD audio.
and you could create whatever you need
so basically encode into whatever format you want.
can't we already have this for quite some time now? most players play only mp3 and wma, so for now, you're stuck with those formats.
the CD will very likely be surpassed as the album format of choice.
you still need some media to transfer the original data. the CD will remain.
Re:I doubt it (Score:5, Informative)
FLAC actually takes very little CPU power to decompress; less than MP3, certainly. But they only compress to about 50% so a CD full of them could only hold two albums instead of one, which isn't gaining a whole lot. So I tend to leave my FLACs at home and convert them to something lossy to take with me.
Um, hello! (Score:2, Informative)
The only improvement to be made is to up the sample rate and bit depth.
The increased sample rate would more accuratly represent the music especialy at higher frequencys. This is because the nyquist sampling therom (1/2 sample rate = highest detectable freq) is a minimum requirement for capturing a frequency at that limit -- it doesn't mean that it's at all accurate.
The higher bit depth would give us more dynamic range.
This will never happen though. They want to lock us into DRM formats which will prevent us from ever getting to the 'raw' data.
Re:RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
Thats the artist/producer control. Not RIAA.
>Back in the day when LPs were popular, you could buy a disc with just the one song you wanted.
You can do that today. Its called CD singles.
Example;
http://www.mattscdsingles.com/acatalo
Dumbest quote... (Score:2, Informative)
"If you just want to listen to music on your computer, think about what you have to go through to listen to that Ashlee Simpson song.
"There is a simplicity to the CD player."
Ok... So to listen to that Ashlee Simpson song on my computer using a CD, I have to either go to a store and buy the CD, or order it online and wait for it to get to my house. I also have to shell out $12-18 for the whole CD (depending on whether or not it's on sale), even if I only want that one song. When it finally arrives or I get home from the store, I have to break through the ridiculous wrappers they still use on CDs, pop it in my computer, and play it.
To do the same thing without a CD, I double-click on iTunes, click on the music store, enter Ashlee into the search box, scroll down to the song I want, click "buy now", wait a minute or two for it to download, then go back to my library and double-click to play it. If I want the whole album, I can click that instead for $9.99 and wait maybe 5-10 min for it to download, but if I just want that one song I can get it for 99c.
Where is the simplicity of the CD player again? Not to mention the fact that it first talks about wanting to listen to the music on your computer, then says the CD player is the simple part - but to do that, you go through the exact same steps listed above for listening to a CD on your computer, just putting the CD into the CD player instead of the computer.
Methinks the person quoted (a satellite radio exec) has no firsthand experience with this stuff.
Re:No format (Score:5, Informative)
Re:data file? (Score:3, Informative)
Why do I need a physical medium to transfer data? I have cables and wireless connections for that kind of thing.
Re:So the new audio format will be... (Score:1, Informative)
Apple has already shown off transcode and transfer tech in the iPod Shuffle. If you use say Apple Losses to rip your CDs. When it comes time to transfer it to the iPod Shuffle, iTunes will on the fly, transcode into a compact lossy (lossly?) format. You can already do the same when you burn CD's. Given another 5-10 years of bandwidth growth, Apple may start offering lossless downloads one day.
Re:.no (Score:3, Informative)
Starbucks begins their program next year. (Score:1, Informative)
It sucks as the base format is most likely going to be mp3 and there is no plans for SACD or DVDA, or any format of decent quality. Considering the propogation of crappy replication, this is just going to make it harder to obtain good reproductions of music for people who wish to listen to an artists work on something other than 2" speakers stuck to a computer or car or crappy "home entertainment" system.
Random thoughts (Score:2, Informative)
Given the number of clocks flashing 12 in this world, don't understimate that value.
2. I've invested in an audiophile grade system--I've got two Macintoshes--one next to my desk and another powering my MLs. Trust me, you can spot the 192s bitrates each time. They're particularly noticable on string music.
CDs--and SACD if it goes anywhere--generally offer a nice minumum. There's a nice floor there and you really don't want to go beneath it. With electronic distribution, there's a tempation to distribute cut-down copies to save bandwidth (even allowing for more modern codecs). If I've got a pressed CD from a company, I can tell there's a certain minumum.
That being said, there are a lot of bad recordings out there.
3. Repeat after me: not everyone listens to pop music. Stop equating the entire musical industry with top 40 crap. Lots of people listen to albums, not songs. Buying one track out of an album of symphonic music generally doesn't make sense.
4. Just to piss people off, I'll remind everyone that an iPod is not a particularly good decoder. Of course, the amount of money needed to get a good (I can tell there's a difference with my eyes closed) DAC is $3k, but I doubt many people really care and even I can't afford one. The point being don't spend forever telling me how much you love your music if you're listening to it on crappy mp3s, ripped god knows how, at 192, on ear phones that use cone drivers.
The electronica labels are ahead of the curve (Score:1, Informative)
It kind of doesn't matter that iTunes' electronica section is weak. You can get better quality, DRM-free tracks that TOTALLY WORK ON YOUR IPOD (so who says other stores can't take advantage of the iPod?!?!) through Warp Records' online distribution site bleep.com. And ShitKatapult's store has Apparat! Among other great techno/tech-house/IDM producers.
Note that w/ ShitKatapult, there are MP3s for both the CD and LP versions of some releases, and they don't always have the same number of tracks (but might be the same exact price!) Also, I had to use FireFox on Mac OS X for the credit card transaction to work.
Support real music, indy labels, something actually different than what the big guys are pushing on Clear Channel! Why do the little guys with better music offer files that are DRM-free, but the biggies do not? Screw the RIAA!
Re:Sound's Great... (Score:5, Informative)
Eh, no. Copyright law says you need permission from the owner to copy those bits. Once you purchase them, you hold all property rights and can do whatever you wish with the bits, except copy them, as the right to copy them is taken from you and given exclusively to the author for the duration of the copyright term.
Take some time and read up on the first sales doctrine, and dont mistake intellectual property for physical property. The 'property' in 'intellectual property' is not the product itself, it's the right to prevent others from exercising their own right to copy their property. The fact that someone owns the _copy right_ should not be confused with the ownership of the _copy_.
That said, DRM is a grey area and the lobbying propaganda usually tries to argue that it's only intended to stop illegal copying, which would fall within the legitimate realm of a copy right. However, we all know that is not the case; DRM usually expands far beyond that exclusive realm, and tries to control what devices you can play things on, where you can play them, when you can play them, etc.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
A typical non-economist (and non-mathematician) slashdot post modded insightful. At the same time it's completely wrong.
Hmm, does $4-$9 in 1980-dollars equate to $12-$25 in 2005 dollars? At 2.5% inflation per year, it doesn't even come close. Bummer.
Actually, $9 in 1980 with 25 years of compound @ 2.5% inflation (your figures, not mine) is ~$16, so it's actually a pretty good estimate. I buy CDs at the rate of maybe 5 or 6 a month, and they're usually in the $12-$18 range. But that's just your random 2.5% inflation figure (which is wrong). If you use the CPI (which is a much better measure) you get $9 in 1980 being worth over $21 in 2003 (the latest year I could find figures for).
Try it yourself here [westegg.com].
CD != consistent quality (totally OT) (Score:2, Informative)
Not really. In 1987, you could count on a CD having a certain level of quality. Lately, the MAKE IT AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE approach has taken over. Instead of trying to make the most of CDDA's dynamic range, recording engineers are bent on making their album is the LOUDEST DISC IN YOUR CHANGER, and in the process you lose half the dynamic range. Maybe you mostly listen to classical music, and they haven't yet converted to the AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE school of recording. Try listening to a rock album from the 1980s and one from the last 2-3 years. It's depressing how the new recordings, made with brand new computer technology and better equipment sound worse than older ones.
good luck with those Napster songs on your iPod! (Score:3, Informative)
That's nice except that according to Napster: You can't listen [napster.com] to NAPSTER-downloaded songs on an iPod.
So you won't really be able to listen to them via a digital music player such as the iPod.
more confusion for the consumer who doesn't follow this stuff blow by blow.