[dazm41]

not suprised realy just a matter of when.

Linn Products announce "The Death of CD" | AVguide

[cunny678]

I think it will be more of an issue with high end equpment sales rather than mainstream players! The inherant isues with the format mean that it is now easier to get better sound for buck with hard drive based sytems!

I am sure it will happen eventually but not for a while - I hope

[Mr_Sukebe]

In addition, whilst the new Linn DS players really are VERY good, they're CD players never had a great online following, so I can see why Linn have started this trend.
More importantly, CD players will be sold for as long as people keep buying them, and I'm guessing that there's a lot of users who have a definite desire to NOT have to bugger about with computers to listen to their CD collection.

[Jamie]

Personally CD is my format of choice even if the majority of my CDs are used once to rip them, to both lossless for playback at home using my streamer and MP3 for use in the car/Ipod/Phone.

Even though my collection is all digital based I still prefer buying a physical media with the artwork etc even if my use is almost exclusively as digital media.

My stereo only system in the dining room does have a CD player, I nicked the IEC power cable to use elsewhere about 3 months ago and haven't bothered replacing it yet because I haven't felt the need.

[Bibby_83]

Hi,
To be honest Linn weren't really behind CD much to begin with were they? I assume their market is high-end exclusive so the sales aren't really comparable to most manufacturers. OK, the DACs and other components might be good but is the mechanism or casing much different? Are upgrades possible to their CD kit?

For £1000 you can probably get a Sony ES with SACD to boot and those are certainly built well. I think even the early 80s CDPs with Philips mechs didn't cost much more than that, so I don't know where the money goes really.

[alexs2]

Linn were actually pretty heavily into CD when it became worthwhile to do so,and have produced a good number of models over the years,including the CD12 which is still a good player by anyone's reckoning.

What you have to remember is not only that Linn have become masters of marketing strategy,but also that they are very heavily into digital streaming systems currently,and this may have at least as much to do with the current announcement,as any declines in the overall high-end CD player markets.

[Nic Rhodes]

It seem to me that Linn as so ahead of the competition in streaming technology that it is in their interests to say this as they currently have the market to themselves at the high end of streamers.So marketing...and good marketing by Linn.

[Bibby_83]

Linn were actually pretty heavily into CD when it became worthwhile to do so,and have produced a good number of models over the years

But they must have started around 1990 or so, right? By which point the original Philips components had been redesigned a few times and I think the 90s Marantz CD 60 series were the last to use the Philips mech, or was it the DAC? My point being I don't understand why British manufacturers don't touch a growing consumer market and then claim to be ahead of it. I can only assume they are talking about a completely different market to the rest.

Also, Hifi World said that the Naim CDS was a Philips with some new parts - didn't the Philips CD100/Marantz 63 come out in 1983? The CDS was 1990. It's interesting to see that they are now pro-convenience though.

[dazm41]

to me it only takes one manufacture to get the ball rolling

[Autopilot]

The balls been rolling for a while, everyone knows CD's days are numbered. Every format has it's day, but what's really interesting is not that's the CD is going, but that its highly unlikely there will be an other physical format to replace it. I will miss the inherent joy of collecting CD's and sleeve notes, its still my preferred way of buying music, but thats it as i am concerned. The benefits of digital (hate having to the use that word, as CD's are digital) far out way the benefits of CD.

IMO, whats missing from the whole in-home hifi streaming market right now is the 'ipod' device. The game changing device that comes along and leads the way and makes it accessible and desirable to everyone. As good as the devices from Linn, Sonos, Squeezebox etc are, it's all just still a bit too technical for the average 'man on the street'. But while thats slowing uptake a little, it certainly wont stop it.



Also - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8368895.stm

[Bibby_83]

Auto,

IMO, whats missing from the whole in-home hifi streaming market right now is the 'ipod' device. The game changing device that comes along and leads the way and makes it accessible and desirable to everyone.

From what I have read the Squeezebox seems to be filling that role (I see you have a few).

The problem is, you can play lossless files on (some) MP3 Players, and there is Hi-MD for the Minidisc. People just don't seem to be that interested since half-decent MP3s came along. A Hi-MD Disc can be bought for around £5 and all data can be transferred via PC, so it isn't even difficult to operate. MD Players cost a fair bit but look at the prices on the Ipod Touch (!)

CDPs were popular in the recent past so convenience must be an issue.

[Autopilot]

Originally Posted by Bibby_83

Auto,

From what I have read the Squeezebox seems to be filling that role (I see you have a few).

The problem is, you can play lossless files on (some) MP3 Players, and there is Hi-MD for the Minidisc. People just don't seem to be that interested since half-decent MP3s came along. A Hi-MD Disc can be bought for around £5 and all data can be transferred via PC, so it isn't even difficult to operate. MD Players cost a fair bit but look at the prices on the Ipod Touch (!)

Squeezebox is probably the best selling streaming solution (not entirely sure, Sonos might argue with that), but it's market share and sales in the streaming market, i suspect, cant really be compared to the impact and success of Apples iPod impact in the portable market. They also have a very different design ethos to Apple - i.e. they are very flexible, customisable and open source (which is fantastic, but has its perils).

Take your point about quality, but we are talking about 2 quite different, albeit overlapping, markets - in home hifi and portable. I would argue that most people have never really cared that much about portable quality. In fact i would even argue that its better now - overall. My portable tape player sounded terrible, and that was a very good expensive Sony one. My portable CD player was not that good either; the quality and cost of electronics and things like earphones design etc has also changed. Some people hark back to a time when portable music was, in general, far higher quality than it is now - and i'm not sure it was. But anyway, i think i am in danger of taking things a bit of course by saying all that, we are talking about HiFi. The whole ipod/mp3/etc quality debate is a bit of a red herring here. Most people listening at home through there hifi, using gear like Linn wont be using lossy MP3 they will be using lossless (CD quality) or even better.

[Bibby_83]

Fair points, I'm only just old enough to have had a Tape Walkman but I didn't use any of better quality cassettes and recording was far from perfect. I still don't see why people would give up completely on CD/MD (or Hi-MD) though since there are advantages to this format, particularly for recording from other sources? I'm just not into MP3 that much and everyone else is, so I can only summarise that portability and convenience are just that much more important.

I hope I don't seem patronising but I have to be completely honest - women, and teenage girls in particular are responsible for a fair amount of the MP3 and Digital download sales. I'm not knocking them since I know everyone also appreciates Live music and Hifi, but I have to admit the Ipod and Multimedia Players are more inviting to women. But heck, they must see the difference in quality between low bitrate MP3s and just about everything else ie. FM Radio. And lossless means less space for more tracks or movies, so Digital Players seem to cater for a wider market.

[BlueWizard]

I don't think the CD will die, but it will certainly fade. It does have value as JimBob points out as an achival device. If my computer crashes and destroys the hard drive, I could lose all my music. However, if I have it backed up on CDs, whether CD's I made or bought, it is simply a matter of Ripping them again.

Also as JimBob and others point out, buying the physical medium, also buys you the artwork and liner notes. I would really hate to see that aspect of music disappear.

But, CD's are old technology, the fidelity is 'just ok', but that's about it. Personally, as I've said many times before, they need a 10x sample rate at the highest frequency. But that is another discussion. (192k bytes/sec would give a 9.6x sample rate; I'll settle for that.)

But, more and more people are listening to music via personal music players (iPods, etc...). Though I cringe at the thought of the sound quality, there is no denying they are very convenient, compact, and (MP3 players) relatively cheap.

And with more and more people using personally music players, the need for in-house streaming become more significant. But I don't see streaming music killing the CD until computers and stereo systems become more integrated. We are close now, but not close enough.

Also, pure digital music formats, meaning music that is not tied to the limits of a physical medium, already have the capability to exceed common CD's. But, that does us no good unless better quality songs are available in those pure digital formats. You can use massively better quality files formats, but if all you are doing is burning common CD's, it doesn't mean much, you really don't gain anything.

One of the things that will reduce the CD down to next to nothing, is a standard file format that reproduces Master grade sound files. But that causes a problem for the music industry. If every person has a Master grade copy of the music, what is to prevent them from re-mastering and reselling it?

In a way, I'm not sure the music industry is going to be much of a problem. I suspect by the time CD's fade, the music industry, as we know it, will have faded as well. They keep clinging to an old model that is close to dead, because it serves them well financially.

But the guys who swept up and disposed of the horse POO, had a vested interest in stopping the horseless carriage. Yet, they could not fight the rising tide. As much as the music industry does not want the world to change, it is changing, and they will be trampled in its path.

However, right now, the goal of pure digital files is to come as close to standard CD as they can. I think it is only when they realize they have the capability to exceed standard CD's will they ring the death knell that signals the near end of CD's.

Also, I think Sony made several strategic mistakes in their release of the SACD. Both the price of the players and the SACD's need to come down faster. DVD-A might have been a good idea, but I just don't think the quality of most DVD players is sufficient to do justice to music. Now the DACs in TV and AV amps are probably much better and rising fast. But again, strategic mistakes.

There is a chance the BluRay might accomplish what DVD-A tried to do, but I'm not sure they have their ducks in a row. I'm not sure that they are not going to make the same strategic mistakes that SACD and DVD-A made. I fear that by the time they get their Audio act together, some pure digital file format is going to have exceed them in both quality, availability, and flexibility.

Keep in mind that with a pure digital file format, meaning no physical limitations, multiple devices can easily play the file. At best, they will just need a software upgrade.

Which brings us full circle. While I do see it happening, I think stereo and AV audio systems need to be more completely and thoroughly integrated with computers. They many even come with full computers inside in the not too distant future. Full computer means full software upgrade flexibility, integration with streaming devices, integration with external storage, an ease of use that even a child can figure out.

So, yes, the stage is set for the common CD to fade, I suspect archive formats will move to writable DVD and BluRay discs, as they have massively more storage capacity that a CD. Plus, computer CD's have themselves, nearly faded away. If I go to general discount stores, they have lots of DVD-R/RW, but fewer and fewer CD-R/RW. It's a sign of the times.

The beauty of pure digital file format is that you can burn them onto any physical medium, and the players of that physical medium really don't care, as long as at some point in the playback chain you have the software to play the file, how and were the file is stored is irrelevant.

So, while I don't see their death for a long time, I do see them fading as the quality of the music, and the playback equipment improve, and the integration between computers and music electronics becomes greater.

But those are the thing that I see needing to happen for CD's as a point of sale source of music to fade. Still, I'm going to miss having something to hold in my hand, and the adventure of going down to the music shop to see if they have anything new or interesting. What is life if you spend in staying home and downloading from the internet?

Just a few rambling thoughts.

Steve/bluewizard

[BlueWizard]

One additional point, I think CD's manufacturers also made strategic errors. They knew from the beginning that CD's we never more than 'good enough'.

They could have began a migration over time that enhanced the resolution and bitrate of CD's. At some point they might have been able to have double sided CD's with the standard CD on one side and the enhanced high bitrate files on the other side. Or similar in multi-layer CD's.

But the only 'good enough' industry was content to sell music that was just 'good enough' on the assumption, I assume, that the consumer had no choice. They take what we give them or they will go without.

Always bad to take that attitude, and now where has it lead them. Consumers have bypass what the industry thought was their only choice. Consumers don't have to 'take it or leave it'. Now consumers have lots of choice with more choices coming forward everyday.

The CD makes could have gradually migrated from 'good enough' to 'good' to 'very good' to 'great' if they had only had the foresight that industries like this are sadly not know to have.

But than, as always, that's just my opinion.

Steve/bluewizard - sorry for the double post.

[karkus30]

Had this same posting back in 2008 and it's interesting to see that only 12 months later the cracks are appearing even if they are only marketing cracks.

I would be happy to have a completely different way of buying and owning music.

It would need to be be CD quality plus, have every obscure album and piece of music known to man, have all the artwork and liner notes. All held on a server somewhere. I would be happy to pay a license fee per year to allow access to the music I wanted to listen to as a stream. If I wanted to download particular tracks, or the complete album then I would pay that as a normal album price.

Definitely liked the idea of storing all my discs in lossless form on a home server....but I do not like the idea of having to keep the discs, or the idea of a catastrophic failure, plus TBH I would have to pay someone to rip nearly 1000 discs to lossless.......

So things are moving in the right direction, just not far enough or fast enough.

[dazm41]

I don't think the CD will die, but it will certainly fade. It does have value as JimBob points out as an achival device. If my computer crashes and destroys the hard drive, I could lose all my music. However, if I have it backed up on CDs, whether CD's I made or bought, it is simply a matter of Ripping them again.

to be honest i dont think anybody achives music from ripped or brought cds to cds anymore when you have external usb hard drives and usb sticks upto 64gb internal and external hard drives are pretty robust now days hard drive failure is not as common has it used to be touch wood.

[Autopilot]

Originally Posted by dazm41

to be honest i dont think anybody achives music from ripped or brought cds to cds anymore when you have external usb hard drives and usb sticks upto 64gb internal and external hard drives are pretty robust now days hard drive failure is not as common has it used to be touch wood.

Have to agree with that, IMO CD's are pretty poor for archiving, if only because of their limited capasity. Anyone with any sense would backup their HDD. Most decent storage solutions have a backup drive mirroring their data. Chances of two HDDs failing at the same time is so small it not worth worrying about. That said, I have 2 backups.

[creepy]

The future for all music and video storage will be solid state devices. Recording/copying to CD and to DVD can be be a time consuming and fiddly affair. I bought a Panasonic DVD recorder a while ago to backup Sky Plus recordings and to be honest I rarely use it. I found I had to record to DVD using a lowish quality setting otherwise the recording won't fit; The recording has to be done in real time and then finalised at the end.

Now with advent of ever bigger memory sticks and the increasing popularity of Solid State Discs (SSD's) I can see a time in the near future where these will be the recording media of choice. These should allow faster transfer of data and be far more robust than CD/DVDs and hard disks.

[BlueWizard]

No you don't back up bought CD at home, you rip them to computer files and the bought CD becomes the back up.

However, if you have pure computer audio music files, it does pay to back them up, and certainly USB drives, as well as back-up hard drivers are a good choice for that.

But, if all your music is in some computer format, it then becomes a matter of accessing it. I have 400 vinyl albums, from across the room, or even from miles away, I can't tell you roughly were any one album is. I don't need to search for it, I just go to it.

Now, reasonably, there are lots of ways to archive, search, and access computer files. I'm just not sure the software is quite where I want it yet. But it is getting better as streaming music becomes more popular.

It seem clear that downloaded files are the wave of both the present and the future, but I'm not sure physical medium will completely die out. As someone pointed out, and as I said before in another thread, I can see solid state non-volatile devices becoming so cheap, it is cheaper to use them than to burn CD's.

But, what I need is for computer audio files to strive to exceed the standard CD format, and for the sources of better than CD music to be available. It doesn't matter what the resolution and bitrate of a music file is, if the source is a CD or equivalent. Not only do I need new music files to strive to exceed CD's, I need them to strive to exceed by a considerable amount.

Though the technology already exists, and is reasonably cheap, to do so. 24bit/192k record and playback DACs far far far exceed standard CDs, and they are not even the peak of modern day technology. As I think I may mentioned, Cambridge Audio 840C CD players have dual 24bit/384k DACs in them.

When hardware and software capabilities so far exceed the standard CD, why are we still clinging to it as a music standard. Time to move on.

I think using todays technology, for physical Stereo system play, and excluding streaming for the moment, USB drives and high bitrate DACs, already far exceed CD's. But, and this is a big but, the sources of music have to stop considering the CD are the standard they desire to approach.

CD's aren't and never were that great. As I've said, they were never more than 'good enough', and they replaced vinyl albums because they do have some advantages, though sound quality was never one of them.

The next great shift in music sources is going to come when 'music' realizes that it has the capability available right now to go far beyond CD's.

That is, if the youth of the world have not become so conditioned to MP3's (...spit...) that they have forgotten what good music sounds like. Of course, to forget what a good stereo sounds like, assumes that they had ever heard one. Sadly, for many, its not likely.

Many lossless files are striving to come as close to CD's as they possibly can. That would be like DAB radio striving to come as close to AM radio as possible. They should be striving to exceed, not equal. But to do that, source of music have to be provided that also exceed CD's.

In a world where men in suits decide what is 'good enough', the world is rarely to never 'good enough'.

Steve/bluewizard

[William YZF-R1]

Having just read Steve's interesting post & the mention of "Going to the Music shop" made me realise that in my neck of the woods there are no longer any proper "Music shops".

Virgin, Zavvi, HMV don't exist and even Woolworths have gone.

The Supermarket and WH Smiths are the closest thing and hardly specialised.

I usually order online from Amazon.

[dazm41]

But, what I need is for computer audio files to strive to exceed the standard CD format, and for the sources of better than CD music to be available. It doesn't matter what the resolution and bitrate of a music file is, if the source is a CD or equivalent. Not only do I need new music files to strive to exceed CD's, I need them to strive to exceed by a considerable amount.

i get what your saying but there comes a time when can i hear a difference in the music is it sounding better. at the end of the day we are in the digital domain bitrates do matter we all agree flac file of 800kbps sounds better than mp3 120kbps but can i a difference above the 800kbps at home me personaly no, is it woth the exrta room it takes up on the hard drives for me no.

The next great shift in music sources is going to come when 'music' realizes that it has the capability available right now to go far beyond CD's.

are you refering to hi def audio dts master,true hd, and the likes .if this ever takes of just for music itwill bea niche market .

[Mr_Sukebe]

With the price of hard drives nowadays, anyone without at least one full backup is simply asking for trouble. Personally I have mine fully backed up and recently dropped a further drive at my sisters for storage just incase we're burgled or the house catches fire. Try doing that with a vinyl collection.

Regarding hi-res files. Personally l'd love to have more, but SACD has shown the demand for that type of format, i.e. pretty minimal.
The only potential light is that I do feel that CD as format is often underused, with some seriously naff recordings being dumped onto it. If studios would at least make the best use of what we already have, that would be a massive improvement even without newer storage solutions or file formats.

[BlueWizard]

Quote: Bluewizard -
But, what I need is for computer audio files to strive to exceed the standard CD format, and for the sources of better than CD music to be available. It doesn't matter what the resolution and bitrate of a music file is, if the source is a CD or equivalent. Not only do I need new music files to strive to exceed CD's, I need them to strive to exceed by a considerable amount.

Quote: dazm41 -
i get what your saying but there comes a time when can i hear a difference in the music is it sounding better. at the end of the day we are in the digital domain bitrates do matter we all agree flac file of 800kbps sounds better than mp3 120kbps but can i a difference above the 800kbps at home me personaly no, is it woth the exrta room it takes up on the hard drives for me no.

You are talking serial bit rate, I'm talking sample rate. To convert bit rate to byte rate divide by roughly 11. So, 800kbps is really 72ksps. That is double that of standard CD, but what does that matter if the sources is locked at only 44.1ksps.

That is my very point, computer audio files have already exceeded standard CD's. We've gone well past standard CD, but the forces that be seem to be imposing that as a limit on the music made available to us. If we could get access to master music files, we could have files that are 192ksps, which would be 2.6 times better at their core than the 72ksps files that you are using.

Again, CD's sound good, they are not that bad, but they could sound so much better. I mentioned here, or in another post, that in lab tests people could detect changes in sound up to 100khz. They couldn't hear it, but the could consistently sense that something had changed even it they don't know what it is. 24bit/192k will go as high as 87khz, at which time, it's sample rate equals the now standard 2.2 samples at 20khz of standard CD.

That brings us as close to analog as we can reasonably expect to get, and that doesn't even represent the peak of commonly available consumer technology today.

So, CD's sound 'good enough'; good enough for most consumers to be satisfied given they had no other choice. But AM radio sounded 'good enough' too. It satisfied consumers for several decades. But why should we settle for 'good enough' when near perfection and extremely near analog quality is available but the powers the be are withholding it from us for their own selfish reasons?

Quote: bluewizard
The next great shift in music sources is going to come when 'music' realizes that it has the capability available right now to go far beyond CD's.

Quote: dazm41
are you referring to hi def audio dts master, true hd, and the likes .if this ever takes of just for music it will be a niche market .

Ah...no, I'm not referring to any specific format or encoding. I'm simply referring to the fact the modern readily available digital technology exists right now today at an affordable price to bring true analog quality to digital music. But that it is being withheld from us.

If they were recording at 24b/384k, and selling music at 24b/192k, I suspect digital could far exceed analog, when you consider that the analog technology that was in use in its heyday, is now hopelessly out of date. Even source music at 24b/96k would be a real step up over standard CD's, though not enough of a step to satisfy me.

Now in concentrating on sample rate, there are a lot of factors I'm ignoring, like file size for one. But with DVD and Bluray available, and DSL data rates increasing, I don't see file size as a problem. So, all the factors I'm ignoring for the moment, I don't see as obstacles, merely details.

If I could download 24b/192k well mastered music right now, or buy it in a store, and had a player capable of doing them justice. There would be little reason to cling to CD or vinyl.

The technology already exists today for music files that far exceed anything we ever imagined. The only thing stopping it, is the industry's refusal to give it to us.

Steve/bluewizard

[Autopilot]

That's all very well Steve, but its massive overkill for all but a small niche of audio enthusiasts. Hi res downloads are being provided by a growing list of online music retailers and labels, but i wont expect the latest JLS single released in a format that needs multiple thousands of pounds worth of AMP and speakers to *cough* appreciate. I dont think there is anything underhand going on here, its understandable business.

I don't think it near top of the list of reasons that the CD will die, but its clearly on there for a number of people like yourself. I'm happy with CD quality 99% of the time, there are plenty of other reasons why CD's held me back.

Also, there is no need to be so scathing about 'the yoof' and their evil MP3. Most people cant tell the difference between a CD and a 320kbps Mp3 on a decent system, even 256kbps - and this is what most online retailers like Play.com provide as standard. 320kbps MP3 on modern MP3 players sounds better than any tape or CD walkman ever did 'back in the day'.

You make some excellent points, especially regarding the original mastering not being up to scratch. But sometimes i think you look at things from the wrong angle bud

[BlueWizard]

Originally Posted by Autopilot

That's all very well Steve, but its massive overkill for all but a small niche of audio enthusiasts. Hi res downloads are being provided by a growing list of online music retailers and labels,...
...

Also, there is no need to be so scathing about 'the yoof' and their evil MP3. Most people cant tell the difference between a CD and a 320kbps Mp3 on a decent system, even 256kbps - ...

You make some excellent points, especially regarding the original mastering not being up to scratch. But sometimes i think you look at things from the wrong angle bud

Well certainly on a opinionated issue like this, speech can get heated and rhetoric a little overblown, and I realize that to some extent, I'm just repeating the old hard-core analog die-hard line.

But, by your own admission, computer audio files are striving to equal CD's, not to exceed them.

I have nothing against MP3s. They serve a niche just like AM radio served a niche. And let's face it, bad as it was, AM radio worked. It served my youth brilliantly for many years, and was at the heart of the modern Pop music revolution. But given a choice between listening to AM radio and the same song on vinyl on my stereo, I choose my stereo. And given a choice between MP3 and my stereo, I once again choose my stereo.

Just one problem, it is a little hard to carry around 200 pounds of stereo equipment, not to mention a power source, when I go for a walk in the park. For that, nothing beats the incredibly compact, ultra-light weight, low energy convenience of an MP3 player. AM radio did what it did well, MP3's do what they do well, but neither of them equals my stereo.

So, there is an element of time and place here, and in their time and place MP3 are excellent, not for sound, but for all around convenience.

But if I have a 24b/192k computer audio file, it is simply a few seconds work to turn it into a copy in any of the available MP3 formats, or to turn it into a standard CD for playback in my car.

Now, let's look at current standard commercial formats of music. If I play the identical album in CD and in new top quality vinyl, I have not doubt which I will prefer based on nothing but sound quality. Vinyl will win every time. But, vinyl has its drawback. If nothing else, I have to get up every 20 minutes rather than every 40 minutes, to continue the flow of music.

Again, the brings up an advantage of computer audio files, you can start at the beginning and continue on until you have played your way completely through all available music. You never have to get up again. (Hummm...is that a good thing?) But that is a convenience factor, it has nothing to do with the quality of the sound you hear. It is a real indisputable advantage, but not in sound quality.

CD's are not the height of sound quality, not even when compared to the horribly flawed vinyl. But they are convenient and durable, and far more forgiving of physical abuse. But, all those advantages have nothing to do with sound quality.

The world is using the CD as a standard to aspire to. I'm using pristine vinyl as the standard to which music must aspire. When in truth, quality to exceed vinyl, and convenience to exceed CD's exist here, now, today, but where is it?

The only reason its not here, is because they are not giving it to us. Certainly they have their reasons, but the fact remains, that the only thing preventing digital from equaling or exceeding the finest analog, is that they (the powers that be) have decided not to give it to us.

Simple as that.

The technology is here, but where is the quality music?

So, at the heart of it, I'm not against digital, I'm not again MP3. I'm even thinking of getting an MP3 player so I can listen to music while I go for a walk. Nothing equals that level of ease and convenience.

But when I get back home, you can be absolutely sure that I will not be listening to MP3; it will be first vinyl albums, and occasionally for convenience, CD's.

I buy CD because they are an economic and availability necessity, not because I like them, not because I think they sound especially good, but simply because the market offers me no better choices.

I see no reason for our primary source of music to be limited to the now ancient CD standard. Good enough, really is not good enough. Especially then that 'good enough' does not even equal the far more ancient technology of analog vinyl.

We have the power and resources to step up, so...why aren't we stepping up?

Coming full circle, Linn is losing its CD players in favor of Streaming media, but again, that is a convenience factor, it says nothing about the quality of the music being streamed. In-house music streams are massively convenient, too bad they don't sound better.

Steve/bluewizard

[Autopilot]

Originally Posted by BlueWizard

But, by your own admission, computer audio files are striving to equal CD's, not to exceed them.

Digital audio files matched CD years ago, and do often exceed them.

As for MP3, i think they serve more than a niche. But MP3 was adopted for logistical reasons, no reason to use low bitrates. Eventually even portable will use lossless, even hi res maybe.

Originally Posted by BlueWizard

In-house music streams are massively convenient, too bad they don't sound better

Obviously you have not heard many then, they can sound amazing. They sound just as good as CD based systems, sometimes better.

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by BlueWizard

Coming full circle, Linn is losing its CD players in favor of Streaming media, but again, that is a convenience factor, it says nothing about the quality of the music being streamed. In-house music streams are massively convenient, too bad they don't sound better.

Steve/bluewizard

Not really sure in Linn's case, but as long as the music is recorded at high enough quality, then that can be streamed. In other words, the capability of streamed music to exceed CD quality is not in any doubt. Problem is that amount of well recorded music is limited, in Linn's case, to the sort of music that appeals to those that coo over perfect sound reproduction and does not appeal to the masses that want pop and rawwwk music.

On the subject of hard drive devices, it should be understood that these devices do have a limited lifespan and can be corrupted. That is one reason why having music held on multiple backed up servers remote from the home is ideal.

At present we burn MP3s to portable devices but it would be just as easy to have your own personal streaming radio station in a portable device. The coverage of wifi and it's larger cousin are growing all the time. With sufficient buffer storage in the device and blanket wifi coverage it would be very easy.

Remember that streaming also allows video coverage which would allow you to receive live gigs in Hidef sound and vision without the need to turn up at a venue.

The world of multi media is changing so fast that to limit sights to the CD/MP3format discussion is pointless. You have to consider what else can be fed to your home or portable player and how that can be used. Streaming technology and wireless links are changing the world when it comes to portable applications and this new market is continuing to grow.

CD is a dead technology right now. Not because of it's SQ limits, but because it cannot sit with other advancing technologies. It is limited in so many ways..........I mean, take the album inserts, once past 40 you need to sit with a big magnifying glass and a light to see them......they take up masses of storage space and are inconvenient to index (unless you get really geeky)......they get damaged and so do the cases.

[Autopilot]

Originally Posted by karkus30

The world of multi media is changing so fast that to limit sights to the CD/MP3format discussion is pointless. You have to consider what else can be fed to your home or portable player and how that can be used.

101% agree. These endless debates about sound quality do miss the point somewhat. The SQ is there if you want it, there is a lot more to all this than just SQ. Moving from CD to digital audio have been an incredibly liberating experience for me, far more than i ever thought it would be.

[Bibby_83]

Most people cant tell the difference between a CD and a 320kbps Mp3 on a decent system, even 256kbps - and this is what most online retailers like Play.com provide as standard. 320kbps MP3 on modern MP3 players sounds better than any tape or CD walkman ever did 'back in the day'.

I'm not sure, but I think any CD sounds better to my ears than MP3. There is better quality but like I said some Radio stations have more depth than the digital files I have listened to - I can't compare to Minidisc or Tape at the moment but I am keen to find out. I'm using headphones on both Hifi and PC and the difference is certainly there.

MP3 seems to have replaced Radio and other lower quality formats but I can see the potential in other lossless formats. I still prefer to have a physical copy and unless I owned a few hundred more CDs I don't think space is that much of an issue. I imagine the best thing about digital music is that you can listen to the odd few tracks without having to delve into albums. But then, if you have many albums you probably like that particular music and want to listen to it progressively? I suppose people will have their own views and interests and connectivity and recording quality might also come into it.

Cheers,
Simon