Is the death of the CD looming?

[TwizstedJesus]

No earbuds for me. I bought a nice lightweight pair of Sennheiser headphones for my iPod. Very high quality for a reasonable price! Now granted, I don't cart my iPod everywhere I go. Its a "vacation only" item, but I have to hear my music in a quality format that I can enjoy. Finding FLAC isn't an issue with me, because I can still buy the cd. The problem will be when cd's are obsolete. Hopefully I'll be dead by then and all the kids can laugh at all of the cd's that I "owned" as they are burning them when cleaning my house out lol

 

[TribunalRecords]

I can't tell the difference between 192kbps mp3 and CD, and feel absolutely no shame in that, because I know that it's the simple truth.

i know my hearing is going bad, but i can definitely tell a difference

it's always in the cymbals. that is the dead giveaway all the time for me.

i know my masters are made from WAV files and i can tell when a band submits crappy mp3s to me on a CD. there is definitely loss of true clarity.

but like you said it's a matter of concern and if you aren't concerned then you won't notice but i am concerned and i notice.

i even went so far on my CRO-MAGS reissue to correct as many of the original glitches in the original audio as i could detect. so i am anal about it to say the least.

 

[Exploding Ned]

This is flat out wrong. FLAC files are EXACTLY what you get on the CD. No quality loss at all from an audio standpoint. I don't even buy downloads...I like having physical media...but all of these arguments against them using sound quality as a factor are completely and objectively wrong. It's not a matter of opinion.

When I say downloads, I mean what the vast majority of people use. FLAC is better, yes, but not many are using it at least right now. Like you said, it's impractical with the size of the file. REGULAR everyday downloads, though, ARE inferior IMO to the physical CD or vinyl, DAT etc.

 

[dcowboys311]

When I say downloads, I mean what the vast majority of people use. FLAC is better, yes, but not many are using it at least right now. Like you said, it's impractical with the size of the file. REGULAR everyday downloads, though, ARE inferior IMO to the physical CD or vinyl, DAT etc.

Why do you care what other people are listening to? If something sounds good to someone, good for them. If you ever want to make the transition, you have the option of getting the same sound quality you're used to. Sound quality isn't the most important part of music to many people.

Most people don't have the equipment or the ears to be able to notice a difference.

 

[skyrefuge]

As I said though, I do prefer vinyl's sound quality, an audiophile or similar pressing, or an SHM CD maybe, something along those lines.

Oops, missed that.

Heavily analyzing the point isn't going to change what my ears tell me they like. Simple.

How do you know that? In 2001, 54 wine experts, guys who presumably are sure they can tell the difference between wines, were given two wines to taste, one in a fancy bottle and one in a plain bottle. 40 said the one in the fancy bottle was worth drinking, while only 12 said the one in the plain bottle was worth drinking. Except, they were both the same wine.

People taste what they expect to taste, and hear what they expect to hear. Which is totally fine; even if your preference for vinyl/CD over mp3/AAC is a complete delusion, if that delusion makes you happy, I've got no beef with that.

However, if you're going to be disparaging the aural capabilities of the rest of us, then you better have made sure that you've tested yourself first. Otherwise, I have no reason believe that your high horse is made of bone and muscle rather than smoke and mirrors.

256kbps AAC files (what iTunes provides, and thus, exactly "what the vast majority of people use") are indistinguishable from the original for that vast majority. Maybe when you test yourself, you'll prove that you *can* distinguish them, but that makes *you* the rare one. And the odds are against it. Just like wine-tasting, or driving (where the majority of people think that they're in the minority of "good drivers"), a lot more people *think* they have exceptional ears than actually do.

Despite the technical jargon, an ABX test is really pretty simple. You take a .wav file, compress it (using iTunes's 256kbps AAC, for example), then decompress it back to .wav. Then, using a program like WinABX (a bit hard to find at the moment, but I can hook you up), you load up both the original .wav and your compressed version. It randomly picks one of the versions, calls it "X", and you have to tell whether it's the original or the compressed version. You repeat the trial 10 times or so to reduce the probability that you're just guessing correctly, and that's it.

I've been sure I could tell the difference between versions, until I loaded them into the ABX tester, when suddenly the difference disappeared. Discovering your ears aren't as good as you thought can be a bit humbling, but better to know now than a year from now after you've wasted thousands of dollars in audiophile equipment/recordings, right? Or, if you *can* tell the difference, then you can brag with full authority and confidence! It's a can't-lose proposition.

Neil

 

[skyrefuge]

it's always in the cymbals. that is the dead giveaway all the time for me.

Yep, same for me. I need to drop down to 128kbps mp3 to reliably hear that though, or a bad encoder at a higher bit rate. Being able to detect a "bad mp3" doesn't tell me anything useful, since I don't think stores sell bad mp3s.

So have you actually tested yourself against the files available at the download stores, or are you also just going off "feel"?

but like you said it's a matter of concern and if you aren't concerned then you won't notice but i am concerned and i notice.

I didn't say anything like that. I think it's a matter of biology, not concern. Most people simply can't hear a difference, even if they try as hard as they can. Just like reading a book from 20 feet away. No matter how hard we want to be able to read that book, most people aren't going to be able to do it.

Neil

 

[TribunalRecords]

So have you actually tested yourself against the files available at the download stores, or are you also just going off "feel"?

no, because i don't buy downloads. the only download i bought recently is for a track on an upcoming reissue that the band didn't even have a copy of. so i have nothing to compare it to.

but i compare my mp3's to my master cds and i can tell a difference when listening on headphones for sure. through speakers it depends on the recording and which speakers i am playing.

i am going deaf, but it's interesting what i can pick out things. Jamie King says he cannot believe some of the stuff i hear when we are editing and mastering. low frequencies for me? forget about it, but little pops and clicks and things i can hear to a fault. but i am just picky at times because i want my stuff to sound as amazing as it possibly can for the fans even though they won't care.

the funniest is when i found a better intro 5 seconds on a DOMINANCE demo track so i had Jamie splice it in and played it for people and told them to listen to the difference and everyone was like, "you're crazy" and yes i may be, but once i hear something i have to fix it or i will ALWAYS hear it and it will drive me insane. hahaha.

 

[J-Dubya 777]

Sadly I was texting between bands at last year's show. Technology blows. Both because they were having problems back home at work (and I was giving tech support to them) and secondly because they had a link to me. Those bastards!

I can understand that, but if you look at your typical gig, there's NO way all the people texting are doing tech support I've been doing IT support for 25 years now. I have a rule with my workplace: Do NOT call/text me in Atlanta unless 1) The building is on fire, and you need to call in Disaster Recovery 2) To tell me I'm fired. Any e-mails that are work related get answered if/when I have time. Since I joined the crew, this rule is even more harshly enforced. I'm nobody's bitch but Glenn's the second I arrive in town. Well, I guess I'm Wayne's bitch too, but it's all good!

 

[J-Dubya 777]

Oh, and on the subject of testing mp3 vs wav vs FLAC etc:

A little bunch of people I associate with online did a test trying to determine what files were encoded with some different encoders, and I was surprised how much of a difference there are between some encoders. At sample rates of 128 & 160, I can pretty much tell you what's an MP3, and what is lossless. It's more difficult with 192 & up, but like someone mentioned, there is still that difference. Perhaps it's the high end of the spectrum, or the compression, or maybe my earwax is tuned to A=440.....

 

[Exploding Ned]

Why do you care what other people are listening to? If something sounds good to someone, good for them. If you ever want to make the transition, you have the option of getting the same sound quality you're used to. Sound quality isn't the most important part of music to many people. Most people don't have the equipment or the ears to be able to notice a difference.

You are making it really difficult to deal with you man. I am expressing an opinion, of what I like, and what I believe. What I know to be fact. Whether you or anyone else understands what I am talking about is not the issue here. The minute you try restricting me on that concept, you and I will have a big problem. Capiche?

 

[Cheiron]

My only problems with purchasing digital files, is losing the files, and transitioning with them over time. Of course, the lack of availability of uncompressed formats for many albums is an issue too. I don't know if I can tell the difference, as I've never tested it, and as much as I love listening to great sound quality, I don't have a system at home that will probably make the difference all that clear.

 

[Exploding Ned]

How do you know that? In 2001, 54 wine experts, guys who presumably are sure they can tell the difference between wines, were given two wines to taste, one in a fancy bottle and one in a plain bottle. 40 said the one in the fancy bottle was worth drinking, while only 12 said the one in the plain bottle was worth drinking. Except, they were both the same wine. People taste what they expect to taste, and hear what they expect to hear. Which is totally fine; even if your preference for vinyl/CD over mp3/AAC is a complete delusion, if that delusion makes you happy, I've got no beef with that. However, if you're going to be disparaging the aural capabilities of the rest of us, then you better have made sure that you've tested yourself first. Otherwise, I have no reason believe that your high horse is made of bone and muscle rather than smoke and mirrors. 256kbps AAC files (what iTunes provides, and thus, exactly "what the vast majority of people use") are indistinguishable from the original for that vast majority. Maybe when you test yourself, you'll prove that you *can* distinguish them, but that makes *you* the rare one. And the odds are against it. Just like wine-tasting, or driving (where the majority of people think that they're in the minority of "good drivers"), a lot more people *think* they have exceptional ears than actually do. Despite the technical jargon, an ABX test is really pretty simple. You take a .wav file, compress it (using iTunes's 256kbps AAC, for example), then decompress it back to .wav. Then, using a program like WinABX (a bit hard to find at the moment, but I can hook you up), you load up both the original .wav and your compressed version. It randomly picks one of the versions, calls it "X", and you have to tell whether it's the original or the compressed version. You repeat the trial 10 times or so to reduce the probability that you're just guessing correctly, and that's it. I've been sure I could tell the difference between versions, until I loaded them into the ABX tester, when suddenly the difference disappeared. Discovering your ears aren't as good as you thought can be a bit humbling, but better to know now than a year from now after you've wasted thousands of dollars in audiophile equipment/recordings, right? Or, if you *can* tell the difference, then you can brag with full authority and confidence! It's a can't-lose proposition. Neil

Man you are getting mighty anal. Look, I know WTF I like, and I CAN tell the difference... that is if it is OK by you. I've been listening to all qualities of audio for well over 40 years, and yes I have noticed that my tastes are more developed than most, but that's what I am about. If others have lower standards then fine, whatever in the fuck makes them happy. Matt (Tribunal) and I agree, you obviously don't. So be it. Doesn't mean you're right, with your wine test analogy or whatever. Let it the fuck go man.

 

[dcowboys311]

You are making it really difficult to deal with you man. I am expressing an opinion, of what I like, and what I believe. What I know to be fact. Whether you or anyone else understands what I am talking about is not the issue here. The minute you try restricting me on that concept, you and I will have a big problem. Capiche?

It's really not an issue about what you like and what you believe though. This all stemmed from you saying that people who buy downloads are the reason for declining CD sales. So wouldn't it be about what the other consumers like and believe? You're taking it too personally.

We all have our preferred ways of enjoying music. Personally, I only purchase vinyl and cassettes. I download a lot of music (both illegally and through promotional platforms) but spend way more of my financial aid money than I should on supporting bands I like.

I just can't really wrap my head around people being able to tell the difference between CDs and high quality mp3s, when soundwave for soundwave, they're EXTREMELY similar.

 

[tenebre]

Just use apple lossless .... I use High-end klipsch headphones and I can tell the difference between lossless and anything less. I actually did a graduate research paper on the difference.

CD= apple lossless (ALAC) or FLAC etc etc... MP3s have degradation no MP3s ripped at 320 are pretty hard to detect but if you have storage you might as well use ALAC

I buy CDs and rip them all in ALAC. I have a 2TB mirrored hard drive for storage.

 

[TwizstedJesus]

..............................................................still going...........................................................

 

[Metal_King]

Here's another question kinda related. Does anyone still have their casette tapes?

I have TWO cassettes left.

1) MX Machine - Manic Panic
2) Sound Barrier - The Speed of Light

Why?? These were never released on CD. Everything else I have replaced with CDs.

 

[TwizstedJesus]

I still have 3000 cassettes packed away. I've replaced most of the necessary ones on cd, but I kept 'em around. Hell I still have 20-30 8 tracks around here. Bowie Ledger, Low, Kiss Double Platinum, Lynyrd Skynyrd etc... I'm a sick man, I know

 

[Pellaz]

I still have 3000 cassettes packed away.

I fold.

 

[Corsair]

Just use apple lossless .... I use High-end klipsch headphones and I can tell the difference between lossless and anything less. I actually did a graduate research paper on the difference.

CD= apple lossless (ALAC) or FLAC etc etc... MP3s have degradation no MP3s ripped at 320 are pretty hard to detect but if you have storage you might as well use ALAC

I buy CDs and rip them all in ALAC. I have a 2TB mirrored hard drive for storage.

Lossless is the way to go. As hard drive space and Internet speeds getting larger and faster with time, lossy audio is likely to go the way of the dodo.

Even so, it is virtually impossible to hear compression artifacts at 320 kbps. some people might be able to in a blind, side-by-side listening, but I'd wager the knowledge of what to listen for, and the capacity to hear them at the frequencies they occur... are generally outside of the physical capacity for most human ears to even register. Not too many folks out there would be able to (though i'm sure there are a pretty decent number who can.), and about half that claim to are full of shit. I can generally tell at 256 kbps, but anything higher than that is beyond the ability for my ears to pick up. Anyone who'd settle for 128 is doing themselves a disservice.

But just to reiterate, my primary means of procuring music is via a physical disc, Unless it's an album i'd have to pay an arm and a leg for an import. But after that it goes straight to the hard drive, and the Jewel case sits on a shelf and collects dust. I'll probably continue to do so 'til it becomes a common practice to distribute lossless digital music, and at that point the onyl hpysical albums i'll buy are the ones with awesome gimmicks and album art. I won't even lie about being a total sucker for good packaging and presentation. It's a bit like Lingierie - it only stays on for a couple of minutes at the very most, and even without it, the stuff inside the packaging is still the same...But the wonderful presentation makes the whole experience more exciting!

 

[TwizstedJesus]

320 isn't horrible, especially with an iPod as your means of listening, but as you raise the stakes and get into more advanced stereo equipment it becomes slightly more noticeable. I have DL'd a few things as an MP3 and later went back and chased down the FLAC file and there is a noticeable difference, but once again, its personal choice. If we could reproduce the warmth that an LP has and not have to deal with the pops and scratches we would have the ultimate solution. LP's just sounded so much better, but I'm sure there's a million people that can't hear the difference and therefore will comment that I am on crack. Believe me, there is a big difference! You album collectors know what I'm talking about. Same goes with recording your cd with vintage analog equipment as compared to the modern digital. Big difference but few notice it.