Sony to close CD plant....

[Takeda Shingen]

....in my area. How about that? The CD is now on it's downward spiral, just like the cassette tape, 8-track and LP. Of course, the writing was on the wall, but I was a little sad to hear about that today. When I was younger, I laughed at my friend's father for the care and pride he took in his LP collection. I guess that I am about to go that way with all my CDs.

http://www.radioworld.com/article/112178

[the_tyrant]

so is the CD going to be replaced by digital audio files?
or will there be another type of physical media?

[Takeda Shingen]

so is the CD going to be replaced by digital audio files?
or will there be another type of physical media?

The article cited the increase of MP3 sales. The IPod is the future, and the future is here. Personally, I prefer having a physical disc, but the days of those are clearly numbered.

[Gerald]

Vinyl LP, singles, Maxi LP cassette tape, have tons, which is clearly of interest since this material is not available on either CD or another, I can partly understand their point of view as safe based on economic perspectives, as an example,but in the car is the CD or HDD, via the auxiliary input is just as well

[Takeda Shingen]

Vinyl LP, singles, Maxi LP cassette tape, have tons, which is clearly of interest since this material is not available on either CD or another, I can partly understand their point of view as safe based on economic perspectives, as an example,but in the car is the CD or HDD, via the auxiliary input is just as well

Yes, I agree that blank discs will continue to be produced for the purpose of data storage, but I imagine that most of the record companies will shut down most of their physical production within the next few years.

[Gerald]

Regarding storage of multimedia, which is done all the time, with current technology is the "decent" and in a few years well, as little of the factories that you mentioned in the topic, will be reduced clearly.

[Tribesman]

Personally, I prefer having a physical disc, but the days of those are clearly numbered.
Numbered?
It all depends, its amazing how much vinyl is still produced and sold considering its death was announced long ago.

[Madox58]

And as things advance?
Soon the storage of information wll be done in such a way that when Stuff hits the fan?
We will be the next Atlantis.
Just a myth and speculation.

[Penguin]

Vinyl LP, singles, Maxi LP cassette tape, have tons, which is clearly of interest since this material is not available on either CD or another
:up::up::up:

[Buddahaid]

You can have both.
http://www.magix.com/us/audio-cleaning-lab/detail/

Budda

[ReallyDedPoet]

Surprised they have lasted this long :yep:

[Skybird]

The article cited the increase of MP3 sales. The IPod is the future, and the future is here. Personally, I prefer having a physical disc, but the days of those are clearly numbered.
They said that about tape recorders as well. That was 10 and more years ago. They still live, though in small numbers.

And then there is the classics market, which still lacks the widely used distribution via downloads - last but not least due to purists missing that small loss of quality in sound (and old copyright issues of older records considered as exceptionell or benchmarks).

Personally I think that a high-sampled OGG or MP3 on a good player (I use a Sanza Fuze with 16 GB) with good headphones, is satisfying for most music, especially when consuming it as entertainment only. Indeed it sounds very good. And still for some classical music and some other records I still prefer a HiFi and a bigger headphone.

[Sailor Steve]

And then there is the classics market, which still lacks the widely used distribution via downloads - last but not least due to purists missing that small loss of quality in sound (and old copyright issues of older records considered as exceptionell or benchmarks).
Maybe true; I can't say. But I can say that just today I finished downloading the Teldec Bach 2000 set - all 153 CDs worth.

Personally I think that a high-sampled OGG or MP3 on a good player (I use a Sanza Fuze with 16 GB) with good headphones, is satisfying for most music, especially when consuming it as entertainment only. Indeed it sounds very good. And still for some classical music and some other records I still prefer a HiFi and a bigger headphone.
I agree, but for me it's true even of the classical stuff. My ears are still as good as they were forty years ago, but my brain never let me be a true audiophile. I just can't tell the difference between an MP3 and a full lossless flac file. I guess that's a good thing because even a 1TB hard drive runs out of space sooner or later.

I don't own a portable media player. Listening to Beethoven's 6th as I type this, and having it all at home is good enough for me.

[Takeda Shingen]

You're both right, Sky and Steve; there will always be room for collectors. One thing that I do note is that the fidelity decreases with each new format. The cassette tape and compact disc were both of lower fidelity than the LP due to the material used in the case of the former, and the method of digital production used in the latter. The MP3 is, typically, of even less fidelity than the CD, so it's popularity is really a case of convenience over quality. You can push a button and get a recording instantly; no way that a physical disc was going to compete with that.

[The Third Man]

Speaking of LPs I only have one of note, although I have a couple dozen in total.

http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/66/BigBambu.jpg

Complete with the giant rolling paper from 1972.

[Skybird]

This I wanted to add per edit this morning to my post above, when the site went down (or was it just the transatlastnic connection?). It sounds a bit out of context now, but add it to the end of my post above:


But one thing we easily overlook these days. The more digital our data storing becomes (books, music, data), the more work-intense it becomes to maintain such libraries, and the shorter the intervals become at whioch we must technically upgrade, and make sure that the data format still s being accessible, technically. Certain libraries that by their status have a legal obligation to store all publications being ever released (like certain Landesbibliotheken in Germany), can sing a song of this. They have the problem that their earliest data recordings now are lost in that meaning that the technology to read these data no longer is being built, and existing examples of such old technology no longer functions. There is a risk, critical forethinkers argue, that the more digital our culture becomes, the more it one day will simply disappear, at least gets lost in more and more parts. It appears to me that digitalisation is only superior in immediate access to data, but for long time storage and archives I am not sure that it is all just advantages.

Add to this problem that the widespread use of computer interfaces already has tailored and limited the way in which we access a problem - so that our way to approach that problem can be understood by said interface. the computer already has chnaged the way we think. The price for the comfortability of computers and the new ways of displaying existing digital data and libraries, comes at the price of a certain intellectual self-limitation that holds the risk of reducing the degrees of freedom of thought and intellectual mind, like a multiple choice test already represents a limitation over a test where the student must answer freely. A comparing thing we also see in science, where every problem getting examined in an experiment must be tailored and designed in a way so that it produces data in a format that can be calculated by established statistical tools and methods. It is always both advantage and disadvantage at the same time, which led Heisenberg to one of his famous quotes: What we observe is never nature itself, but nature that is exposed to our way of asking questions about it. We probably cannot and will not turn back the wheel of time, but I think it is mandaqtory for our wellbeing that we are not totally uncritical of new technology just because at the time of it'S appearing it gets sold to the crowd as being "cool".

[Penguin]

cassette tapes are still pretty much in use in the third world. The players and the media are cheap and robust compared to CD-players. And - a reason why many people here had a tape recorder for such a long time - you need no extra devices like a PC to record stuff. I think this will change over the time though, given how cheap digital storage devices are today.

. One thing that I do note is that the fidelity decreases with each new format. The cassette tape and compact disc were both of lower fidelity than the LP due to the material used in the case of the former, and the method of digital production used in the latter. The MP3 is, typically, of even less fidelity than the CD, so it's popularity is really a case of convenience over quality. You can push a button and get a recording instantly; no way that a physical disc was going to compete with that.

Yes and no. ;)
When the first CDs came onto the market, in the mid 80's, much stuff was mixed and recorded rather "quick and dirty". Given, that the digital recording technology was in the beginning and given that analogue/digital converters were not as sophisticated as they are today. So it was often that analogue produced material, which was recorded onto a CD had a better quality than digital recorded one. You see this on older CDs on the ADD/ADD symbols.

When we talk in terms of maths, it should also be obvious that a digital signal can never 100% reproduce an analogue one, the keyword is quantisation, but this is rather theoretical nitpicking.

Fact is, compared to todays possibilities in terms of sample and quantisation rate, the CD standard is quite outdated, however I would not say necessarily worse than the LP sound - note: this coming from a vinyl junkie! It was good given the time when it came out.

(for the younger ones: all sounds that our ears hear are analogue :03:)


in the matter of mp3s: all scientific relevant tests, with human guinea pigs ranging from Joe Sixpack to audio engineers and musicians, have shown the same result: at a certain bitrate it was virtually impossible for the people to hear any difference between a mp3 and a well mixed CD. This "break even point" is usually noted at 192b/s (at constant bitrate).

You brought an interesting thought in: Do recording studios use an extra mix when they make commercial mp3s? As we all know, most mp3s are listened to with rather cheap devices, so I wonder if they take this into consideration.
I will check it out next week, then I have access to a commercial musician again.

[Gerald]

:up::up::up: Thanks, :DL

[Takeda Shingen]

cassette tapes are still pretty much in use in the third world. The players and the media are cheap and robust compared to CD-players. And - a reason why many people here had a tape recorder for such a long time - you need no extra devices like a PC to record stuff. I think this will change over the time though, given how cheap digital storage devices are today.



Yes and no. ;)
When the first CDs came onto the market, in the mid 80's, much stuff was mixed and recorded rather "quick and dirty". Given, that the digital recording technology was in the beginning and given that analogue/digital converters were not as sophisticated as they are today. So it was often that analogue produced material, which was recorded onto a CD had a better quality than digital recorded one. You see this on older CDs on the ADD/ADD symbols.

When we talk in terms of maths, it should also be obvious that a digital signal can never 100% reproduce an analogue one, the keyword is quantisation, but this is rather theoretical nitpicking.

Fact is, compared to todays possibilities in terms of sample and quantisation rate, the CD standard is quite outdated, however I would not say necessarily worse than the LP sound - note: this coming from a vinyl junkie! It was good given the time when it came out.

(for the younger ones: all sounds that our ears hear are analogue :03:)


in the matter of mp3s: all scientific relevant tests, with human guinea pigs ranging from Joe Sixpack to audio engineers and musicians, have shown the same result: at a certain bitrate it was virtually impossible for the people to hear any difference between a mp3 and a well mixed CD. This "break even point" is usually noted at 192b/s (at constant bitrate).

You brought an interesting thought in: Do recording studios use an extra mix when they make commercial mp3s? As we all know, most mp3s are listened to with rather cheap devices, so I wonder if they take this into consideration.
I will check it out next week, then I have access to a commercial musician again.

I hear the argument a whole lot about how we can't dectet a difference when digital sampling is above a certain rate. I can't argue with the science, but I do know from experience that when I play the same recording on each format, I do notice a difference. I have Karl Richter conducting the Brandenberg Concertos both on vinyl and on a fairly recent CD release, and the CD is almost 'tin-ish' by comparison. It lacks the warmth of the sound that you get on the LP. It could be me by the nature of bias, but I really do hear a difference.

[Skybird]

I hear the argument a whole lot about how we can't dectet a difference when digital sampling is above a certain rate. I can't argue with the science, but I do know from experience that when I play the same recording on each format, I do notice a difference. I have Karl Richter conducting the Brandenberg Concertos both on vinyl and on a fairly recent CD release, and the CD is almost 'tin-ish' by comparison. It lacks the warmth of the sound that you get on the LP. It could be me by the nature of bias, but I really do hear a difference.
You are right there, I hear that difference too, so does my father who has been professional classic musicians, and many of his former colleagues said the same. He also was befriended with a soudn engineer who worked for Deutsche Grammophon company or Decca, and for SFB, he also said that. He also said that most in his branch prefer to work with sound copies on tape, and that that can survive several decades if stored correctly, much longer than the consumers standard tape cassettes did.

On digital compression, I can only urge everybody to try out the OGG format, in most cases you get better quality over MP3 or at least the same - with less data space needed for same accoustic quality. I noticed that when I copied all my CDs to the Sanza Fuze, and tested some expeirmental attempts first. Quality-wise it is said to be superior. The disadvantage is that it takes the processor more workload to decompress and process the data, resulting in a higher energy consummation. In case of the Sanza the batteries lasted only half as long as it does now with MP3s at 196 and 256. I had used OGG first. But due to this reason I converted it all to MP3 and copied it over once again.

But when processor workload and energy is no concern, then you can safely prefer OGG. It is preferred by purists.

[Penguin]

I don't see any contradiction in what you two guys wrote towards my statement. The listening experiments I mentioned were about the comparision between two digital formats; mp3 and CD (or pcm to be exact).
The same tests provide no real clear results when you compare Vinyl and a CD. I was talking from the technical point of view, thus my words that a CD must not be "necessarily worse".
But, there is also a subconscious feeling when you listen to music, a stomach feeling if you want to say so. I have exactly the same when I listen to my oldest stereo records from the end of the 60s - also there may be a warm, "bonfire feeling" coming from little scratches or dust on my discs ;)

Sky: ogg is only a data container :O:(love splitting hairs), but vorbis provides indeed better results than mp3 at the same bitrate - however they are both compressed formats. You should try flac one time, especially many fans of classic music love this codec, the files are bigger though and I guess the cpu workload also. The Sansa supports it - good player btw, I gave one to my Frau for her b-day.

[Sailor Steve]

One thing that I do note is that the fidelity decreases with each new format...
I agree and disagree. The lossless formats used for modern CDs are available for digitaly transfer, and some of the things I download are .flac files. I have two problems, though. One is that the files are on average five times the size of MP3s, so even a Terrabyte hard drive runs out of space fairly quickly. The other is that, as I said, I can't tell the difference. An MP3 sounds just as good to me as any LP.

Maybe it's a curse, maybe it's a blessing. It's just like not being able to drink. I'll never know what it's like to be blissfully buzzed, but I'll never have a DUI either.

[breadcatcher101]

Myself I miss the cassettes. The old 8 track was doomed from the start really but was cool when it first came out. The ability to play an "album" in your car. But when cassettes came out the 8 track died quickly.

I am not an expert on recording cd's although I have done it.

I miss using cassettes to record my LP's to play in the car, of using a graphics equalizer, and the ability to fade in and out when I wanted.

If cd's are on the way out, the heck with it. I'll go back to enjoying my Yes albums on my STA-78 reciever and LAB-110 turntable I bought new back in the latter half of the 20th century.

Maybe Sony is just moving overseas with their production like everyone else.