Future of the CD format

Sorry, but the "I´m not paying for MP3s" attitude is stupid. Everything is worth a certain price. Even for audiophiles, MP3 downloads can be useful to check the music before buying the full product (CD, SACD, LP, lossless, hi-rez download), and that is also worth a small price.

The music labels will have to rethink pricing of downloads, to take account of the economies made compared to CD distribution. Lossless downloads should be sold for less than 70% of the CD price, MP3s for less than 50% of the CD price.

And the music industry should also accept that they will never make as much money as in the 1990s (the peak of the CD boom), because that was an exceptional situation that can never be repeated.

 

Why would you pay for a "sample"?

You could just download a track or album for free or just listen to it on YouTube or something and see if you like it. If you do, buy the CD. If you don't, delete it. No harm done.

 

Sorry, but I would never pay for a format that is objectively inferior to the format I have been buying and using for the last 20+ years, CD. Lossless downloads are a different matter of course.

 

In 2001 I had the choice of going to Tower Records (4 stores), Virgin Megastore, and Borders along with locally owned Zia Records that all carried a relatively decent depth of catalog along with a number of other specialty shops that tended to cater to one or two genres of music. Then of course you had Barnes and Noble, Fry's Electronics, Fye's, Best Buy Walmart and Target that were primarily top selling titles though at times various Barnes & Noble and Fry's Electronics did have reasonable inventory.

Today, I am left with the Zia locations for any kind of diverse selection along with Hoodlum's in Tempe and maybe Stinkweed's in Phoenix (I have not been there in a long time). Online, you get your choices. Down the street I am not wasting my gas to go anywhere near the national stores.

 

Is it a question of principle or price? If it's principle, then I find the attitude stupid.

Suppose you're interested in a new $50 audiophile LP reissue of an album that you've never heard but which is known as a classic. You don't know if you're going to like the music. In that case, wouldn't the ability to download MP3s of the full album be a good service, worth a certain price? It will minimize the risk of making a wrong decision concerning the expensive purchase.

 

NO, not a good value when you can download it for free, if you are really wanted to minimize all risk.

 

There are other means to sample music for free. Amazon and allmusic have a sample listen function, and many recordings are available on youtube. Plus, I would rather track down a used out-of-print CD than buy an MP3.

You are constructing the case of music which is not available anywhere except as an MP3 download, and that state has fortunately not arrived yet and I can't imagine that it will ever.

 

Let's say you want to listen to Virgins and Philistines by the Colourfield. You can choose between buying an out-of-print CD at €100-150 or download from Amazon at €10 (or download illegally of course).

I don't usually buy mp3s but there are exceptions... Indeed there is music that is only available in mp3 format.

 

I hear you, but my problem there is that due to the damn loudness war, I have to be careful when buying catalog CDs that I don't end up with a crappy version. I can't just pick up an "old" CD there and buy it like I could with a book, or (often) a movie. I have to go and research it first, making sure I know how to identify the good version.

And then by the time I do that, it's easier just to place an order for it at the same time.

 

There's also a few other factors that I haven't seen mentioned in this topic ranging from the economy, streaming services such as Pandora/Last FM/Napster/Zune, and back catalog that accounted for a good chunk of the higher sales in the 90s.

The CD is far from dead and I doubt that retail stores are going to suddenly stop selling them completely. On the other hand the format is far removed now from its glory days. There's far more choices out there now for the average consumer compared to even a decade ago at this time.

Its sad but as Bill Belichick would say... "It is what it is."

 

Wow......not sure where to begin....

Anti CD?? Sounds more like you have an agenda and are not really into music to be anti ANY format.

Calling it a low res format speaks volumes as huge numbers of forum members listen to CD everyday and like the sound quality. Is it perfect....probably not, but its FAR from low resolution.

I just listened to several CDs yesterday, (( some mastered by our host even! )) and to call his work or the stuff I listened to in general "low-resolution" is somewhat of an insult. Was I just pretending to enjoy what I listened to then?

 

even the best mastered cd's are inferior to good mastered vinyl on a decent equipment, and bear in mind that 90% of cd's that are currently available sound like crap.......however I think cd is a great formar but it should have been replaced by SACD, Blue ray and not by lossy mp-3's.............

 

I guess a lot of the issue is that perhaps yes a perfect vinyl pressing has the "ability" to sound better in some ways, STILL doesnt make the CD "Low-Resolution".


Saying low resolution makes it sound like we are talking a low quality MP3 or AM radio, or some such sound that IS low resolution. To be low resolution, the sound has to be NOTICABLY hampered and sound sub-par to what a human expects to hear normally. Like the sound of a transistor radio, or some format that is VERY limited in frequncy responce etc.

 

Here we go again, there's something to be said for sound not being the number one priority in music, at least you don't come off sounding like a complete ***. you'd think your ears are the only ones on the planet.

But if you're not listening to them how would you know.

 

Haha what gets me...is ONE is supposedly virtually perfect and the highest resolution you can imagine...(( but only some can truly hear the difference supposedly, or you have to have only this and that equipment and all perfectly lined up and sitting just right and if you really TRY HARD, you can hear tiny differences ONLY if you have speakers that are up to the task and golden hearing....)) but that is called High-resolution, and anything else even almost identical is called LOW-RESOLUTION.....

 

Replaced by SACD, BLU RAY? Why, when by far, the average music listener thinks CDs are quite good sounding and other than "some" audiophiles, (( who in themselves are never in agreement about anything...)) people in general WERENT saying they wanted another format to replace CD?

 

I don't agree with the overall thrust of this person's comments, but I am afraid that this one might be true. I find myself buying fewer and fewer new CD's because they indeed to sound like crap. It's painful to listen to new albums by great artists like Alicia Keys, Bruce Springsteen, Paul McCartney, REM that have been compressed to death. I ended up trying Bruce and McCartney on vinyl, but was not impressed. It is, regardless of format, all in the mastering. Keep your old CD's in good shape - some day, people are going to realize how good those things sound.

 

On the other hand there are recent albums by Wilco, Shelby Lynne, Ray LaMontagne etc... that sound amazing, when it comes to the music of less commercial artists most CDs sound quite good, i think numbers like 99%, 90%, 75% get thrown around too easily.

 

just wanted to add that CD's are also inferior to SACD, DVD-A and 24/96 Flac's

 

I can't slog through 15 pages but I just wanted to include a little shout-out to lala.com if no one's mentioned it yet. It's essentially a music sampling site- once you register (for free), you can listen to any song or album once for free (and their library is excellent). You can purchase songs and albums in one of three ways: a "web only" purchase lets you listen to that album from their website as much as you want, and it's about a buck for an album; you can purchase 256kbps mp3s (a bitrate that, IMO, is perfectly fine) at prices comparable and even lower than Amazon or iTunes; or you can order CDs.

This is an excellent business model and I think the way the industry should proceed. As technology changes, so can such websites- maybe offer different types of files to download at different prices based on sound quality, for example.


I saw someone mention that CDs are more portable than files because cars, boomboxes, stereos etc all play CDs. I would point out that iPod docking stations are common, so that people carry their iPods around and plug it into their cars, boomboxes, etc.

Also, many claim that the main appeal of downloading is the free pirated music. I think while this is still true to some extent, the technological benefits and ease of use is as much a factor. I really do believe that people want to pay for music they are passionate about to support artists.

Anyway I'm not going to predict anything about CDs or whatever but frankly I don't care. As others have pointed out, CDs are not special- they are just computer discs with data. If I have the same data on more easily and commonly accessible devices and I don't have to fill up my apartment with racks and racks of CDs, then digital files are an advantage over CDs to me.

I understand how powerful nostalgia is but I don't feel that with the CD format, even that, not vinyl, is the one that I grew up with, collected tons, explored music with.

Certainly I hope sound quality is something a significant portion of the music buying public will care about, regardless of format. But as we all know, the real issues with sound quality are in the studios, not in the listening formats. That is, maybe the data loss inherent in a 256kpbs mp3 would bother me more if the original source wasn't smashed to hell in the first place.

 

Im a member...LOVE IT...listen to stuff all day long sometimes....!!...

Its great being able to just sample stuff without having to purchase it!

 

You also have to know which one is playing ;-)

Tim

 

Well said. That's why I have little interest in modern music. I keep my eyes and ears out for recommendations of well-recorded/mastered modern music of the styles I like, but they are few and far between.

 

I agree with everything you wrote about lala.com except for it being an excellent business model. I see this one failing. I use them all the time to listen to music, but haven't paid them a dime except for when they were a CD trading service. I've gotta believe that, like me many listen but few actually purchase. But perhaps I'm wrong.