Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Fannymac, May 22, 2019.
sure... but you'l not buy the record...
I would estimate the probability of this scenario at approximately zero.
There will never be a time when mass streaming disappears. Most of the music of the 60s and 70s will be out of copyright completely in 30 years or so. All it then takes is one person in the entire world to make a sound recording available for everyone. There already are sites where public domain recordings are archived. As copyrights continue to expire, those recordings will be uploaded. And from then until the end of time, that music will be available to stream - legally and for free.
I don't see it either.
No, it wasn't Divx, but it was often compared to it. It was a format, or an extension to a format, that was discussed in the middle noughts. I don't know if it actually came to market (it may even have been the discussion prior to the launch of HD-DVD). The point is that I distinctly remember people on forums protesting that they would absolutely not use a format that required an internet connection to transmit back to the manufacturer what discs they were watching. Today many people do not seem to mind having spying devices recording everything they say and do in the intimacy of their homes and bedrooms!
I've now compared on several occasions classical CDs from my collection with their equivalent on Tidal, and on each instance the CD has sounded significantly better to my ears, to the point of being painful to go back to Tidal. I may even cancel my subscription as thank God I've got more CDs than I can listen. This is not a coincidence or a matter of different masterings. There is something flawed about computer-transmitted audio. It may be the circuitry, or the USB cable or protocol, but it is definitely noticeable to the trained ear. Compared to my CDs, Tidal albums sound veiled, subdued, smudged, undefined, flickering. Whereas the highs of a violin, piano or flute shine brightly on the CD with well-defined contours, they shimmer on Tidal. The audio coming from a specialized music reproducing device such as a quality CD player is simply superior to any computer file.
You'd have to cite the tech, then. This doesn't ring a bell if it was the aughts and Internet connection required.
Although I do agree that the level people, in general, will go for something they want can sometimes be a bit frightening. It wasn't that long ago where we were giving out our social security numbers for certain things that had nothing do with financial services.
You'd have to test like-for-like. CD and a CD rip, same transports.
Even then it could be your CD player colorizing the sound in some way. But that's on you...if you think Tidal has inferior sound, then by all means end the service. I've had a different experience where "it depends". Mainly the mastering, to the point where there's been a few times where I'd have to wonder if I need to grab the download to actually replace the CD copy I have (or perhaps I just have a known bad CD pressing. Always a fun rabbit hole).
Of course I don't have golden ears. But I've learned to trust them.
I'm pretty sure the US has the longest copyright length in the world. Most recordings made in the 60s and 70s won't be out of copyright until 2067. And then you have to consider song writing royalties. Already songwriters are wanting more cash from streaming.
I've done the comparison using the same DAC, simply pressing the input selection button.
Could still be the CD player itself as the actual diff and its internal DAC.
Another CD player dropped in could expose that diff, but of course that's more work/ Plus it wouldn't matter anyway if its the CD player in play as the end result for the more pleasing sound.
Let’s face it people the music business isn’t what it use to be (media, artist development, promotion etc...) and probably never will be the same....
For fun check out what was released in 1973. Your head will spin!
It's not coloring, but the consistency, integrity and accuracy of the sound reproduction. The CD sound is better rendered, not different.
Let me be clear on this. I went to CD’s because I had to. I bought a Krell D/A converter because I could tell CD’s did not sound as good. I was trying to get there any way I could. What I found was I could simply not turn them up very loud because they hurt my ears. You are totally right about an important point though: they CAN sound amazing. But most of them simply don’t, just like not all vinyl sounds good. I put my turntable away around 1992 and sold off all but 50 albums. I was collecting CD’s like crazy, as I’m a huge music lover. Sometime in 2000, after not listening to music as much because for one reason or the other it stopped being “fun”, out of curiosity I took out my turntable again. And my jaw hit the floor. I could now crank up the sound and it didn’t hurt my ears, and the sound quality was much better over all. It’s really amazing how you can get used to something and forget the old. I have had two people do the same thing since and both are back on vinyl. Music instantly was fun again. I have over 2500 cd’s that I will never play (and should sell here).
All I can say is that your comments are echoed by others so you are certainly not wrong! Clearly not everyone hears things the same way. I believe what you write, but I experienced what I experienced so I am as well. If turning up the volume to ten and having it not bleed your ears is the definition of warm, that vinyl is absolutely warmer. CDs can be. But for whatever reason most mastering engineers don’t master them that way. It is not a format issue, though I can state as an absolute that vinyl extends reverb trails and cymbals out a bit further, and that is easy to hear if you do an A/B comparison. Most of the improvements with vinyl are pretty subtle, so most don’t hear them. Especially if you don’t have a higher end table that is dead quiet (or as they say, blacks are black...no noise at all, which only then allows you to hear the little subtle differences otherwise masked by slight noise your table/cart are causing). And it’s a long way to get there, where you can buy a cheap CD player and get what most people would consider “good” sound. And it’s awfully convenient. But if you are willing to go through all the hoops: buy the right vinyl rig, cartridge, install it correctly, get a preamp/amp/speaker that can reveal the differences, buy the right pressings and get quiet vinyl, it really isn’t that difficult to hear the difference. I didn’t “get there” until about there years ago after getting a good education around these parts (I’m 58), but I was immediately able to listen to music at a louder volume again....you can get to that point on any system. Try it!
But how many people want to do all that?? Not many. I maintain most people can’t even hear the difference...you need an educated ear and life’s too short...I get it. My youngest daughter (18) can absolutely hear a difference, but she doesn’t care. My two other kids never could and likely think I’m nuts. But I can’t deny my personal experience that when all the stars align, you are rewarded with a much better (fun in my case) listen. It isn’t just in my head. I would prefer the convenience and ease of the cd. But it looks like it’s going away anyway. And by the way, it isn’t just CD...I can totally hear things that are missing, and the slight edge, to streaming digital music as well. But it has it’s place in my workshop. So my apologies if I was just dissing the CD...I have some MFSL cd’s that sound great.
If any of you remember, for what it’s worth, our host has also said that if what you want is an accurate reflection of what is on the master tape (and to be fair, he also said that isn’t always necessarily what you want) vinyl comes the closest to doing so. At the end of the day, it’s about what you are expecting to hear. Both can get you there depending on how you hear things. No format is going to be the “right” one for everyone.
Man, wasn’t that a fun era! Early 70’s to 1979. As you said, the amazing and diverse number of releases was mind blowing. It was a fun time to be in music. Now, many artists are throwing in the towel (like Stevie Nicks) and stating it isn’t worth it financially to produce albums any longer. What a sad factoid. Luckily, newer artists are going to have to produce new music, obviously. But I think once an act get established, they are going to survive on touring only and walk from producing full length albums.
Copyright durations vary. Some '60s recordings are already in the public domain. Also, royalties are irrelevant to the equation. Once a sound recording goes into the public domain, there is no obligation for someone broadcasting it to ever consider songwriting royalties. There will be a time, starting in the 2050s and ending in the 2060s, when all of the 60s and 70s songs are in the public domain - forever. So the hypothesis that commercial streaming somehow disappearing (incredibly unlikely, IMO) will have lasting consequences insofar as availability of music is false. From the 2060s until the end of civilization, the recorded music of the 1960s and 1970s will be in the public domain, and free for anybody to broadcast, copy, stream, distribute at their whim.
I was simply correcting your assertion that all recordings will be in public domain in 30 years, which is simply not true. The recording industry would love to extend it further. As for songwriters. They are paid from recorded music sales, but receive hardly anything from streaming. I would expect that situation to change, even if it means people paying more for streaming.
I agree it is a matter of taste, but the scientific thinker in me knows vinyl will never be the best reflection of a master tape. Case in point, in a B sides CD compilation by the band New Model Army, released in the 90's, the notes stated that they had to change the drum sound of one of the songs because it could not be cut to vinyl. In addition, I've read many articles over the years about all of the modifications that have to be made to a recording before cutting to vinyl, which is why bass is often rather light (compared to modern music) because too much bass causes the stylus to jump. And the old familiar of how outer tracks on an LP are often cut louder than inner tracks because of the known limitations of compressing the sounds in the center most grooves. Nowadays, they just seem to press vinyl at a lower volume than years ago, even if they are using an already compressed digital file.
I think a lot of people, engineers included, will insist their personal favorite format is the best for their own reasons. It's irrelevant to me that vinyl can hold high frequencies that are well out of human hearing ability because it was a conscious choice when CD's were standardized to stop at 44 since no one was going to hear beyond that range anyway. The fact that people still waste HD space with 192 when there absolutely no frequencies visible that wouldn't require more than 96 boggles the mind. And no matter if there was a course that showed graphs and charts, as well as digital examples, of what can be held on each format, you will never get everyone on the same page. That's where it's just down to personal preference. But I can tell you when I've gotten a brand new 96/24 flat transfer of a master to work from for one of my releases, I'm pretty amazed at the sounds that come to life/light listening to those high res digital files, things I've never heard on the original vinyl pressings. And thankfully, downsampling for CD once the remastering is done doesn't appear to audibly lose any of that detail.
There will always be pro-vinyl and pro-CD discussions, and that's fine. As long as we enjoy our format(s) of choice is all that matters.
And to continue on with my "you could be dead tomorrow" way of thinking, I splurged again today and spent $230 on 3 out of print CD's, two full lengths and one CD single. I think the Universal fire revelation and the fact that these titles are only going to become harder to find is what's motivating me to just do it rather than spend years hoping for a bargain that may never come.
That is always said about the status quo.
It's sometimes difficult to imagine the future since we take the present for granted.
There are things that once were that are no longer.
I don't think there's a discussion to be had about CD's being in decline. We've all seen the numbers. The thread would have died after your initial post if that were the only topic covered here.
On the generational thing - we now have a generation of people who have never paid for music. That's the reality. That's the reality Spotify sort to "fix", but making music an app, and charging a subscription. $10 a month from people who weren't buying the music any way is a great deal for the business. But in the fashion of the music business - they grabbed at one thing by killing off something else. You truly couldn't make it up. Which is why I don't see CD's going away entirely. We may well be a minority, a small group, but we'll want CD's. Someone will see the opportunity, once it's fully formed, and fill it. IMO.
I didn't make that assertion, but that's OK.
Credit for the original song and original lyrics to John Lennon, of course:
Imagine there's no CDs
It's easy if you try
No vinyl scratches or cassettes below us
Above us only Cloud and Sky
Imagine all the people
Streaming for today (ah ah ah)
Imagine there's no physical formats
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to hold on to
And no depreciation, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in the Cloud
You may say I'm a Streamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be format free
Imagine no houses, trees, flowers, animals, hills, sound equipment, stones, oil, electricity, people, and stars
I wonder if you can
No need for substance and the physical world
We're weightless spirits in the cloud
Streamers dreaming out loud
There was also Suzie Quatro, The Sweet and Middle of the Road.
I don't "see" it either. But a lot of things that have happened no one ever saw coming.....
Separate names with a comma.