CD RULZ (kind of!) What can they expect me to pay for next?

[Smiler33]

With all of this talk around HDTV Blu Rays and all that garb it has got me thinking about my cd collection.
I have a fair few CD's and have been happy with the format. I know vinyl is nice but not always practical.
DVD audio or SACD disks seem badly supported from a retail perspective.
My ears are only as good as my mum made them so without having some kind of bionic ear surgery what will it be next?
Combining video with audio takes away its imagination and I try not to watch to much telly anyway!
All this talk of downloading is not really good for the consumer. It save logistical costs for the record companies and therefore sacrifices jobs. Negates the role of album artwork and printing techniques. Hard drives are not bullit proof either. I lost my entire digital music collection but I have the CD's. How annoying is it to have to back up if the DRM allows or buy it and download it again.

Maybe they will invent injecting music directly into your brain. Any ideas?

[Mark Lanctot]

Well, in terms of new technologies, one of the most promising has got to be Dolby TrueHD. It's multichannel lossless. (!) http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/trueHD.html

Whether it is to be used with video or not is unclear. The Dolby writeup definitely mentions video, but there's perhaps no obligation to have it.

The worst part of these new technologies, like DVD-A and SACD, is that they require a "secure chain" from the source to the speakers so that they can't be recorded. I believe there are some esoteric hacks out there but it certainly isn't easy. That makes getting this stuff onto a hard drive extremely difficult. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray even more so, they require HDCP, which is extremely advanced and can be so restrictive as to disallow playback with non-HDCP equipment.

What's happened is that technology has advanced to the point that media companies are enforcing their ideas of "no fair use", regardless of how the market likes it. This is the reason why DVD-A and SACD never really took off, it was so restrictive that you couldn't even get the audio to a receiver in the usual way - you either required a proprietary method like iLink or multichannel analog, which is a kludge at best.

It sucks, but the media companies are ignoring the consumer and punishing them before they even buy the media. Don't buy into such restrictive technologies, but unfortunately one day there might be nothing else.

Believe it or not, we may actually have some friends in Intel and Microsoft! Both are adamant that content MUST get onto the hard drive so that it can be played back in the new digital living room. Of course, they'd like to see it all done on their hardware with their software, locking everyone else out, but they managed to get some concessions on the most restrictive of DRM proposals.

[Smiler33]

Its kind of crap that all it will come down to in the end is that a consumer will want an album (if that exists in the future) and will have to buy it in the format available.

I think the artist has a responsibility to make his music available to the majority of consumers. Dual format releasing with extra tracks may ween people over to the new format but I think it is a hard one for the industry.

A lot of artists are rereleasing older albums as deluxe versions with studio sessions and b-side releases so I feel on older albums they may be all used up before these new technologies come to the fore.

The prices of CD's especially in the UK has dropped with the internet access and companies like caiman thru amazon marketplace.

I think people are buying more music in general but the record companies are getting worried. You can tell this by the talk of a share of artist show revenue.

I am sure hackers will work out a way to get around DRM. The problem that will happen is when the changeover happens and you are asking comsumers to listen to their collections on 2 different platforms for little or no reason.

Can you really hear a great difference in Dolby TrueHD?

Does anybody else think downloading of music sucks?

[Mark Lanctot]

Can you really hear a great difference in Dolby TrueHD?

I don't even think there's been a disc released with it yet. However, lossless is lossless. It has great potential.

Does anybody else think downloading of music sucks?

It's not downloading per se, it's how the record industry have approached it so far - lossy with DRM. THAT sucks. Downloading in general doesn't.

[dSw]

What's happened is that technology has advanced to the point that media companies are enforcing their ideas of "no fair use", regardless of how the market likes it. This is the reason why DVD-A and SACD never really took off, it was so restrictive that you couldn't even get the audio to a receiver in the usual way - you either required a proprietary method like iLink or multichannel analog, which is a kludge at best.

There are several reasons why DVD-A and SACD never took off - including the absence of a convincing reason for consumers to move to these new formats (and re-purchase their entire collection) when CDs sound great and can be played so easily.

I fear (hope) that Blueray and HD-DVD will go the same way, however the film studios can just stop producing DVDs thereby forcing people into the purchase of these new media and the associated hardware.

It sucks, but the media companies are ignoring the consumer and punishing them before they even buy the media. Don't buy into such restrictive technologies, but unfortunately one day there might be nothing else.

Exactly - the only way to stop this proprietry DRM mess is to vote with your wallet and avoid buying any of it. I buy most of my music on CD but I also purchase downloads - however these are only from labels that sell lossless formats, without any DRM.

[Mark Lanctot]

There are several reasons why DVD-A and SACD never took off - including the absence of a convincing reason for consumers to move to these new formats (and re-purchase their entire collection) when CDs sound great and can be played so easily.

True. I should have said "one of the reasons".

For most people, CD is good enough. The people that listen to DVD-A and SACD are audiophiles (actually "multichannel audiophiles", an even smaller group), and they were the ones who suddenly realized they had to buy a new, top-end receiver to play this back or use the DAC in the player, which has compromises no matter how good it is.

It's a case of the technology naturally being adopted by the higher-end crowd who represented more of a niche market, yet the technology forced this same crowd to do things they may not have wanted to do - like get rid of their expensive processors and be forced into brands they may not be comfortable with (Pioneer was the only one with iLink for a long time. Not that the Elite receivers were bad at all, but there was not very much choice).

Exactly - the only way to stop this proprietry DRM mess is to vote with your wallet and avoid buying any of it. I buy most of my music on CD but I also purchase downloads - however these are only from labels that sell lossless formats, without any DRM.

I wish that would be more effective but with the RIAA controlling so much, it's quite difficult. I hear stirrings though. Artists themselves may be about to start the revolution. The mountain called Monkey may be about to speak.*

* obscure musical reference

[CatBus]

For most people, CD is good enough. The people that listen to DVD-A and SACD are audiophiles (actually "multichannel audiophiles", an even smaller group), and they were the ones who suddenly realized they had to buy a new, top-end receiver to play this back or use the DAC in the player, which has compromises no matter how good it is.

Actually there's more to it than that. A CD is capable of storing stereo data with levels of detail beyond that which can be perceived by any human listener. Despite this, there are still three reasons to go to DVD-A (or some hypothetical new format):

1) Multichannel support
2) It's cooler and shows off your nifty new amp
3) CDs are frequently mastered poorly, DVD-As are frequently mastered beautifully

Number 1 is overrated. But for God's sake don't overlook number 3. If some law was passed that forced the labels to master their CDs using the same standards they use for their DVD-As, CDs would suddenly be good enough for many audiophiles again.

In my humble opinion

[dSw]

1) Multichannel support
2) It's cooler and shows off your nifty new amp
3) CDs are frequently mastered poorly, DVD-As are frequently mastered beautifully

Number 1 is overrated. But for God's sake don't overlook number 3. If some law was passed that forced the labels to master their CDs using the same standards they use for their DVD-As, CDs would suddenly be good enough for many audiophiles again.

In my humble opinion

Don't see the need for multi-channel in music to be honest. In terms of CD mastering - is this not just because CDs are so mainstream and mass-produced that there isn't the financial incentive to use the best available mastering techniques?

I'm sure DVD-As are mastered to such a high standard because they're still a very niche product and the audio quality is such an important differentiator, whereas if they ever did become mainstream then it might be conceivable that not so much care would be taken on the mastering front.

[Mark Lanctot]

Certainly if CDs were mastered without hypercompression, the CD format would have a lot of life left.

As it is, how much higher can they make them? They're already clipped. How much higher before even teenagers with their iPods notice? When I get ReplayGain values of -10 to -12 dB things are getting ridiculous.

Perhaps the format is being purposefully sabotaged so the record companies can go to DRM-laden lossy downloads, saying they're better than CDs? Paranoia, I know.

[CatBus]

Part of it is the DVD-A specification, which pretty much disallows the sort of "loudness race" that you hear people complaining about with CDs. But part of it definitely is market segmentation, which would happen regardless of the nature of any future format.

Studios that produce CDs and DVD-As of the same music go through the effort of making two masters already. Why the double effort to do something well and then do it again not so well?

The answer is, I fear, that doing it "not so well" has real advantages to some consumers. Compressing the dynamic range all to hell, then jacking the volume to the point of rampant clipping may sound like a bad thing, but it allows you to hear all of the music while driving down the highway with your windows rolled down. In other words, there are two kinds of "good", and one format cannot meet both needs.

Unless, of course, consumer gear featured dynamic range compression as a standard feature. Then the same media could be used in a quiet living room and a loud car, adjusted to the user's preferences. But that's not happening anytime soon...