CDs on the way out? (1 Viewer)

[Dennis Nicholls]

Reason CDs don't sell as well as they used to: PRICE.

Not in classical music. There are great bargains out there nowadays. For example, I got a Sony 60 CD set of Beethoven's music for $26 at Amazon last year, and it's excellent - based around the David Zinman/Tonhalle Orchestra Zurich recordings. That's about 43 cents per disc.

Liner notes or lack thereof bother me too. A CD can hold both voice and data: why not a data track for the liner notes? It would have to be protected in some manner so that a CD player (as opposed to a PC) wouldn't attempt to play it as music and blow out your speakers. My Bach set has two CDs which contain all the liner notes - and all the lyrics etc. for all the cantatas etc. Same with the Beethoven set mentioned above.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

I have the Helmuth Rilling/Bach-Collegium Stuttgart set of the complete cantatas. It was part of the Bohemian Music Service re-issue of the Hanssler Classic set of the complete works of JS Bach on about 180 CDs. IIRC I paid about $200 for the set from an online music store in Stuttgart.

I'm sure I started a thread on each of these sets over in the "music" forum.


EDIT http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/196700/complete-works-of-bach-on-172-cds-for-191

 

[Ockeghem]

Originally Posted by Dennis Nicholls

I have the Helmuth Rilling/Bach-Collegium Stuttgart set of the complete cantatas. It was part of the Bohemian Music Service re-issue of the Hanssler Classic set of the complete works of JS Bach on about 180 CDs. IIRC I paid about $200 for the set from an online music store in Stuttgart.

I'm sure I started a thread on each of these sets over in the "music" forum.


EDIT http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/196700/complete-works-of-bach-on-172-cds-for-191

Dennis,

Thanks (and for the link as well).

I own the complete Beethoven works (LP = Beethoven Bicentennial Collection); I also own the complete Mozart (in score). I'm working on the complete works of J. S. Bach (CDs, LPs, and scores).

 

[Greg_S_H]

I buy mp3s when it's the only thing available. I like a physical copy, even if it's only going to get transferred to my computer. I can read the booklet and always have the CD to retransfer if need be. Then, for the most part, I listen to the mp3s when I want to hear music. But, there are some CDs that just don't seem to transfer right. Old acoustic music from the '30s that sounds great on CD tends to be lossy when ripped.

There have been times when I wanted to hear a song right now! so I have purchased the mp3, but with plans to buy the physical CD in the future. My friend who is a year older than me thinks that's nuts and has pretty much given up on CDs altogether. His CDs had been in storage while he lived in a small apartment, but since moving into a proper house, he has spent the last few months ripping his entire collection. I don't think he has any plans to buy another CD, unless it's a rare case where it's not available for purchase on iTunes/Amazon/etc. I, on the other hand, will buy CD until it's no longer an option.

Have to throw in that, yes, I have a turntable and am a fan of LPs. I haven't bought any modern albums on vinyl, though there are a few I am planning to seek out. I already have the CDs. I haven't had too much luck converting my vinyl collection to digital. If I could get that sorted, I'd love to transfer some of my old LPs that will never be see the light of day in any modern format.

One last point: yes, Best Buy, Borders and other brick-and-mortars are starting to have paltry CD collections, if they have CDs at all. But, I have noticed that a poor selection now extends to their DVDs as well. It used to be, I could find just about anything I wanted in a Best Buy--library titles, old TV series, whatever. Now, they only seem to have the hot new releases. It's getting to where I have to order DVDs and CDs alike online if I want to get what I want.

 

[drobbins]

I have noticed that many here are comparing the quality of LPs to MP3s. As a matter of preference, I would take mp3 over LPs any day. I had a collection of over 200 LPs in the 70s and 80s. I took the best care possible of them and yet playing them still sounded like a bowl of Rice Krispies with all the snap-crackel-pop. Even the high fidelity ones that I spent $30 on. I replaced them all with CDs as soon as I could.

Now I know that MP3s loose a lot in the compression, but with the equipment that I listen on, I don't notice it as much as I would notice the crackle of a LP. Right now I am leery of buying any music whether on CD or MP3. The formats keep changing and I don't want to spend money on something that will be obsoulete in the near future. Good grief, I don't know how many times I have purchased some music over and over again.

 

[DaveF]

Dave,
What formats keep changing? The CD has been around for 20+ years. MP3 has been solid for 10+ years. AAC is making inroads due to iTunes, but MP3 looks to be around for a number of years more. I see a lot of uncertainty in the marketplace, but not so much with the actual technology.

 

[drobbins]

I don't know what the next format will be, but it seems that it does change or get better every 5-10 years. I have bought many, many albums over and over. LP- high fidelity LP - 8 track - cassette - and the last time is MP3 with many of them being mp4s that will only work with itunes. As you said MPs have been around for 10+ years and I figure they will be around for some years more. But I also expect that the industry is over due for a new format. Maybe a digital format that has CD or LP quality. A digital bluray for music so to speak. There is a lot of money to be made getting everyone to buy their whole collection again. Being as CD (on their way out? per thread title) and MP3s have been around so long the new format (what every it is) will be out soon (3-5years). By then the kids will be through college and moved out and I will have time, money and uninterrupted calm to enjoy music again.

 

[Ockeghem]

"There is a lot of money to be made getting everyone to buy their whole collection again."

Dave,


Do you think that people actually do this, though? Maybe they do. I don't; rather, I just continue to expand my exisiting collection and acquire multiple formats as the years move onward. Then again, I am a collector.

Still, your point is well taken if there are a great number of consumers who actually start over and buy their entire collection again. Doing this would not occur to me. And even if it did, it would be quite difficult in my case as we're talking about a collection numbering around several thousands of items.

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by Ockeghem

"There is a lot of money to be made getting everyone to buy their whole collection again."

Dave,


Do you think that people actually do this, though? Maybe they do. I don't; rather, I just continue to expand my exisiting collection and acquire multiple formats as the years move onward. Then again, I am a collector.

Only if you bought before more than 15 years ago; when CD had completely replaced tapes and vinyl. Otherwise, I'll guess there's no need or desire to rebuy in the next 15 to 30 years. Caveats are people switching to a subscription service, buying "remastered" releases, or are too lazy or ignorant to rip a CD.

Given the failure of higher-quality audio formats and the move to lower quality, MP3 singles, there's no obvious reason to rebuy a collection on CD now or on the horizon.

 

[drobbins]

[*] I guess I see the next step in music going something like this:

• A special “receiver” type unit would need to be purchased $100-$200 range. This would be another component for your system. It would be network ready.
• It would accept up to 4-6 music players that would me married just to it. (limit copying)
• You would go online at your computer and set up play lists from tens of thousands of choices. These play lists would be sent to your “receiver unit” and downloaded into your music players.
• These players would plug into your car or any other audio component with a special wire (similar to HDMI to prevent copying again). The player would also have a 1/8 jack for ear buds.
• The music played would have a static signal played along with the music. This would only be filtered out by using the special cable or a small chip in the ear buds. (Once again to prevent copying.)
• It would be higher quality than mp3 and subscription based, say even at $25 per month which I think would be high. (Satellite is currently around $10) This sounds like a lot, but to replace my 4,500 poor quality mp3s at $1.00 each would be $4,500. Divide that by $25 that equals 180 months (15 years) for a break even point. Or 2 CDs per month ($25) times the same 180 months also equals $4,500. But you would have an unlimited selection the whole 15 years with the subscription plan.

Now if you talked to people in the early 70s about paying for TV they would think your were crazy, yet here we are with just about every household paying over $50 per month for TV. It is considered just another necessary utility
I think the plan outlined above would provide a larger quantity of higher quality music than the average person currently has, at an affordable price. It would be flexible and portable enough for the user while protecting the artists.

 

[nolesrule]

I only touch CDs to rip them. Then they get boxed. MP3 for the mp3 player. FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) for serious listening at home.

I use the Squeezebox system for serving it up to various receivers around the house, and it also allows access to many of the online streaming and radio services. Central server running on an old PC with access to my music archive on my file server. Sends music to the Squeezebox by my receiver. Then there's the Squeezebox Booms which have built in speakers which are good for bedrooms. There's even software emulators for use while listening on computers All the players can be controlled individually or synchronized.

So, in essence, we're already at drobbins step, but without interference from the labels/RIAA. And it can be done in better than mp3 quality.

The RIAA would never let you get on demand songs for only $25/month. They wouldn't consider that enough compensation for "the artists".

 

[drobbins]

Originally Posted by nolesrule

The RIAA would never let you get on demand songs for only $25/month. They wouldn't consider that enough compensation for "the artists".

Maybe that is why they are loosing money. Most companies would be more than happy to have a steady stream of money from each household flowing in each month. They would just need a few big servers as an investment and the internet would do the rest. No running cable wires.

I would jump on that type of service in a heartbeat. Right now they are not getting any "compensation" from me. My household hasn't spend $25 on music in the past year. I do drive 5 hours per week to and from work & I am considering activating the XM radio installed in my car. The only thing that is holding me back is that it would be limited to my car. The icing on the cake would be if I could set up my own play-lists.

 

[Ockeghem]

DaveF,

"But since digital releases are lower quality..."

Did you finish your thought above? It seems to have been cut off.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Ockeghem

DaveF,

"But since digital releases are lower quality..."

Did you finish your thought above? It seems to have been cut off.

I was wondering the same thing.

Great minds, Scott...

 

[DaveF]

That was a discarded sentence, already expressed in the previous sentence.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by DaveF /forum/thread/291980/cds-on-the-way-out/30#post_3599720

 

[drobbins]

Originally Posted by DaveF /forum/thread/291980/cds-on-the-way-out/30#post_3599720

 

[Mike Frezon]

http://www.dvdtown.com/images/displayimage.php?id=7898

 

[DaveF]

Whoa! Those birds are seriously staring at me...

 

[drobbins]

Boy Mike.. You came up with that suggestion very quickly!! Any reason why?

Thanks this one is much better.