Continuing with CDs?

my ps3 is my in-house cd player and i'm not happy the ps4 reportedly doesn't play cds

nope, hooked up to my receiver. it has rca plugs.

x-post

i've actually been thinking about getting good slightly smaller new speakers to put on top of my olde tyme speakers and listen to digi sounds on those. if that makes any sense. my old speakers make records sound amazing, but i think i could optimize my cd listening with speakers designed for digital.

I've read everything in this revive and have a few things to add:

1. All "portable" music is expendable. It's expendable because it should always be a copy. When i was young i copied my records and discs to (high quality) cassettes and took those mobile. Today; slide what you want to listen to onto a CD-RW or MicroSD, and take it mobile. Lost or otherwise ruined -- a new copy awaits back at home.

2. 8-Tracks really do suck. Unless it's the only piece of audio equipment in some remote cabin or lodge; there audio bleed-trough and track re-ordering leaves little beyond kitsch to appreciate.

3. Flac is an oxymoron. If it lacks the lesser footprint of a mp3 but you like it well enough to seek the higher audio quality of the format; bit the bullet and get a bonafide copy.

4. Mp3 players hooked into the aux jack of your car stereo. Most medium to low end players need and receive a tremendous benefit from a headphone amp -- spend about $100 and rock-out to your hearts content. Oh yeah, and skip the shitty earbuds as well.

5. The vinyl resurgence is awful? This is a short view; while inflated pricing and quality issues are currently evident, the increased popularity in wax further validates the longevity of the format. I began buying LPs in the 70s and bought a TON of second-hand stuff in the 90s when prices were cheap. Having a new generation jump on the bandwagon keeps manufacturers making new gear and will also lead to another buyers market when the folks who bought into LPs as part of a fad get out of the medium and, in turn, bolster the second hand market.

6. Will CDs retire with the Time/Life generation? It took grandma and grandpa a long time to accept CDs into the music realm; today their death-grip is assured. Sure, i still buy them as i fell confident that i will still be able to easily listen to them 20 years down the road. All of my CDs are well-cared for, and i'm proud to say that i've only abused and ruined a couple of them in my lifetime. All my custom-burnt CDs are on high quality branded media, and other than the requisite mis-burnt coasters, have none that have faltered do to excessive "shelf-wear".

7. Streaming doesn't float for the non-metro crowd. Not living in a large metropolitan area, while i do have DSL and wi-fi, struggle to get a 4G signal at my home. Again, going forward with my first point (that all portable should be expendable) it will still be some time before streaming, even though completely acceptable, will become a part of my day-to-day. Metropolitan areas always get the newest and fastest tech (even though the increased user-base may make it crawl) but they all seemed trained to need unlimited data plans, subscription music services, pay TV, and even more-so, an avenue to broadcast their comings-and-goings via their online up-to-the-minute presence. I've tried all the streaming services and satellite stations and haven't yet found one that's satisfying beyond the short term -- i'll take my fave local programs, podcasts, blogs, and review sites to keep my interest reliably piqued. BTW; i use the descriptor "metro" very loosely -- in rural america if you're more than a couple miles from a small town or major through-way, your chances of getting reliable and affordable high-speed internet remains very dubious.

8. It all comes down to storage density. Having a better mp3 compression regime may make those files sound better, but, frankly, i find today's mp3s very listenable when played through better hardware -- even though i still prefer the "full audio product" for my permanent collection. For me to forego the traditional physical media will require significant maturation in storage tech. My guess is that it will need to be in 5-10 terabyte range of capacity, completely removable, and be no larger than a deck of cards; that you "plug-in" to your central stereo system (media station) and access from wherever your corded or or wireless hotspot allows. The more significant linchpin is the interface; i've yet to use any audio device that replicates the feeling i get from flipping through an actual collection. A tablet-style interface could certainly satisfy my cover art and liner note needs, but it will take some fairly visionary software to make me enjoy the experience enough to ditch the real stuff.

9. Short answer: No, yes, yes.

Streaming doesn't float for the non-metro crowd. Not living in a large metropolitan area, while i do have DSL and wi-fi, struggle to get a 4G signal at my home.

Good obvious point that makes sense, considering I've a friend who lives in north central Florida and switched from dial-up to DSL eighteen months ago – and he could've afforded the switch years ago.

> 3. Flac is an oxymoron. If it lacks the lesser footprint of a mp3 but you like it well enough to seek the higher audio quality of the format; bit the bullet and get a bonafide copy.

not sure what you're getting at here. flac is a *perfect* copy of the original wav just in a more concise coding, analogous to a .zip file. ot if by 'bonafide copy' you mean a physical copy then the deciding factor for me is often price. are the cd sleevenotes worth the extra couple of quid (and the extra couple of quid of postage)? if the only other version that's available is a vinyl copy then this is a no-brainer - flac every time.

http://boomkat.com/vinyl/1230196-gomila-park-ununoctium
vinyl 12" - £12.99
flac - £2.95

also, you can turn FLACs back into WAV files and burn them to a CDR

apparently depending on how wonky your CD/CD player is, you might not be getting all the bits of data off the CD from a regular listen (hence why some ripping programs make multiple passes to make sure), so FLAC might be better for perfect sound forever purposes.

I did not intend to suggest that flac files contain any less audio data than the wav -- but, yes, the bonafide copy in my book is the physical copy. Besides the hard copy archival value, we could quibble over the value of the art and liner notes -- and not only do i place value on the art and notes, i would urge musicians to exploit these spaces to bring more value to physical copy (at least until the industry finds a reliable way to equitably compensate them for the digital ones).

Kinda wonder if the no-internet crowd are changing their format habits much. I've got a couple of friends with no internet so I'll probably ask them next time I see them. There's only a few choices so the results probably won't startle.

I'm sure hundreds of big cities around the world don't have a good enough connection for streaming.

In the decade I've had internet, the longest I've ever had completely satisfying internet service is just over a year. Streaming probably won't be an option for a long time but I don't think I'll ever use it much even if I can.

When does loss occur in an audio file? I've tried to find succinct explanations but can't.

When does loss occur in an audio file? I've tried to find succinct explanations but can't.

Compression or making a file smaller causes loss. Streaming and mp3 conversion both equal loss.

is there a streaming FLAC service? that would be lossless.

uhh

Tidal

apparently it has already crashed & burned though

There are a couple i've heard of -- but they're not ready to go mobile.

http://tidal.com/us
http://www.deezer.com/offers/elite -- piggybacks on Sonos

Tidal Hi-Fi is $20 / mth

http://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/ is $20 as well

Having a new generation jump on the bandwagon keeps manufacturers making new gear

No new record presses have been manufactured in the last decade or two; the tooling is prohibitively expensive and/or non-existent, and the people who knew how to make them are either dead or retired.

and will also lead to another buyers market when the folks who bought into LPs as part of a fad get out of the medium and, in turn, bolster the second hand market.

This will likely happen, but the problem is, this second-hand market will lean heavily towards the crappy overpriced mastered-from-CD reissues currently clogging pressing plants.

http://qz.com/103785/hipsters-are-buying-vinyl-records-but-they-arent-listening-to-them/

While vinyl sales have increased at about 30% compounded annually over the last 6 years, turntable sales have remained fairly flat over that time, ranging from 104,000 to 115,000 according to the Consumer Electronics Association. So either the newer turntables purchased are far, far more durable than those in recent memory (they aren’t—high quality electronics companies like Panasonic are discontinuing their units and those that are sold are increasingly cheaper, portable models like this one I bought from Urban Outfitters) or something else is happening with these records.

thousands of people buying OLD turntables. people come in my place and want turntables and i tell them where they can get new ones and they don't want new ones. they want "cool" vintage tables. for, like, a dollar. but anyway, no way to know how many old ones have sold in the last five years. tons though.

> the bonafide copy in my book is the physical copy

fair enough. and i will buy cds if they are comparative in price. but, like i say, sometimes the only alternative is an expensive vinyl copy...

and i realised the other day that it's not just the booklet and sleeve you miss with a digital copy, often you don't even get a catalogue number.

(flac, in my book, is superior to wav in more than just filesize because you can embed metadata to it.)

> Compression or making a file smaller causes loss.

no, you can compress a file losslessly, the same way you can zip a file and unzip it again and not lose any information. flac compression will typically make a file 60% of the original size without loss. mp3s at 128 are about 10% the size of the original wav but are lossy, so some information is lost. the trick is to try and throw away the unimportant data, things you don't normally perceive anyway...

or they inherited one from their parents like i did.
xp

Yeah, I realized that about used turntables as soon as I posted it. My dad's Dual, that he bought in 1977, is still going strong, as is my 20-year-old Rotel.

Yeah seriously it's huge to ignore how many used turntables sell or get inherited.

I got mine, a technics classic style one, off ebay about 5 years ago. £120

It was advertised as a DJ's home unit, which is the classic "One lady owner" of turntables, right? But it was very untrashed indeed.

Tenacity, basically. Took around a year to get one for that price, even then you'd need about £200 to be certain of a decent one.

(flac, in my book, is superior to wav in more than just filesize because you can embed metadata to it.)

was gonna mention this, thanks

thats the stupidest article

Do audio files lose stuff from being copied or transferred to another device (even an mp3 player)? Does compression happen in those instances?

Audio files copied from one device to another are identical, unless there's some kind of freaky error. Loss occurs when a lossless audio file is converted to a compressed format like mp3, which trades reduced audio quality for smaller file sizes. The amount of loss depends on the bit rate chosen for the compression. An mp3 saved with a bit rate of 128 kbit/s will be a smaller file, with greater loss, than an mp3 saved from the same source material at 320 kbit/s.

No new record presses have been manufactured in the last decade or two

I was referring more-so to the playback gear; you know turntables, cartridges, etc All the recent LPs i've bought have looked and sounded beautiful.

you can compress a file losslessly

I stand corrected -- a zipped flac can be returned to it's former greatness.

Do audio files lose stuff from being copied or transferred to another device

Depends on the device; although most take what you give them with no conversion (as long as the device can play the particular format). Exact Audio Copy (EAC) is a program that copies and then compares the copy with the source. Memory can become corrupt and not pass this bit-for-bit data comparison. However, how many times do you think you could copy and paste a file the size of a novel and expect every single letter of every single word to be the exact same as the original? Modern data storage is far more reliable than the old days of making a copy of a copy of a copy of a tape. And what Brad C. said.

While I was typing this other replies have appeared but I'll post it anyway.

When does loss occur in an audio file? I've tried to find succinct explanations but can't.

First of all, both lossy and lossless audio compression are just means to make audio files occupy less space on a storage medium, and have nothing to do with dynamic range compression despite the confusing terms, and the fact that lots of misinformed or outright deceiving articles try to conflate the two.

So, for example, you may have lossless/uncompressed audio files that were subjected to extreme dynamic range compression that sound awful, and lossy audio files sourced from a decently engineered recording that sound great (the preceding assumes that the listener dislikes the loudness war hypercompressed sound, YMMV).

Lossless compression is, like many above have stated, the same principle as a .zip file: you have an original file, you compress to save some disk space and delete the uncompressed original, then unzip it and get the original file back exactly as it was. Lossless audio compression is ideal for archiving. Examples of lossy codecs are FLAC, WavPack, ALAC, etc.

Lossy compression achieves much higher compression ratios (IOW, much less space is needed to store the compressed files) at the cost of irreversible information loss. Unlike lossless, you can not get back the original file from the lossy file.

Why would anyone use lossy? Because by saving more space, they can keep a lot more music on the limited space of their hardware player, and despite the scary sounding "information loss" the reality is that, with reasonable settings, modern lossy codecs produce transparent files. A lossy file is transparent if a listener can not distinguish it from its lossless source. Examples of lossy codecs are MP3, Vorbis, Opus, AAC, Dolby Digital, etc.

So, to really answer your question: assuming everything is working correctly, loss in an audio file only occurs if you deliberately compress it with a lossy codec. An exmaple would be ripping a CD (uncompressed audio data) to .mp3 files.

If you lossily compress a file multiple times, damage accumulates and eventually the result will be an unrecognisable mess when played back (although some lossy codecs detect previous lossy compression and do nothing when input with a lossy file). There is incremental generational loss.

If you losslessly compress an already losslessly compressed files, nothing will happen to the audio data. The file size may change, metadata may not be preserved, but lossless is lossless, the audio data will remain intact.

If you losslessly compress a lossy file, will you NOT gain back any quality nor further degrade it, but you WILL increase its size for no benefit whatsoever.

By just playing back an audio file or copying it to another device no damage is incurred, be it a lossy or lossless file, no matter how many times you do it.

super into cd-r releases rn seems like the absolute coolest way to put out music in 2015

lol here's my own redundant version of those posts

no, digital data doesn't suffer generation loss when you copy it because all you're doing is taking the clear and very finite sequence of 1s/0s that represent the song and reproducing exactly the same sequence somewhere else, like copying a list of numbers from one piece of paper to another. human error (and borges) aside, your second piece of paper will contain exactly the same information as the first.

compression--making data smaller--sometimes degrades and sometimes doesn't, because sometimes what you're doing is taking data out, actually removing numbers from your list (what happens when you rip a cd to mp3) and sometimes you're using clever formulae to express lots of numbers as fewer numbers, from which the original unchanged set of numbers can still be determined by running the formula in reverse (what happens when you rip a cd to flac, or compress a wav file to flac -- actually these are the same thing since when you "rip to flac" you really rip to wav and then compress). it's the difference between cutting bits off of something and folding it in on itself: they both make the thing smaller but only one actually degrades it. (also the former, obviously, can make something a lot smaller than the latter.)

these days i copy flacs or oggs directly to a ipod nano mounted as a regular removable drive and running "rockbox" instead of apple's firmware, so i'm actually not sure what happens when you copy files to a normal ipod using itunes -- i know it changes your filenames and directory structures and the files that appear on the ipod are cryptically named and organized but i don't know if it actually recompresses anything. i assume the files are the same but maybe they are processed somehow first.

i own a lot of cds i've never played -- i buy them, flac them, then look at the liner notes while i listen to the files.

it's the difference between cutting bits off of something and folding it in on itself

excellent analogy!

I've bought like 40 cds in the last month. But I can't seem to find the ikea CD shelves I've been depending on :(

My biggest worry is access to discmans when my present one breaks, which might be relatively soon, heaven forbid! It seems the only ones you can get in stores (and I'm basing this on the last time I looked, which was over 6 years ago) are bottom line ones which sound like shit and eat your batteries in under 10 hours. Ones on amazon or whatever seem to be marked up, whether due to scarcity or because people still think it's 2002 and that they have Ny retIl value at all. Normally I use a CDJ at home, but I've been travelling a lot this last year, and so have depended on my current discman to listen to music during that time.

hey ed.b, when you dj are you mostly using cdjs?

i dunno, it seems really silly not to continue when legal downloads are half the quality at twice the price of buying a CD off Amazon?

the only time i've bought legal downloads is when the explicit version of the album doesn't physically exist, or when i'm paranoid that it does not

like, i could not find an explicit hardcopy of the charli xcx album, and all the flacs i soulsought went "BEEP YOU, SUCKER!" which suggests that nobody else could find one either

(and i wanted to buy it cuz i felt bad for her)

xposts: My dj set up at home (and since I don't ever have the opportunity to dj out, that's it for me) is 2 turntables + 2 CDJs, so it could go any way. I'd say I use vinyl and CDs (which is like, store-bought CDs, i.e. albums and comps, not burnt cds or usb keys) about equally, unless I'm making some fancy, presentable mix, in which case I use audacity on my laptop.

the only time i've bought legal downloads is when the explicit version of the album doesn't physically exist, or when i'm paranoid that it does not

agreed.

CA$H by Nasty Rox Inc is one the rarest ZTT cds ever, yet they re-released it quietly in digital for a few years ago.
they kept it quiet due to fears re the samples.
(and yes, in good old ZTT form, one of the extra tracks is f*cked up with digital glitches ... hence why i am still on the lookout for a decent cd edition of it).

that was when i succumbed.

that and 'happy families' by blancmange as the reissued edition was deleted within hours of edsel pressing it making the hard copy version f*cking stupid prices should you ever see it available.

so, i am not totally adverse to doing the digital only thing, just that, i do like to have something to put on my shelf when i spend a tenner.

ty xp

i dunno, it seems really silly not to continue when legal downloads are half the quality at twice the price of buying a CD off Amazon?

^ This basically. Also suggests another possibility for those with more time than money: buy a cheap CD copy, rip your own soft copies [lossy with different codecs and bitrates, lossless, whatever takes your fancy] and immediately sell the CD.

not only that.
but i genuinely have bought cds/boxsets off amazon with their glorious autorip extra, where it is cheaper to get the cd/free digital version than it is getting the digital only option.
go figure.

!!

all of my cds are in the garage except a select few which I have in the house. I've whittled them down as much as I can, but the remaining 700 are not going to net me more than ten cents a piece, I think, so it's not even worth taking them in to sell (I sold all the ones of any worth, DCC things etc). I do have a nice vinyl collection, maybe about 500 records; it's a fetish for sure for the most part but I always listened to records growing up and there is something comforting about the sound of them, even with the surface noise. But I've recently sworn to not rebuy any music, it's a huge fucking waste of money; if I have something on Cd i'm not going to go out and pick up a remastered vinyl version anymore. I was about to pick up a nice copy of Rumors, of all fucking things, and remembered I have a perfectly good sounding deluxe cd of that in the garage.

The vast majority of my listening is still to digital files streaming off a home server or on a portable though. Sad but that's the way it is.

CDs do not get 'quiet' over time, that is a preposterous assertion. Some do get rot though.

eg : the recent 4 cd edgar froese boxset.

that said, i think i got the boxset/autorip when they had it mispriced.

xp.

CDs do not get 'quiet' over time, that is a preposterous assertion. Some do get rot though.

agree.

the only cds i have had the dreaded rot from are PDO cds : wiseblood/foetus, orbital, and neutron 90000 so far.

http://www.brainwashed.com/rot/

but the option to send them back is dead and buried.

lol at the "hipsters aren't listening to their records" thing.

turntables also last a fuck of a long time. my technics SL-QD35, handed down from my dad, was still going strong until the cat knocked it over a couple months ago. every thrift store in the country has at least one kinda shitty table and maybe some better ones. most people i know listen to vinyl on really awful tinny little plastic things, dunno if it's the cartridge or the shit speakers or what but their records sound like shit. but they love it! listen to 'em all the time! what a bad article.