Slashdot Mirror
The Death of the Music CD
Rick Zeman writes "According to the Washington Post, the next new music format will be...no format. From the article: 'What the consumer would buy is a data file, and you could create whatever you need. If you want to make an MP3, you make an MP3. If you want a DVD-Audio surround disc, you make that.'"
...Until they DRM it every way but sideways.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Newsflash!
Not everyone in the world is a nerd.
Keep things simple. Buying CDs are simple. Hence, people will buy CDs.
So in other words, the format is WAV.
1p}{ 1 sp34k |33+ +|-|e|\| p30p13 \/\/il| 8e i/\/\pr3553|)
Sounds good on the surface. But this is only another way for them to force DRM down our throats to the point that we have no other choice but to either accept it or not buy music. My choice? Not buy music...
I'm also willing to bet Microsoft conveniently has patents on whatever technology would be proposed to "secure" the digital file.
bash: rtfm: command not found
Now indecisive people like me will be completely immobilized...
The music industry would *LOVE* to get rid of the music CD, so I see this as a trial balloon.
CD's are great because they have really good quality music in non-DRM format.
Keeping the CD's lets you rip to whatever new format or device that comes along.
Think it through...CD's are the consumer's best *and only* friend in the music business right now.
The death of the CD will come from RIAA tactics. Leave aside their random lawsuits of 80 year old grandmas, the reason people will stop buying CD's is because they are made to pay $20 for 15 tracks from an artist when only 1-2 of them are good. Back in the day when LPs were popular, you could buy a disc with just the one song you wanted. Now you're force fed tripe from the industry pushing their flavor of the month, big breasted, tiny brained, diva wannabes. Why would I want to pay $20 for a Jessica Simpson CD when there's maybe one track on there that I might like. Much better to be able to pay a buck and get the one song I want and put it on my Rio. That's actually another point, media size. When's the last time you've seen anyone walk around with a discman?
The nice thing about owning the CD is it gives you proof of ownership (unless you physically stole it).
FLAC actually takes very little CPU power to decompress; less than MP3, certainly. But they only compress to about 50% so a CD full of them could only hold two albums instead of one, which isn't gaining a whole lot. So I tend to leave my FLACs at home and convert them to something lossy to take with me.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
but, so far, all the major only music distribution has been in formats inferior to cd (probably all of it started out as the same bits as the cd release). .flac. I'd pay a little more than the cost of a cd to download the .flac out of a vast library including all the stuff I want and have yet to find. And it would cost the distributor far less as well.
I buy loads of music, and have a reasonably high-end computer-as-transport, headphone rig to listen to it. But I've yet to buy a single track online because of the quality issue (and drm). I buy and rip around 10 cds a month. Its a pain in the a$$ for me to find the music that suits my eclectic taste in CD form and then rip it to
If we could buy stuff in whatever format the artist wanted to output it in (pre-mixing/rendering even (opensource music)), the last remaining desire to have hard copy would be nullified for me:)
To prevent the industry (CD Retailers) from going entirely bankrupt though, perhaps the CD stores (current ones) could instead become "customizing stations", in which customers could request certain songs and have a professional (label, case, everything)CD made for them. Sure you could do it at home, but couldn't you always order a CD from Amazon? And since all the shop would really need is a burner, access to a database of songs, and a computer, it could be as small as a stall!
From the way I see it, the CD Retailers will:
A) Go out of business...
B) Take their shop online!
C) Merge with an existing online retailer (most likely)
D) Do the CD creation for customers by downsizing their shop to a music stall (in the mall).
It takes a high end 486 to a Pentium to decode MP3 files in the x86 world, yet there are MP3 players that last a long time on a single AA battery. All that someone would have to do is create a dedicated FLAC decoding chip.
Nah, they'll just throw out random bits and call it music, atleast that's what they do nowadays
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
MP3s lose information due to their compressions scheme. So if you converted from and MP3 to OGG to WMA you'd end up with file missing all of the information from each round of compression. Using a lossless encoding format, like FLAC or WMA Lossles, would allow you to copy to whichever media format you prefer.
That's what they really want to give us. .no copying, .no sharing, .no moving, .no ripping, .no burning...
But they only compress to about 50% so a CD full of them could only hold two albums instead of one
.75 of original size, and G'd up thuggin' west coast gangsta rap to .60 of original size. I assume that rap compresses better because it has much more redundancy, that is, "wut wut wut" and some bassline will compress better than your everyday rock song.
I used FLAC for a while, and I found that it compressed rock to about
In terms of cpu draw, I found that ripping a CD was not CPU bound when using FLAC, but limited to the speed of the cdrom drive. Even still, PC cdrom drives can process the audio off of a CD on their own (See grey cable) which is a testament to how little processing raw PCM data must take.
From the FAQ:Other nice things about Magnatune are:
Folks who pay for all their content will probably pay (relatively) less than they do now.
/. comment appropriately modded insightful.
At the same time it's completely wrong.
You mean like what happened with the switch from the (relatively) mechanically complex and expensive to manufacture cassettes, to the mind-numbingly simple and cheap CDs?
Hmm, does $4-$9 in 1980-dollars equate to $12-$25 in 2005 dollars? At 2.5% inflation per year, it doesn't even come close. Bummer.
A tipical
A tYpical **AA apologist comment modded insightful. At the same time it directly contradicts historical evidence.
Tell me, do you guys really believe this crap, or do you just post it as a form of trolling? Or do you all work for the **AA and they actually pay you to betray the rights of your own species to your soulless corporate masters?
1. MP3 is a standard too. It plays on all computers, all digital players (except the few old Sony players that noone bought), many cellphones and portable game consoles. And I bet that CD didn't become the standard it is today overnight.
2. I won't trust you, because it was proven time and time again, that audiophiles lose their ability to distinguish 128 from 192 and CD from MP3 as long as the testing is blind. 128Kbit MP3s are good enough for more than 90% of the people. And the latest OGG/AAC/WMA/MP3Pro are good enough for 99%.
3. That doesn't work. You are not an authority figure, so there is no reason to repeat after you anything. We can all think for ourselves and it is obvious that you can buy an album digitally just as you can buy a single track. In fact, right now I am playing an album (5 albums, to be more exact) and it is in MP3 format. BTW, I am quite happy that I don't have to change CDs...
4. You can't piss people off with that. We will just pity your stupidity. You can eat your placebos as much as you want, of course, but everyone else knows that there is no way to tell iPod playing MP3s from your super-dooper $3k device playing 48bit DVD-audio or whatever else, as long as the testing is done blind.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
They sure have a difficult time understanding that the old 20th century way of buying music is pretty much over.
The old way being you pay them 30-50% of the hourly minimum wage for a three to five minute recording on a stable physical medium.
They keep squeezing their heads to come up with new ways to keep this old form of business going, but it's fading every day.
The new music transaction format is much different. There is a completely different amount of music that the consumer gets for the same amount of money.
Now you buy an old hard disk that has 10 to 100 Gigabytes of MP3 or OGG compressed format audio of hundreds of albums in a certain genre or era of music. Some of it you keep, some of it you discard, some of it you will never listen to, some of it you pass on to others, some of it you alter, sample, or mix, and some of it you never know who the artist is.
Of course, you don't buy or trade these old hard disks full of unknown music from the music industry companies. It's not their business model. They couldn't even conceive of selling music in this way. They are doing everything that they can think of to actually put people in prison for selling or tranactioning music in this format.
But it doesn't matter. There has been a fundamental change in the nature of the distribution and storage format for audio in the past ten years. The music industry, which is a contradiction of terms in this new era, will have to come to terms with it.
Our terms.
One last thing, guys, don't put anyone in prison for listening to music. It will have long term nasty consequences, even including bloodshed when the penality for copying and listening to illegal music begins to approach the penality for kidnapping and killing music industry executives. And it won't stop or change the transformation that is happening in the entertainment industry. the new technology is a marketing challenge, not a criminal act that requires inprisonment.
We'd like to think that you won't let all this tough talk and macho posturing about putting people in jail and conficating their life savings for listening to music get out of control. But, frankly, we're losing our confidence in your ability to think rationally.
After all, it's only rock'n'roll.