Stop Making CD'S - Lets Use MP3'S Instead.

[audioicon]

Two things really boils my blood about sound/music.

 

1. People who think and argued MIDI is audio.

 

2. People who say MP3 as low as 192 is the same as CD quality.

 

So my question is, why don't they stop the production of CD?

 

Every time I sit to eat with some friends, they'll sprinkled salt and pepper on the food without even tasting it! When I'm passed the salt and pepper I'll say wait, let me taste the food first.

 

The same for the MP3, why hire a world class engineer to mix your music when it is going to be on itunes at 128kbps?

 

The way music is treated nowadays, is like quality doesn't really matter.

 

Why are people recording at 192khz or 96khz? Just record the damn thing at 16bits 24khz sample rate and people will still like it.

 

In my opinion there are reasons music are recorded by professionals the way they do, there is a reason people use world class equipments, expensive/vintage microphones. Why would I want to alter that? Why would I want to mess with a breathtaking George Martin mix?

 

I recently hire a DJ to play at a party and warned him, you play any MP3 at 128kbps you are not getting paid.

 

Since I'm not serving my guests KFC chicken, don't play screwed up 128kb mp3.

 

It's almost like a crime to ask for better music.

 

There are people I know personally, in the forum and other places that will argue that the Itunes MP3 quality is the same as the CD'S. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But if I was to release an album, especially in the pop and R&B genre, I'll save money on quality and use the money for promotion.

 

 

So since MP3 has been "proliferated" by the IPODS/ITUNES, why can't CD be discontinued? Will CD be discontinued?

 

AI

[MichaelSaulnier]

McDonalds has sold billions of hamburgers.

 

I don't like them much, and almost never eat them.

 

In and Out Burger gets my burger business because it is cooked with better ingredients and in most people's opinions tastes noticably better.

 

Apparently there are lots of people who don't care if In and Out is better. Even when there's one right across the street, they still eat at MickeyD's.

 

Stupid silly humans.

 

I don't know how we put up with them.

 

If only we could put something IN the McDonalds burgers that would keep people eating them from reproducing.

 

Same with mp3's vs CD or Vinyl... to anyone who has "taste", the differences are obvious.

 

But for many... sadly... they are not. Or even if they are... they just don't care.

 

CD's or something similar will be around for the people who do care.

 

Just like In and Out.

 

M

[nerol1st]

Eh it is what it is man. I personally don't encode mp.3 any lower than 320 mbps. The only reason for mp.3 is because it's smaller than wav or aiff... alot smaller.

 

It's quantity not quality. Yes it sucks but ultimately to me it's like beating a dead horse. Young buyers don't give a {censored} about CDs anymore. Fidelity? Yeah right they just want to cram a million lossy mp.3 songs on their ipods and have it running in the background while they do... whatever.

 

Personally I don't care about the CD either, I wish they could sell Wav files via download. But that won't ever happen. I have found 1 band that sold their album as both apple loss less and mp.3.

[audioicon]

 

Eh it is what it is man. I personally don't encode mp.3 any lower than 320 mbps. The only reason for mp.3 is because it's smaller than wav or aiff... alot smaller. It's quantity not quality. Yes it sucks but ultimately to me it's like beating a dead horse. Young buyers don't give a {censored} about CDs anymore. Fidelity? Yeah right they just want to cram a million lossy mp.3 songs on their ipods and have it running in the background while they do... whatever. Personally I don't care about the CD either, I wish they could sell Wav files via download. But that won't ever happen. I have found 1 band that sold their album as both apple loss less and mp.3.

 

 

That's my point, If I'm making an album, why would I want to waste money on hiring expensive engineers and big studios? Who really cares?

 

I listen to some of the songs that win Grammy's the audio is just pure garbage.

 

The time could not be better for do it yourself recording, perfection really doesn't have a place anymore.

 

AI

[blue2blue]

And books looked better when they were hand lettered and ornamented by scribes in monasteries.

 

 

As long as today's product is mastered by tin-eared wonders with one hand on the Distressor and the other on the check from some tin-eared suit at the label, the difference between 'full' CD quality and the kind of 128 kbps AACs that have made Apple a top music retailer is going to be lost on consumers.

 

 

Right now, I'm listening to a mix of music from the "O, Brother" soundtrack, a couple of older Alison Krauss albums, and the Krauss-Plant project, "Raising Sand."

 

"Sand" and "O, Brother" were both produced by T-Bone Burnett. Yet every time a tune from the Krauss-Plant album comes on, I have to lower the volume 5 or 6 dB.

 

And "Raising Sand" was praised in many quarters for how "unsquashed" it is... in comparison to other contemporary product. For instance, one of my few more or less contemporary faves, Modest Mouse, have long had competitively loud albums. But their latest is so squashed that I can't even mix it up with their older tracks in the player because of the extreme volume jumps make the transitions super jarring. And, frankly, despite how much I like the band, I've only heard that album a few times because it is so gawdawful crushed/squashed/ruined. It really doesn't matter what format they release it in. The current mastering is pretty much unlistenable.

 

 

With regard to 192 kbps mp3s -- not to mention the generally higher quality formats like AAC, WMA, and Ogg -- a little truly double blind testing can be a real eye-opener to those who are positive they can always tell the diff. (Happily, such a comparison isn't too hard with play randomization and a hand firmly clamped over the ol' eyes.)

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not better to use higher bitrates when practical. I'm just saying that I firmly believe a lot of folks flatter their own ability to discern the differences.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Two things really boils my blood about sound/music. 1. People who think and argued MIDI is audio. 2. People who say MP3 as low as 192 is the same as CD quality.

 

 

I don't believe I've ever met a single person who believes either of these two things.

[UstadKhanAli]

Also, I'd much rather listen to a really well-recorded song encoded on a 192kbps MP3 than a mediocre-recorded song on a CD.

 

In other words, the initial recording still makes a much greater difference than whether the end result is 192kbps MP3s or CDs.

[blue2blue]

On the peculiar MIDI-is-audio thing... I've run into newbs who were confused about just what MIDI is, but even when they have popped into a forum and asked a question or questions that have been asked a thousand times and that a quick trip to Wikipedia would clear up, I can't say it's really taken my blood temp up to boiling...

 

I mean... there are so many really bad things to get mad about [like genocide or my favorite bands or remasterings of favorite old albums getting squashed by tin-eared mastering "engineers"] -- some clueless newb is hardly worthy of getting tied up in knots over, I shouldn't think...

 

[Anderton]

I feel like playing devil's advocate today

 

First of all, I agree that MP3s suck in terms of quality compared to uncompressed files. I like AAC and WMA better, but they're still not what I want to hear. So, I don't want the CD (or a better successor!) to fade into history.

 

BUT - if it wasn't for compressed audio, I couldn't fit thousands of CDs into a Zen player that fits in my pocket, and take it with me on trips. To me the MP3 replaces the cassette, not the CD.

[audioicon]

I feel like playing devil's advocate today First of all, I agree that MP3s suck in terms of quality compared to uncompressed files. I like AAC and WMA better, but they're still not what I want to hear. So, I don't want the CD (or a better successor!) to fade into history. BUT - if it wasn't for compressed audio, I couldn't fit thousands of CDs into a Zen player that fits in my pocket, and take it with me on trips. To me the MP3 replaces the cassette, not the CD.

 

MP3 is for convenience in terms of packaging. It's like having a little suitcase with many compartments that can carry a lot of things when you are traveling.

 

It's like fast food, I rather called it convenient food. But that should never be the standard for good cooking.

 

Music and sound are very subjective to who ever is doing the listening and it can be argued by everyone that CD quality is the same as 192kbps, that's fine. That's their way of seeing and tasting it.

 

I will never, ever take "my Bruce Swedien- Trailer Mix and turn it into anything less then 320kbps."

Let me be clear when I say CD audio I'm referring to the original mastered format for release, not CD per say.

 

I'll still stick to my point, never waste money on a mix or mastered, get the kid from across the street in the 4th grade to mastered it using Fruity loops and you are fine.

 

The philosophy is not how good it sound but how many you can pack into the player!

 

AI

[UstadKhanAli]

I love MP3s personally.

 

We can send mixes, different versions of songs, etc. by email. They're small and compact on the HD. We do the whole radio show for The Tibet Connection with MP3s because of the thousands of miles between us.

 

MP3s sound decent at higher compression rates, so much so that when a producer at the NARAS forum edited between a song on a Steely Dan CD and a 160kbps MP3 ripped from iTunes, everyone in the audience admitted that it was difficult to tell the difference and that they surely missed a lot of edits. And this was a room full of engineers, producers, and musicians who have ears, not just any ol' audience.

 

Bottom line: if you want a great sounding MP3, make a great sounding recording.

 

P.S. I'm by no stretch saying that MP3s are the way to go for high fidelity. What I am saying is that they actually sound good enough that the original recording makes a far bigger difference than whether it's MP3 or CD.

[audioicon]

 

I don't believe I've ever met a single person who believes either of these two things.

 

 

There is a guy in the Cakewalk forum or maybe here who has that as a "Signature." I have met people who constantly argued that the sound you are hearing from the keyboard is MIDI.

 

You haven't met these people but some are around.

 

AI

[audioicon]

 

I love MP3s personally. We can send mixes, different versions of songs, etc. by email. They're small and compact on the HD. We do the whole radio show for The Tibet Connection with MP3s because of the thousands of miles between us. MP3s sound decent at higher compression rates, so much so that when a producer at the NARAS forum edited between a song on a Steely Dan CD and a 160kbps MP3 ripped from iTunes, everyone in the audience admitted that it was difficult to tell the difference and that they surely missed a lot of edits. And this was a room full of engineers, producers, and musicians who have ears , not just any ol' audience. Bottom line: if you want a great sounding MP3, make a great sounding recording. P.S. I'm by no stretch saying that MP3s are the way to go for high fidelity. What I am saying is that they actually sound good enough that the original recording makes a far bigger difference than whether it's MP3 or CD.

 

 

 

The essence of MP3 compression technology is for packaging. You have a recording and need to send it over the internet.

With the proliferation of "High Speed internet" and hopefully dial up will become something of the past in several years from now, I see no reason trashing a good mix like that.

 

So for convenient and packaging lots of songs - then it's fine. But regardless, it becoming more of an acceptable format then the CD audio.

So why not just sell everything as MP3?

 

We should have music stores where you can walk in take an SD Card put it in a machine and just buy your mp3's and walk out - No CD.

 

And 90% of people I know using IPODS or other players don't see any difference between the 128kbps they are getting from Itunes and the actual mastered CD version.

 

AI

[UstadKhanAli]

Time and time again, the general public has shown that they prefer convenience over quality.

 

This is not only with music (cassettes, anyone?) but with, say, cameras. Since cameras are now typically the size of credit cards and all, most people now automatically think that I'm a professional photographer when I pull out a relatively modest D-SLR.

 

And why would you have stores for MP3s when you can buy them from iTunes in a second?

 

You can get pissed at bad sounding but convenient audio, but you also have to realize that it's not going anywhere - and that it's been around for quite some time. Bad audio was around with Sony Walkmans playing cassettes, and before that, 8-tracks. And compared to those two formats, a 192kbps or above MP3 sounds noticeably better. I know people love to romanticize about the good audio of yesteryear, but the truth of the matter is that since I've been a kid, "convenient" audio has actually improved in sound quality.

 

Now, I'm ONLY talking about "convenient" audio (8-tracks, cassettes, iPods).

 

If we're talking music recording and production, well, that's a whole 'nother story!!!

[blue2blue]

SD Cards (cardlettes?) are a pretty odd notion of a distribution format -- but there was recently a thread here on just such a development.

 

I frequently pop the SD card in and out of my Cannon digicam (since the USB2 cable port is even harder to get at and scarier to use) and it makes me nervous every single time I do so. It is simply not designed for frequent r-and-r. (At least this particular SD card doesn't let its write-protect switch get repositioned with a hard breath like the SD card I used in my 'old' Nikon digicam -- an otherwise decent cam which died [like many of its model, I found from surfing after the fact] after only a couple years of light use. Kinda ticked me off.)

[slight-return]

 

Every time I sit to eat with some friends, they'll sprinkled salt and pepper on the food without even tasting it! When I'm passed the salt and pepper I'll say wait, let me taste the food first.

 

 

Hell, in many dining circles, altering the food at table (salt, pepper, etc) AT ALL is considered poor form [after tasting can come off as a direct insult]

 

Dining, audiophile, zymergy - take an activity and you'll probably find the 'quality thresholds' of others vary as George Carlin put it

 

"ever notice that anyone driving slower than you is an asshole and anyone driving faster than you is a maniac?"

 

Person A finds 44/16 wav the min, person B finds mechanically decoupled turntable McIntosh driven magnapans the bare min, and so it goes

 

Do what you need to do to your satisfaction...others will too, and the wheels spin

[FireWithin]

If you can't figure out that people are using lower bit rates because it speeds up their downloads while stealing music at this point....maybe you should just not be recording and making music.

 

....it's really, pretty clear to me.

[BlueStrat]

 

In other words, the initial recording still makes a much greater difference than whether the end result is 192kbps MP3s or CDs.

 

 

Indeed. And a poorly recorded CD will sound worse in an mp3 format than a well recorded one.

 

It's the same reason pro printers want to see files larger than 10 megabytes to work with.

[Super 8]

I recently hire a DJ to play at a party and warned him, you play any MP3 at 128kbps you are not getting paid. Since I'm not serving my guests KFC chicken, don't play screwed up 128kb mp3.

 

This is a really bizarre comparison. It's like saying the medium is the music. It isn't.

 

I listen to MP3's all the time, and I'm perfectly content to do so.

 

I have to laugh when purists start turning up their noses over mp3's. In most cases they wouldn't know a CD from an mp3 if it didn't have a label.

 

If you're really so concerned that your DJ was going to insult your guest's ears with poor audio quality, the place to start would have been examining his speakers and amps and the room acoustics, not whether or not he was using mp3's.

 

 

 

Michael Saulnier,

I eat at McD's often and I reproduce.

[the stranger]

Bad audio was around with Sony Walkmans playing cassettes, and before that, 8-tracks. And compared to those two formats, a 192kbps or above MP3 sounds noticeably better.

 

Cassette sounds better than mp3. It totally drives me bonkers that people can't hear the "simplification" that data reduction is doing to audio.

 

1. Extremely reduced harmonic content.

2. Extremely reduced depth and soundstage.

3. High frequency smearing and loss of detail.

4. High frequency artifacts.

 

This is just the first things that come to mind when describing what I hear listening to an mp3. Yes, I do have an mp3 player. Yes, I do use them for the convenience factor. Are they better than cassette, in terms of portability and lifespan? Yes.

 

Do they sound better? I'm not getting on that boat.

 

Did all you guys just get out of a time capsule or what? A high bias or metal tape in a good cassette deck (properly demagnetized and clean heads) sounds way better than an mp3.

 

The best way I can describe it is audio data compression flattens the audio. It becomes almost two-dimensional. At least to my ears.

 

I'm sure in a double blind test, you could fool me. 320k is going to at first glance sound clearer than the cassette, but it doesn't have the same depth and harmonic richness.

 

And the science behind audio data reduction backs up what I'm asserting. Just the fact that an mp3 (on average...128k) contains one tenth of the data of the original source file says it all. Anybody ever stop to consider that the other 90% just may have been critical to the accurate reproduction of that file?

[techristian]

 

Cassette sounds better than mp3.

 

 

Perhaps an old $3000 Nakamichi or TEAC deck, but most of the portable players that Ustan was referring to were NOT quality devices. How disappointed I was when my REAL SONY of MY OWNY Walkman (with ball bearing drives) STARTED CHEWING UP all of my tapes after a year !! Then I bought another SONY and it wouldn't even rewind after a few months. I had to flip the tape over and >> fast forward. Sorry, but I don't have any romantic memories of cassette.

 

The other factor is that many of us don't have the time to just SIT and LISTEN at home. My CAR (with 20-40 db of engine and tire noise) is where I listen to most of my music these days. I would rather have 1000 mp3s in there than 10 CDs that I play over and over and over.

 

When I'm in the studio, I'm going to produce the best quality I can, but for convenience mp3/wma can't be beat.

 

Dan

 

P.S.Did I forget to mention tape HISS?...even with Dolby..or DBX then you choked the highs.

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

Cassette sounds better than mp3.

 

 

Hey Stranger, pass that doob over here.

[Super 8]

Hey Stranger, pass that doob over here.

 

Yeah, don't bogart that joint my friend.

 

I've listened to enough cassettes on several hi-quality machines. I'll take mp3 over that in a heartbeat.

[blue2blue]

Cassette sounds better than mp3. It totally drives me bonkers that people can't hear the "simplification" that data reduction is doing to audio. 1. Extremely reduced harmonic content. 2. Extremely reduced depth and soundstage. 3. High frequency smearing and loss of detail. 4. High frequency artifacts. This is just the first things that come to mind when describing what I hear listening to an mp3. Yes, I do have an mp3 player. Yes, I do use them for the convenience factor. Are they better than cassette, in terms of portability and lifespan? Yes. Do they sound better? I'm not getting on that boat. Did all you guys just get out of a time capsule or what? A high bias or metal tape in a good cassette deck (properly demagnetized and clean heads) sounds way better than an mp3. The best way I can describe it is audio data compression flattens the audio. It becomes almost two-dimensional. At least to my ears. I'm sure in a double blind test, you could fool me. 320k is going to at first glance sound clearer than the cassette, but it doesn't have the same depth and harmonic richness. And the science behind audio data reduction backs up what I'm asserting. Just the fact that an mp3 (on average...128k) contains one tenth of the data of the original source file says it all. Anybody ever stop to consider that the other 90% just may have been critical to the accurate reproduction of that file?

 

 

I've owned 10 analog reel machines (5 of them multitrack) and scores of cassette machines. My two most expensive cassette machines were a high end Sony bought in 1984 for $385 ($759 adjusted for inflation to 2007 value) and a fancy Marantz I bought at my pro shop in 1995 for $770 ($1038 in 2007 dollars) -- assuming you mean by 'sounds better' that it's more accurate -- I have to call BS on your contention that "cassette sounds better than mp3."

 

Complete BS. Sorry.

 

And with regard to subjectivity issues... I guess if someone likes the supposedly "euphonic" distortion of tape saturation or actually likes the high end slur you get with cassettes -- or for some heavenforsaken reason actually likes the sound of flutter -- yeah, maybe he might like cassette audio.

 

I hated cassette audio from the very first 'high end' cassette stereo deck (a Sony, c. 1968 or 1969, I think, where the flutter was terrible and the HF response was dull and muted) to the last one I bought (the 'thousand dollar' Marantz mentioned in my first para)... Hate might be a big word for abject disappointment... but when I brought home that Marantz and plugged it in and listened the first thing I thought was -- Man, I hope the price drop on CD-writers happens soon! As it was, I couldn't wait much longer... my first CD-burner (1996, SCSI based) was $600 after a $200 rebate.

 

Not second too soon.

 

I could not wait to kiss the benighted, lo fi, fluttery cassette era to the gutter.

[Jeff da Weasel]

Stranger, just sews ya knows: it is considered common knowledge among the audio engineering field that the cassette was, with no exceptions, the worst-sounding, lowest-quality consumer music media ever invented. Even the lowly 8-track operated at twice the tape speed as the cassette, allowing for more high-fidelity reproduction.

 

The standard compact cassette offered a 45dB dynamic range. Even the typical 128kbps MP3 has that beat. In addition to the dynamic limitations, there were hideous frequency range limits, so a low-quality MP3 beats a cassette in both high-end and low-end timbre.

 

It wasn't good.