What am I missing?


When discussing streaming we often hear the quality achieved by streaming compared to "cd quality". "Cd quality" seems often to be the standard by which streaming is favorably compared while cds have at the same widely fallen into disfavor as a medium. If "cd quality" continues to be a quality standard by which we judge streaming services -which it appears to be- why exactly do we hold cds in such disfavor? More sophisticated dacs can always be employed with cd transports as they are with streaming. I understand the convenience and storage issues with cds but I also understand that with streaming you will never own the music which you do with cds. This becomes even more unclear to me when considering the resurgence of vinyl and the storage and convenience issues involved with this medium. I don't believe the music industry ever wanted us to own the music we listen to but rather preferred we only rent and pay for that music each time.

128x128pmiller115

1. RedBook CD

2. XRCD

3. SACD

4. Ripped version of each above saved in a NAS

5. Streamed version of #s 1,2,3

 

Put these in order of SQ 

"Mass market" standards rarely meet the expectations of audiophiles-- the bulk of consumer electronics sold are cheap, essentially disposable, can tie into a phone or computer and CD is certainly better than MP.3 

I think you have to put all this into context -- when the record business was booming based on physical media sales, the big labels had money to advance to unknown bands to develop. The labels took the risk on a lot of artists that never made it in the hope that one would grab the gold ring and make up for these outlays.

When Napster first opened the door to file sharing, everybody was "Yeah, I don't wanna pay for a whole album. I just want one track." (Assuming that they were willing to pay for even that much). I don't lay the demise of the old industry structure entirely on the advent of file sharing-- there was heavy reliance on legacy acts, less A &R and more follow the trend than ever, but artists who did sell got paid through advances, whether or not they fully earned them back. 

Now we are at a point where the majors got gutted, pretty much like the major motion picture companies- no more back lots, no more in house studios and performance spaces-- simply distribution arms. The gate keeper is Big Data. Music is more commoditized than ever. And it almost always migrates downward to the lowest common denominator. 

At the same time, we are still enjoying a hi-fi renaissance in our little corner of the universe- more vinyl, turntables, tonearms, cartridges, etc. than ever. But, think about all the threads here now devoted to streaming--its easy, convenient and can sound pretty good. You are paying more for the gear and services that will do that, but its a small investment compared to what you'd wind up spending on physical media. 

It's also a no-win for the artists. Touring is costly, ticket prices are hard to justify and unless a song catches and gets used in a tv show or commercial, very few songwriters make big money these days. The supporting musicians make very little. Composing for film or TV can still be lucrative. I feel for the artists, try to support them in various ways, but the reality is, music isn't the kind of high priority purchase that it might have been in the '70s when a good stereo was part of the lifestyle. "Good enough" is usually fine. 

2nd - 

As above, the Entertainment Industry (Film and Music) do not want the Consumer to own Physical media.  Beware.

 

Happy Listening!

Many good points brought forward in this thread. I’ve never had a vinyl collection worth talking about nor a setup that would make it worth listening to so I ditched it all 30+ years ago and went with CD format. Even today I feel Redbook format is the best- especially when ripped for solid state drive playback.

There have been a few threads in the past couple of days regarding music and its availability, accessibility, how we find it and prefer to use it. In reading these I see how many have/are embracing the world of streaming and although I understand all of the positive points I just can’t get past the sound quality- I don’t feel it’s there regardless of what format it claims to be.

As of today I stream music frequently with my low budget Sonos but that is only for auditioning new stuff to buy. As I don’t want to be totally closed minded to the fact that many others here are really happy with streaming I can’t help but think there must be some combination of equipment that would pull the streaming experience up to that of what I’m using now. But what is that $$ amount? 

Does it take $5K, $10K or is it more like $20K before you reach a level that equals or bests great Redbook playback? I’ve thought about it a lot but I’m just not sure. Maybe that question should become the topic of another thread.

Terrabyte drives have become dirt cheap.

Load from the source of your preference, with the means of choice.

Save the vid/images/lyrics of same with same.

Next itteration of means/media, transfer.

Soon enough, you can 'go to the concert, pick where 'at' it you want, and how you hear it'.

Our era is fading away, as is always the case.

Live the future, live with it...or stay put where you choose.

I prefer to pursue, in the method and means of my choice and costs.

Same deal, different day.... ;)