[charmerci]

....companies need to stop with lossy formats. Unfortunately, they have to want to do that, or the market has to prove that people want it.

It's my thought that companies won't do that because I think most of the people who buy non-lossy music want higher quality/resolution.

[JLM]

The danger comes from the very question I've posed and the discussion it's generated.  If lossy/wireless was obviously inferior to the general public, the question wouldn't have to be asked.  Compared to 8 tracks, cheap cassettes, radio, or records worn down on cheap turntables lossy is much better sounding and probably more importantly to the mass market - way more convenient (easier/more flexible).  Vinyl must seem more than quant (downright antique) to 20/30 somethings, akin to making your own butter (what's butter they may ask). 

It's a brave new world.

[RDavidson]

It's my thought that companies won't do that because I think most of the people who buy non-lossy music want higher quality/resolution.

Right. Exactly. Click on that link I provided. We (who care about quality) are but a tiny fraction of the current market. There's no way the big dogs would stop producing lossy files without either 1. Deciding to do something different/better like Tidal or 2. The market pushes them to do so.

[Quiet Earth]

I don't know.    If you really cared about quality then why would you play flac from a computer into a USB DAC? There is not much of a difference between that and the poor guy streaming 320k from his phone. (They are certainly more similar than different to me.)

[RDavidson]

Really? The differences are easily apparent in a system that will reveal such.....which is not something the vast majority of "casual listeners" would likely have, though I don't think a system necessarily has to be truly hi-end to do the job. Keep in mind that "a computer" can be anything from a 10 year old noisy Acer laptop to a purpose built music server. You're covering a lot of ground in your statement, QE. Of course, there's always the factor of the quality of the original recording too, which can virtually negate any differences in format resolution. Can you explain your POV further?

[Quiet Earth]

Really? The differences are easily apparent in a system that will reveal such.....which is not something the vast majority of "casual listeners" would likely have. Keep in mind that "a computer" can be anything from a 10 year old noisy Acer laptop to a purpose built music server. You're covering a lot of ground in your statement, QE. Can you explain your POV further?

Well, it's the irony of the post I guess. Why worry about the guy with the phone when your own source is almost the same as his? In the cheap and chearful world, there is not much difference between the lossless computer audio guy and the guy who streams 320k from the Internet or a phone. They are more similar than different. They sure sound that way to me anyway. Neither are good sources.

The only time I have heard computer audio sound close to good is when there was a considerable amount of money involved in the gear. And even then, it just barely approaches what a killer red book CD player can do. Just my opinion, ymmv, etc.

[RDavidson]

Thanks QE. That makes sense, especially in light of thinking about C&C.

Yes, file playback from a computer is more complicated than I think many realize and I can see how a purpose built machine (CD player) could sound better. Yes, it's certainly YMMV, though lossless (high resolution) files have a greater potential than redbook. Not saying in practice that this alone will always ensure "better" sound quality. It doesn't, as you have experienced for yourself.

[G Georgopoulos]

there are too many bad speakers out there than sources, so your point as to good source sound sounds thin....

[rajacat]

Well, it's the irony of the post I guess. Why worry about the guy with the phone when your own source is almost the same as his? In the cheap and chearful world, there is not much difference between the lossless computer audio guy and the guy who streams 320k from the Internet or a phone. They are more similar than different. They sure sound that way to me anyway. Neither are good sources.

The only time I have heard computer audio sound close to good is when there was a considerable amount of money involved in the gear. And even then, it just barely approaches what a killer red book CD player can do. Just my opinion, ymmv, etc.

Actually, shouldn't computer lossless sound better than a CD player? The CD player introduces noise and inaccuracies because it's a mechanical device whereas computer files don't have any moving parts. IMO the CD player is almost obsolete. Relating to convenience, with a computer as the source you can select songs or whole album in various resolutions and select whatever you want to play in whatever order for any length of time.

[Quiet Earth]

Sounds logical. Just doesn't sound as good to me though. But that is just my opinion. I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

As for convenience, I find the whole computer thing less convenient. More fiddly. More time screwing around with the computer, less time listening to music. It's pretty easy to load a cd and press play. I like listening to an entire album. But that's just me.

[JLM]

QE, I dragged my feet for years (CDP vs ripped music) until all but my most ancient CDP had died.  Of course the CD had to be spun by someone sometime but computers and their readers can sample many many times to retrieve all the information.  And computers can manipulate/organize your music.  After the initial setup computers are more convenient than CDP's.  (I can play music endlessly without doing a thing or change selections from my laptop/phone without getting up.) 

Having an Apple computer has been a big help (better sound, simpler to use, no crashes).  Unfortunately while the ideal form and price the Squeeze Box I owned was a nightmare of glitches that I couldn't figure out.  Bluesound should  be more stable and sound better than nearly any CDP and a good (and lower cost) compromise if you don't want to deal with computers. 

With Tidal offering a nearly unlimited CD quality library for $20 per month and the availability of hi-res downloads I've decided that the future is firmly pointing towards "computed listening".  Your CDP can't play high resolution music.  And who even sells CDP's (or repairs) anymore? 

[Johnny2Bad]

The danger comes from the very question I've posed and the discussion it's generated.  If lossy/wireless was obviously inferior to the general public, the question wouldn't have to be asked.  Compared to 8 tracks, cheap cassettes, radio, or records worn down on cheap turntables lossy is much better sounding and probably more importantly to the mass market - way more convenient (easier/more flexible).  Vinyl must seem more than quant (downright antique) to 20/30 somethings, akin to making your own butter (what's butter they may ask). 

It's a brave new world.

Not sure I agree that "Compared to 8 tracks, cheap cassettes, radio, or records worn down on cheap turntables lossy is much better sounding ...".

Cassette tape, in particular, have a certain sound quality that I find vastly better than lossy digital ... like all magnetic tape, the predominant distortion is the 3rd harmonic, which falls to negligible amounts as the saturation level falls is very easy to listen to, and higher order harmonics are well tamed, while the electronics evolved by the late 70's to a point where cassette SQ competed easily with vinyl.

I'm not suggesting the best of lossy digital isn't remarkably good considering the technical barriers that had to be overcome ... satellite radio sounds amazingly good considering the compression system used (the bitrate is well below 128k mp3), but the old analog formats definitely have their charms, and an all-night session of cassette on the hifi or in the car never, in my experience, drew out the listener fatigue digital does.

Although the corporate greed has long infested broadcast radio with an almost criminal level of compression, you can still find a good AM and FM broadcast here and there. At it's best, with decent receiving gear (almost impossible to find in new audio equipment, where we find the same receiving chipsets in an expensive receiver as the table radio) analog broadcast has wonderful sound quality. And yes, I do include AM in there.

I don't want to make too large a point about it, so please don't read the above as a criticism, more along the lines of an observation, and my own at that.

-----

Somewhat more on-topic, it really is about the music, not the path taken. I love to have the Sirius music run through the car system (which I build to be unusually high SQ) and at home through the HiFi, because there is in my opinion no better way to expose myself to new artists, different genres other than my own defaults and habits. I still buy CDs and lately the majority of those purchases are because of my first exposure on the sat.

So lossy digital turns to lossless digital (and analog LPs) in my world. I don't listen to lossy music otherwise, but that's not the point. It's always been that way ... FM radio in my teens and early 20's drove my LP purchases. I wonder if all the angst about getting people more involved in "the hobby" would be tempered somewhat if we looked a little deeper to see if young people are making the same transition from low-fi to HiFi and using lossy digital as the tool to make it happen, and found it so.

[Phil A]

And who even sells CDP's (or repairs) anymore?

CD players are still made but less numerous than they were a decade back.  There are people who can fix them.  Most of the modern ones use a particular drive and software that is written for that drive.  The drive is usually only made by the (drive) manufacturer for a limited number of years (e.g. 7) and then once it goes it is doubtful the company that manufactured the player will re-write software and use another drive.  Also many of them (CD players) of excellent quality are not cheap.  I have two Hollis Audio Labs music servers, had one for several years and one a shorter period of time.  I've had a $2.5k dedicated CD player at the time I went to file playback and the music server at $800 beats it sound quality wise on CD quality file playback (yes of course I miss physical media a bit as that is what I grew up on) and of course the DAC can play high quality than CD.  So, given all the music I have and buy, I don't want to sink more in a CD player that is destined at some point to be a doorstop.  Before the dedicated CD player I had a $2.6k (tube) mod to a $3k CD/SACD player (I bought that lighty used for $1.7k) and to my ears (and I get to hear a similar mod to a friend's Oppo BDP-95 on a regular basis), I am happy where I am now.  I wouldn't say I was dragged into file playback (6 years back I would have said no way I'd consider it) but I saw the handwriting on the wall and today many fewer dedicated CD players are made than there were in the past.

[JLM]

Yeah I was writing somewhat facetiously regarding selling/repairing CDPs, but the technology is quickly becoming rare.  With high speed internet, the popularity in portability, and streaming services like Tidal and Netflix who even needs a disk player of any kind? 

My MacBook Air is a perfect example: operating system was preinstalled, software was downloaded wirelessly from the web, files from my iMac were downloaded via our wireless home network.  The only physical connections it makes to the rest of the world are for occasional power, every 10 day backup to a HD, old fashioned ripping of CDs (I buy most used at bargain prices/still like owning a physical copy), and my (again old fashioned) USB connection to my music system.  The MacBook Air has a solid state drive and no physical drives, so easy it confuses me sometimes.

[Quiet Earth]

That's what your friend with the iphone thinks. Where is the sacrelige in what he is doing?

As digital technology advances, sound quality gradually deteriorates. People get used to it and over time they accept it. They say, it sounds good. Or it sounds better. I am completely baffled.

We are all enabling a world of MP3 downloads with no CDs to purchase and no CD drives to rip old physical media. Of course, the CD has got to go away first. We keep saying that it's dead, but here we are near the end of 2015 and we are up to our ears in them.

"Who needs a CD player?" I do. I like to play them one at a time as they were intended to be played. I guess I am old fashioned and out of touch. Time will march on without me.

[Phil A]

"Who needs a CD player?" I do. I like to play them one at a time as they were intended to be played. I guess I am old fashioned and out of touch. Time will march on without me.

I was exactly that way 5 years ago.  I swore I'd never go to file playback.  But in my old audio group in Northern VA, I got the opportunity to hear it first hand.  Hollis Audio Labs makes a really nice and reasonable music server. Rich Hollis personally came over to my old VA house several years back for a get together with two music servers.  I had one in main system and one in the secondary basement system.  I owned at the time a nice CD player and have owned very nice disc spinners over time in addition to borrowing expensive ones from either friends or on a short term loan from a dealer.  It was an eye (or should I say ear) opening experience to me.  I made the plunge with reluctance at first.  Now my discs are in the closet.  I took out a few yesterday for the guest room system as I traded the speakers I had in there for another pair and have a Marantz DV9600 universal up in the guest room for playback (and when Oppo makes a new player, whenever that is, I'll move one of my Oppo 103D players in there with a hard drive).  I do understand why people love physical media though.

[geowak]

"Reminds me of the classic audiophile paradox: if trapped on an island would you rather have a killer system that could make 5 albums sound great (but the rest like crap) or a lesser system that would make everything sound OK."

I have listened to many, many musical artists and offerings I would not have otherwise heard by using Spotify and earlier MOG. So streaming offers a library I could not dream of having on my own. Not to mention titles get added, probably every day or every hour. So yes I could save enough money to get that Shindo Garrard 301 turntable and maybe a pair of Magico speakers with er....the current flavor of hifi mono amps. Two preamp(s)... one line level, one phono. Maybe MBL...or ARC. Where am I at?  $250K? All that and I could get a library of 30 albums. The 30 albums will sound great..... I know.

I am NOT knocking those who can take the ultimate HIFI approach. God Bless ya. I just do not have that kind of mulah and probably could not spend that kind of money on ultimate sound. Even if I would enjoy it.

[rajacat]

"Reminds me of the classic audiophile paradox: if trapped on an island would you rather have a killer system that could make 5 albums sound great (but the rest like crap) or a lesser system that would make everything sound OK."

I have listened to many, many musical artists and offerings I would not have otherwise heard by using Spotify and earlier MOG. So streaming offers a library I could not dream of having on my own. Not to mention titles get added, probably every day or every hour. So yes I could save enough money to get that Shindo Garrard 301 turntable and maybe a pair of Magico speakers with er....the current flavor of hifi mono amps. Two preamp(s)... one line level, one phono. Maybe MBL...or ARC. Where am I at?  $250K? All that and I could get a library of 30 albums. The 30 albums will sound great..... I know.

I am NOT knocking those who can take the ultimate HIFI approach. God Bless ya. I just do not have that kind of mulah and probably could not spend that kind of money on ultimate sound. Even if I would enjoy it.

Why go with Spotify when lossless Tidal is available?

[JLM]

QE, I see digital technology advancing in two directions: convenience and sound quality.  Smaller, lighter, cheaper, easier access, more portable, and flexiblity are all convenience issues.  Better hardware (converters/chips), and higher capacity formats are audiophile sound quality issues.  And check out the stream vs. library thread here at C&C too.  You can access via streaming of nearly unlimited music, at roughly the depreciation rate of a nice CD player.  This is a win for convenience (lossy via Spotify at $10/month) and sound quality (Redbook via Tidal at $20/month).

The question should be: is there room enough for casual listening convenience and improving sound quality?  As always audiophiles are at the mercy of producers: what are their sonic priorities(an old issue)?  can they make a profit from releasing Redbook/hi-res formats?  will they be willing to issue lossy and higher resolution versions of the same recording?

[srb]

Why go with Spotify when lossless Tidal is available?

Not to mention that Spotify doesn't have Taylor Swift!