New decade, end of the CD?

I'm totally in favor of the end of CDs.
I think of lot of people here seemed confused.
I think what most people are actually thinking is that they still want a physical copy of the album/EP they are buying and just because CDs disappear doesn't mean access to physical copies will/should end.

The Red Book format was first released in 1980. Before I was even born.
The sampling rate is 44.1Khz, which is perfectly fine.
What isn't so fine about CDs, and the reason why I want to see them come to an end is that they are limited to a bit depth of 16 bits.

It's time to move onto a higher quality format than this.
It's become standard practice in studios across the world, be it professional or "home/hobbyist" studios like my own for example to record in 24 bit for many years now, yet the Red Book format lags behind at 16 bits, which is just ridiculous.
Eventually, the standard for recording will be 32 bits, possibly as soon as the next few years.
So why should we continue to use CDs? I see no reason to.

We need to move forward to a digital physical format capable of AT LEAST a 44.1KHz sampling rate and a bit depth of 32 bit.
Many will argue for a higher sampling rate, which is fair enough, but given the styles of music that hold the music sales domination don't really benefit from being recorded at a higher sampling rate than 44.1KHz it's definitely not the necessity that moving to 32 bit depth is.

Henry Plainview wrote: But can you really hear a difference between 16 and 32 bit? Maybe it's because I can have tinnitus and can't really tell the difference between the CD and a damn Youtube video, but I'm a bit skeptical of audiophiles claiming they can hear all these things.

Petrovsk Mizinski wrote: I'm totally in favor of the end of CDs. I think of lot of people here seemed confused. I think what most people are actually thinking is that they still want a physical copy of the album/EP they are buying and just because CDs disappear doesn't mean access to physical copies will/should end. The Red Book format was first released in 1980. Before I was even born. The sampling rate is 44.1Khz, which is perfectly fine. What isn't so fine about CDs, and the reason why I want to see them come to an end is that they are limited to a bit depth of 16 bits. It's time to move onto a higher quality format than this. It's become standard practice in studios across the world, be it professional or "home/hobbyist" studios like my own for example to record in 24 bit for many years now, yet the Red Book format lags behind at 16 bits, which is just ridiculous. Eventually, the standard for recording will be 32 bits, possibly as soon as the next few years. So why should we continue to use CDs? I see no reason to. We need to move forward to a digital physical format capable of AT LEAST a 44.1KHz sampling rate and a bit depth of 32 bit. Many will argue for a higher sampling rate, which is fair enough, but given the styles of music that hold the music sales domination don't really benefit from being recorded at a higher sampling rate than 44.1KHz it's definitely not the necessity that moving to 32 bit depth is.

Agreed. The increased audio quality for DVD-A (96KHz/24bit) is IMO largely due to the increase in dynamic range (16bit -> 24bit).

What I'd like to see is a bit more variety in digital downloads ... like a compressed 88.2KHz/24bit format or something like that. There is no technical problem, playback devices and software can easily be built to take any reasonable combination of sample rate, word size and compression (bitrate).

But since that is probably not going to happen, the next step will be a shift towards more and more releases only being available as MP3.

Physical formats for music will probably be practically dead or nearly dead by the end of the decade.

Mp3s will NEVER take out the CD... there are still enough people who enjoy the grasp of an album in their hands. Hell, vinyl is even coming bacK!

Henry Plainview wrote: jammun wrote: stonebeard wrote: Physical formats for music will probably be practically dead or nearly dead by the end of the decade. That's not going to stop my stubborn ass (my capricious donkey, I mean) from buying them (he's never been one to care about trends). Yep, this was the spirit of the article I read.  Not that just the CD will be dead, but that any physical format will be dead.  It'll all be downloadable format only.  And in looking for a decent CD player (which ain't cheap by the way, even at the low end), I'm assuming equipment manufacturers are already reacting given that I'm going to have to cough up $400 for a player (assuming I want a component quality player to replace the ol' carousel). $400 for a CD player? Why would it be so expensive?

Because they only really make 30$ CD players or 400$ ones nowadays, and the 30$ ones sound like AM radio.

Computer + speakers = CD player and 50,000,000 other things.

Henry Plainview wrote: In what respect would a $400 CD player be different from the CD player in my computer? I understand the differences for vinyl, but it's a laser, how much distortion can there be...

You really need to read up on these things more Henry, lol.
A more expensive CD played is going to have higher quality DACs in it.
All things being equal, this alone can make a noticeable difference in sound quality.
Also, if you're paying 400 dollars, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out the components are probably going to be of better quality too, which makes a difference.
Of course there is a point where the law of diminishing returns will eventually come into play, which is why the difference between a 5000 dollar and 20 000 dollar CD player is going to be sh*t all, and no one except rich people can really justify that 2 per cent performance increase (or whatever small percentage it may be) that the 15000 dollars bring.
But there is easily a difference between a 10 dollar and 400 dollar CD player. You'd have to have the world's sh*ttiest speakers or be deaf not to hear the difference, seriously.

mystic fred wrote: CD discs will remain as a static storage medium as hard drives are still too unreliable for long term archiving - i have thrown away several broken hard drives over the years, and wouldn't trust them.

Yes, true enough now, but don't forget about our little friend called Solid State Drives.
SSD eliminate the need for moving parts, so the chances of failure that we see in current mechanical hard drives caused by failure of the moving parts is virtually nil, probably in the realms of totally impossible in fact.
They have extreme shock resistance and can withstand a number of other extreme conditions that would kill a "normal" hard drive.
Within a few years, the price per gigabyte will be sufficiently low to be a more appealing purchase for a wider range of consumer.

^ How many bits do you hear on them?