Anyone gone exclusively digital?

I still collect CDs. For me, I don't feel like I really own anything by buying mp3s.

That said, I rip all my CDs to lossless and mp3 (the latter for iphone / ipad usage). To me that is not going exclusively digital but more about being practical about how I listen to my music - eliminating the need to carry CDs, eliminating the need of having additional equipment like an exclusive CD player etc. For me, I think it also enables my collection to stay in near mint condition.

On the flip side, I recently got Spotify - however for me it serves the sole purpose of discovering new bands or albums I hadn't heard before without having to resort to illegal downloading. It doesn't replace collecting albums. Basically, if I hear an album I like on Spotify I add it to my list of albums to buy. As a result of Spotify, my physical music collection has grown and diversified over the last several months - something that I don't think I could have achieved in the same span of time without Spotify.

Spotify is the only digital service to which I will subscribe and contribute to financially. Again I don't think I am doing it at the expense of the extinction of the physical format. If anything, I think for those of us who still collect albums, it will keep the physical format (be it CDs or vinyl) alive for some time to come.

UNCLE SAXON'S KICKASS CDS wrote:

DallasBlack wrote:

[ (who knows, when I'm your age I might be there-

Love ya DB. Love ya like my long lost Great Grandchild......

You remember me!? I always thought it was the memory that goes first.

Now yes, you aren't THAT much older than me, but a lot can happen in 10 years.

I do still own some CDs, but i've mostly gone digital, largely because all of the CD players i've owned ended up crapping out in less then a year, whereas my iPod has lasted me for 5 years. I'm not an audiophile, so I quite honestly cannot tell the difference between listening to a song on CD and on an iPod. Also some CDs are so expensive(I.E. Helix-Long Way To Heaven, Beau Nasty-Dirty But Well Dressed) that getting them digitally is pretty much the only option.

I might buy a CD or two if I really like the band, but most of the time it's just easier for me to download the stuff off Youtube, and that's more cause of me being stingy with my money then anything else.

Vexer6 wrote:

I'm not an audiophile, so I quite honestly cannot tell the difference between listening to a song on CD and on an iPod.

It's just 'placebo' effect, when you know that a particular song is in mp3 format you begin to instruct your mind that they sound inferior or of low quality...But the truth is, the difference between a Lossless vs a 320kbps is too microscopic, insignificant and to some extent..unnoticeable.

I have read a French article from an audiophile magazine several years back, a German audio company conducted an experiment, 94 percent of the people who were involved can't really tell the difference between a 320 and FLAC...The ones who 'passed' the test scored 80 percent or higher

EmoElmo wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

I'm not an audiophile, so I quite honestly cannot tell the difference between listening to a song on CD and on an iPod.

It's just 'placebo' effect, when you know that a particular song is in mp3 format you begin to instruct your mind that they sound inferior or of low quality...But the truth is, the difference between a Lossless vs a 320kbps is too microscopic, insignificant and to some extent..unnoticeable.

I have read a French article from an audiophile magazine several years back, a German audio company conducted an experiment, 94 percent of the people who were involved can't really tell the difference between a 320 and FLAC...The ones who 'passed' the test scored 80 percent or higher

The difference is rather miniscule, I don't even know what "lossless" audio means.

Vexer6 wrote:

EmoElmo wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

I'm not an audiophile, so I quite honestly cannot tell the difference between listening to a song on CD and on an iPod.

It's just 'placebo' effect, when you know that a particular song is in mp3 format you begin to instruct your mind that they sound inferior or of low quality...But the truth is, the difference between a Lossless vs a 320kbps is too microscopic, insignificant and to some extent..unnoticeable.

I have read a French article from an audiophile magazine several years back, a German audio company conducted an experiment, 94 percent of the people who were involved can't really tell the difference between a 320 and FLAC...The ones who 'passed' the test scored 80 percent or higher

The difference is rather miniscule, I don't even know what "lossless" audio means.

Uncompressed format, the info from a CD source (.cda) is left unchanged when it is converted to either WAV, FLAC or Apple Lossless (all these 3 are collectively called LOSSLESS)

Lossless are only good for archiving purposes

I actually convert my lossless files to 128kbps and, honestly, I cannot tell the difference between listening to a lossless file and a 128kbps mp3. Similarly I cannot tell the difference between 192, 320 etc.

I am not suggesting there isn't a difference - scientifically there may well be - but to my ears it is not at all noticeable.

That said, I rip my cds to lossless as a back-up and so that I do not need to constantly work with the original cds. Whenever a new cd comes in the mail, I rip it to lossless then to mp3 and it goes straight into my cd shelf.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

I actually convert my lossless files to 128kbps and, honestly, I cannot tell the difference between listening to a lossless file and a 128kbps mp3. Similarly I cannot tell the difference between 192, 320 etc.

I am not suggesting there isn't a difference - scientifically there may well be - but to my ears it is not at all noticeable.

That said, I rip my cds to lossless as a back-up and so that I do not need to constantly work with the original cds. Whenever a new cd comes in the mail, I rip it to lossless then to mp3 and it goes straight into my cd shelf.

128 kbps - has a thin sound with diminished mids and lows and distorts rather easily when you put it at a high volume

192 kbps is the sweet spot when it comes to sound quality / capacity ratio but the audio quality discrepancy can still be heard compared to 256kbps, distortion is still present but since Hard Drives are dirt cheap these days, I dont think it is wise to encode at this bit rate

256 -320 kbps Variable Bit Rate & 320 CBR - Virtually no audible difference but the distortion is more apparent with the 256VBR.... it would take 'superhuman' ears to notice such difference imho

EmoElmo wrote:

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

I actually convert my lossless files to 128kbps and, honestly, I cannot tell the difference between listening to a lossless file and a 128kbps mp3. Similarly I cannot tell the difference between 192, 320 etc.

I am not suggesting there isn't a difference - scientifically there may well be - but to my ears it is not at all noticeable.

That said, I rip my cds to lossless as a back-up and so that I do not need to constantly work with the original cds. Whenever a new cd comes in the mail, I rip it to lossless then to mp3 and it goes straight into my cd shelf.

128 kbps - has a thin sound with diminished mids and lows and distorts rather easily when you put it at a high volume

192 kbps is the sweet spot when it comes to sound quality / capacity ratio but the audio quality discrepancy can still be heard compared to 256kbps, distortion is still present but since Hard Drives are dirt cheap these days, I dont think it is wise to encode at this bit rate

256 -320 kbps Variable Bit Rate & 320 CBR - Virtually no audible difference but the distortion is more apparent with the 256VBR.... it would take 'superhuman' ears to notice such difference imho

Interesting take on the distortion - again I cannot notice it. I can definitely notice it on anything below 128 where the sounds is muffled and distorted at all levels. I have cranked up both losselss and 128 kbps and didn't notice any muffling or distortion on the latter.

The real reason I rip at 128 kbps is for my portable devices, as higher rate mp3s tend to deplete the battery quicker. Since I use my iphone for music listening I cannot risk having a low battery.

^ When I don't feel like bringing my iPod with me, My 96 Gig Samsung S3 (32 internal + 64 SD slot) does the job fairly well even if it mostly hold 128-160 kbps, I do tend to agree that with the puny storage on most smartphones, you are forced to encode at lower bitrates

EmoElmo wrote:

.... it would take 'superhuman' ears to notice such difference imho

Wrong. It's takes "trained" ears to notice the difference.

On a cheap consumer grade stereo system, it might not be that noticeable. But if you play it through a high-end system (preferably tube gear) you can definitely tell the difference between an .mp3 and a lossless file.

The easiest things to listen for are cymbals (.mp3s still make them sound swishy) and room sound (ambience). On a high end system when you switch from the .mp3 source to the lossless source the soundstage gets larger, it's like the size and depth of the room increases. This is more noticeable on recordings with lots of dynamic range like good jazz or classical recordings.

A spectrum analyzer will also show you the difference between .mp3s and a lossless source, because the high end and low end will be "shelved".

Now, if you are listening on cheap iPod earbuds and the only music you ever play are modern over-compressed rock and metal albums then the average person will not notice. But a good stereo system and a well-mastered recording makes it more obvious than you might think.

Hard drive space is so cheap now there is no reason to compromise, all my CDs are backed up in lossless format.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

The real reason I rip at 128 kbps is for my portable devices, as higher rate mp3s tend to deplete the battery quicker.

That's an urban legend, bit rate/sample rate makes no difference to battery life.

S.D. wrote:

EmoElmo wrote:

.... it would take 'superhuman' ears to notice such difference imho

Wrong. It's takes "trained" ears to notice the difference.

On a cheap consumer grade stereo system, it might not be that noticeable. But if you play it through a high-end system (preferably tube gear) you can definitely tell the difference between an .mp3 and a lossless file.

The easiest things to listen for are cymbals (.mp3s still make them sound swishy) and room sound (ambience). On a high end system when you switch from the .mp3 source to the lossless source the soundstage gets larger, it's like the size and depth of the room increases. This is more noticeable on recordings with lots of dynamic range like good jazz or classical recordings.

A spectrum analyzer will also show you the difference between .mp3s and a lossless source, because the high end and low end will be "shelved".

Now, if you are listening on cheap iPod earbuds and the only music you ever play are modern over-compressed rock and metal albums then the average person will not notice. But a good stereo system and a well-mastered recording makes it more obvious than you might think.

Hard drive space is so cheap now there is no reason to compromise, all my CDs are backed up in lossless format.

I think you are getting it all wrong. That was my statement from the 256-320 VBR (avg. 285 kbps) vs 320 CBR and NOT the FLAC/LOSSLESS vs Mp3 argument

Now IF you can really tell the difference then good for you and congratulations! you really possess a superhuman sonic perception

I was basically responding to the past few posts.

I don't compare 256k to 320k because i don't use the .mp3 format. Modern mastering is so bad (the majority anyway) I don't want to make it worse by downgrading it to .mp3s. Yuck.

For me, the 'slight' audio quality improvement of lossless (compared to 320) doesn't really justify its 4X-5X filesize

I have archived all of my CD collection to LOSSLESS but no way I'm using it as a substitute/replacement for Mp3's...Lossless is just for archiving purposes

I own several Sennheisers and a couple of Denon cans and 320 CBR is by far the best for me, not a capacity hog and sounds just as good

EmoElmo wrote:

For me, the 'slight' audio quality improvement of lossless (compared to 320) doesn't really justify its 4X-5X filesize

Understood and as long as you are archiving your collection in lossless then at least you have the original to go back to if need be.

You are over-stating the film size difference a little, it's a little over 3x on average.

>>>>>>>

Trying to steer this back on topic a little bit.

My main point (somewhere back there) is the reason I won't go 100% "download" at this point is because I'm not going to pay money for .mp3s. If they offer the lossless for sale then I'm sold, but if the only format they offer is .mp3 I'll seek out a physical copy.

Count me in the Non-Digital crowd, forever if it's possible. I think bands (especially Metal bands) will always put out a hard copy for the fans who like that medium. Records are back! Who would have thought that 10-15 years ago?

The bigger ones probably will but there are some underground bands that are using bandcamp and other distributors that don't have anything physical out.

scottmitchell74 wrote:

Count me in the Non-Digital crowd, forever if it's possible. I think bands (especially Metal bands) will always put out a hard copy for the fans who like that medium. Records are back! Who would have thought that 10-15 years ago?

I don't think the physical format will go away any time soon.

What will likely change is we'll see fewer CDs being sold in big chains like Walmart and Best Buy. Even with the various exclusive deals artists have been making with both Walmart and Best Buy, I don't think either chains will continue supporting the CD format for much longer in the near future. It is likely both will introduce a poor man's Itunes or Spotify, or simply provide a download card for the album. I see that as a more realistic (i.e. cost effective) strategy for the big chains, sell you a download card for 8.99 or so (similar to an Itunes one) where you punch in the code at their web site and have access to the full album.

That said, online music distributors will continue to exist and continue to sell physical albums both vinyl and CDs. The difference is that physical format will be in more limited quantities than it is now. In a way we are seeing it now, labels release limited editions of albums on both CD and Vinyl with extra content. Pre-orders of a new album usually come with extra goodies, and are only available in limited quantities to the band's die hard audience.

I don't think this practice is likely to change in the future - with perhaps the exception that even the standard edition of an album will be available in more limited quantities.

I tend to ignore the digital medium for purchasing music. But I have to admit when I get Itunes cards as gifts it is nice to pick off those rarities that can be had for a reasonable price. Granted if I ever found some of those at a decent price I'd double dip on them. But for now, the digital versions serve my needs fine. Don't see myself ever going that route for common releases though.

scottmitchell74 wrote:

Count me in the Non-Digital crowd, forever if it's possible. I think bands (especially Metal bands) will always put out a hard copy for the fans who like that medium. Records are back! Who would have thought that 10-15 years ago?

So where do you park your horse when you get to work?

I know! I don't have a smart phone either...nor internet at home or cable TV. Just rabbit ears and a HD converter! We're dinosaurs. We're basically the same age, you remember those weird kids when we were in grade school that didn't have TVs in their homes because they parents were weirdos...? Apparently that's my household, now. We do have XBOX Kinect, though, so the girls won't be too twisted when they grow up.

And dude, get it right, it's 305 horses...

Wow, no internet?! I thought I was behind, I can live without a Smartphone just fine, but there's no way in hell I could survive without internet.

Remember the movie "City Slickers" when Billy Crystal is going through his midlife crisis rant and he moans how meaningless his job (ad salesman for a radio station) is? He says something like "I sell air. How useless is that?" That's kinda how I feel about paying for digital downloads. I'm not paying for "air." If I'm payin' for music I want to be able to hold it in my hand, display it on a shelf, and geek out on the liner notes.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Remember the movie "City Slickers" when Billy Crystal is going through his midlife crisis rant and he moans how meaningless his job (ad salesman for a radio station) is? He says something like "I sell air. How useless is that?" That's kinda how I feel about paying for digital downloads. I'm not paying for "air." If I'm payin' for music I want to be able to hold it in my hand, display it on a shelf, and geek out on the liner notes.

And that is me also!