The CD is dead - long live live slotMusic

http://www.slotmusic.org/what_is.php

I'm not sure that I can really picture this taking off.

MicroSD cards are so bloody small.  normal humans could never keep track of a bunch of them - unless they are only a medium for transferring data to your music player - and if that's the case, what benefit is there over the www?

My new, but already end-of-line cheapo and further reduced, car radio has an SD card lot in the fascia and a remote control, so I can see this concept having some attraction. Daughter already loves the remote control.

The thing that stands out in the SlotMusic write-up is the statement that it uses an SD card. It still rankles that I bought one of the very first Aiwa mp3 recorders many, many years ago, only to discover that SD stands for Secure Digital, and that Secure could mean locked to a particular machine. This was before any mention of DRM, so I wonder if there might be something cunning and crippling here?

It seems to be DRM free but who can tell...

What eludes me in the shops is an alarm clock that takes an SD card and will replay the contents at the designated time.  You would have thought someone would have marketed that by now.  Any number of devices take iPods, but I don't have one.

Generally I have to say that SDHC cards are the best thing for many things since sliced bread - they go in my portable recorders, cameras, high def video camera, etc, and can be swapped between them so  only need a small number of them.  Even so, you have to remember where you put them, and writing a label is not on!   The micro size would be even less physically practical.

I note nobody has mentioned audio quality yet!

We seem to be heading towards a world where compressed files will be the accepted norm for the consumer - how sad.

But they don't really need to be now that cards of 8GB and above are available.

Whatever... who cares anymore these days?

We seem to be heading towards a world where compressed files will be the accepted norm for the consumer - how sad.

Heading??? We're already there a long time! My nefews and nieces (only 10 years younger) live by MP3's in the worst possible quality and think this is the best ever. And one of those even work at an independent label thinking they produce the best quality in the world. An ipod, that's hifi these days. They play their music from the pc through a couple of plastic boxes all day long and look at me like I'm a dinosaur because I have speakers large than a milk carton. I wonder if they'll put me away if I ever make those horn I have the plans of somewhere... I have better speakers in my workshed (where I can't hear them over the mill) than they in their living room.

Wake up, smell the coffee. All of us here caring about audio quality ARE dinosaurs.

My nefews and nieces (only 10 years younger) live by MP3's in the worst possible quality and think this is the best ever. And one of those even work at an independent label thinking they produce the best quality in the world. An ipod, that's hifi these days. They play their music from the pc through a couple of plastic boxes all day long and look at me like I'm a dinosaur because I have speakers large than a milk carton. I wonder if they'll put me away if I ever make those horn I have the plans of somewhere... I have better speakers in my workshed (where I can't hear them over the mill) than they in their living room.

To be fair - (well to try to, anyway)...

In the UK, this is the same brigade whose parents were bought up on Dansettes playing 45's, and if you'd ever heard one of those with a chipped stylus playing away in somebody's bedroom (that was most of them), you'd realise just how much better 128k MP3's are - even though they are obviously extremely deficient. So in a way, things have improved for the cloth-eared! But any mass movement tends to adopt the lowest common denominator as its norm, so we shouldn't really be too surprised about the MP3 generation, I think.

And even back in the dark ages, anybody actually caring about sound quality was almost regarded as a dinosaur - well, certainly not 'normal', anyway. It's just that there were perhaps more of 'us' back then - at least I think so. Because back then there were still serious labels producing non-chart music, and this was vaguely viable on a commercial scale. There are very few of these about any more, and the more successful ones have had to do the same thing to get any market share at all - at least partially, go with the standards that the players adopt, and offer downloads, etc.

And I don't think it's all bad - people like Andrew Rose have adopted this sort of market strategy, after all. And he may well have something to say about this!

Wake up, smell the coffee. All of us here caring about audio quality ARE dinosaurs.

Yes, probably. To me it is a bit of a conundrum that almost any of us can now afford the sort of equipment that was the exclusive domain of rich record companies 40 years ago, and go out and (with care) make recordings that are quite capable of standing with the best of them. And now, there's very little market for it. And that's not because it's exactly saturated, is it?

There is actually quite a lot more I could say about this, but I'll leave it here for the time being...

There is actually quite a lot more I could say about this, but I'll leave it here for the time being...

Go ahead Steve, you're never boring and always interesting. To me at least. And I've had enough pink gins tonight to be a lenient audience... Good night.

Despite selling historic recordings and for our most recent releases selling 320kbps joint stereo mono MP3s, the majority of download sales from our site are CD-quality or higher FLACs. It's clear that in the classical market people do care enough to pay a little extra for non-lossy recordings, but also like the speed and convenience of downloads.

A bit like the 8BG cards effectively rendering lossy compression pointless, so do Internet connections which, like mine in a very small rural French village, are capable of sustained average download speeds of 1.2 megabytes per second.

I've said it before - MP3 is an interim technology (which will go the way of VHS in due course...)

Despite selling historic recordings and for our most recent releases selling 320kbps joint stereo mono MP3s, the majority of download sales from our site are CD-quality or higher FLACs. It's clear that in the classical market people do care enough to pay a little extra for non-lossy recordings, but also like the speed and convenience of downloads.

Since, in realistic terms, there is nothing of any significance between 320k MP3s and a lossless download as a choice when it comes to restored music from yesteryear (otherwise Andrew wouldn't offer both, I strongly suspect), I wonder why people actually make the choice not to go with the MP3s? Is this just a 'bad MP3 press' thing? I almost can't have it as 'care' because a few moments logical thought should lead them to the same conclusion as I have above. Or is it just a knee-jerk reaction - we'll have what's supposedly 'best' regardless of whether it makes any real difference or not? Simple ignorance? Insecurity? Just wondering...

I've said it before - MP3 is an interim technology (which will go the way of VHS in due course...)

So were 78's! 

But this 'what's in a name' bad press thing is quite interesting. This evening I attended a performance of Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time. This was a well-publicised event in an accessible town-centre location, and excluding the people who had to be there, about 25 people turned up. Now, I'd like to think that this is because Messiaen has a bit of a name for being difficult, and mostly about birdsong, etc. and simply isn't that popular. But there's the rub - the quartet isn't. And this was a simply stunning performance of it, so all the people who didn't come but might have, have missed a real treat. (I might even get to record this next year, although I don't think that it will be quite the same without the atmosphere.)

When it comes down to it, most of the choices that people make are arbitrary, and frequently made in complete ignorance. People follow trends, because that's easier than thinking or discovering for themselves. And I'm afraid to say that there is still a degree of this sort of attitude even amongst people that I would have thought would have known better. It's well-known that 'classical' music in general requires you to concentrate to a greater extent than your average pop song requires - and that of course militates entirely against it in today's 'want the buzz now' culture. And it could reasonably be assumed that the people who are inclined, or are able to, concentrate more are likely to be more inquisitive anyway, I would have thought.

So why are they making some of the choices they do? Are they too being sucked down to the lowest common denominator way of thinking? If any of this is vaguely true, then it doesn't bode too well for the future at all, does it?

It's soooo hard to know why audiences don't appear.  It's arguable that the Quartet for the End of Time is a too familiar work (here at the radio station we've recorded it at least twice live this year) and it's perhaps the kind of work that if you know it, you don't want to hear it played other than by the very best performers (of course the very best performers don't necessarily have the best reputations, but it's the reputation that's the draw).  And if you have a cracking good performance on CD or slotMusic (!) at home, maybe it's easier to stay home and listen to that instead without some idiot having a coughing fit in the ethereal final bars.

Steve - if people are convinced they hear a difference - likewise 24-bit FLAC vs. 16-bit FLAC - who am I to argue. As with a lot of things "hi-fi" it's just about impossible to convince someone otherwise, should you wish to try.

For my own part I'd like to lose the MP3 downloads and go purely for FLAC. I suspect we're still a little off from that just yet - though if Apple would build in FLAC compatibility to iTunes it would make the day come much sooner - but right now the range of download options is IMHO too wide and too confusing. I would rather offer an uncompressed starting point from which people can choose to "downgrade" audio quality if they wish to or need to...

Steve - if people are convinced they hear a difference - likewise 24-bit FLAC vs. 16-bit FLAC - who am I to argue. As with a lot of things "hi-fi" it's just about impossible to convince someone otherwise, should you wish to try.

Andrew, I wasn't suggesting that you should argue with them - I mean, if they're prepared to part with money, what's the point? I was just wondering how/why they got to the point where this was an issue. In 99% of cases, it can't be because they've made a direct comparison with the original, after all...

And I agree about the formats - the current number of them (even just the 'popular' ones) is ridiculous.

Going a bit OT I fear but interesting.

Since, in realistic terms, there is nothing of any significance between 320k MP3s and a lossless download as a choice when it comes to restored music from yesteryear (otherwise Andrew wouldn't offer both, I strongly suspect), I wonder why people actually make the choice not to go with the MP3s?

I think there are different reasons why one might choose so. For me one of it would be consistency with the other stored musiv I have around. Also to be able to put it on CD without another conversion (I don't see the sense in having 1kW pc running to listen to some music when a 25W cdplayer works just as well with less noise and maintenance). And an uncompressed format (lossless or lossy) has more chance to survive in the long run. Certainly now storage is cheap.

It's soooo hard to know why audiences don't appear.  (snip)  And if you have a cracking good performance on CD or slotMusic (!) at home, maybe it's easier to stay home and listen to that instead without some idiot having a coughing fit in the ethereal final bars.

Well, maybe they made a very rational decision not to be there  You wouldn't get me caught anywhere near Messian.

Honestly, I really can't be bothered these days to go out to a concert. A lot of programming is just to wide to be interesting (I mean they just toss some works together so I would only go for less than half of the program). Then there is the hassle of actually going (involving getting your car lost without that being permanently). And then the audience can be so bl**dy annoying you wonder what they are doing there (having had to sit through a concert with a couple of ladies discussing the babysitters they had lately...). If it is a bit in town you can have planes comming over, sirens wailing, horns tooting... And then you have to be lucky that the performers have a good day! So if I get out to a concert I'm one of those 25 that have to be there, not because I want to be there. I really understand people staying at home with a CD.

And it could reasonably be assumed that the people who are inclined, or are able to, concentrate more are likely to be more inquisitive anyway, I would have thought.

So why are they making some of the choices they do? Are they too being sucked down to the lowest common denominator way of thinking? If any of this is vaguely true, then it doesn't bode too well for the future at all, does it?

People that can concentrate hard, often do this only for a few things in life. They might think very hard about music but very little about anything else. As a mean they don't stand out above the rest. Don' forget that the total intelligence on this planet is a constant. (forgot who said that)