Best Buy To Cease Selling Audio CDs

[Crossbreed]

CDs require physical processing and transport. This cuts into profit margins.

CD players require power for a motor which shortens battery life (in portable players).

 

[Progster]

Sign of the times. RIP CDs (pun shamelessly intended).

Just make sure you set the bitrate to at least 192K to maintain the fidelity of the original CD.

If you want to maintain the fidelity of the original recording, then you would be advised to rip to a lossless format - FLAC or WAV. WAV format is the format stored on your CD and is the closest in terms of quality and fidelity to the CD. FLAC is also good, and the format that I always rip to, but it is usually at least 800 kbs, so files are big and take up a lot of space. You also need a music player which supports FLAC, as well as a decent sound card or DAC (digital analog converter). Mp3 files are lossy and lower quality, even higher quality 350 kps ones.

OK, so probably a stupid question...you've had more time with this though (or not?)...is there a noticeable difference between 192kbps and 256kbps? Or, put it this way, do you notice any difference?

There isn't a great difference between 192kbs and 256kbs, but there is a difference between 192kbs and 350 kbs. Certainly, I can tell the difference. There's an even bigger difference between 192 kbs and lossless, or CD quality. Low quality mp3s sound awful, especially if, like me, you have sensitive hearing and hyperacusis.

I have spent a lot of money on decent audio equipment, and IMO it would be a waste to listen to low quality mp3s on it, so no thank you - lossless download or CD for me, and vinyl, of course.

I think that there will still be a market for CDs, but it will become more of a hipster or niche market, a bit like vinyls now are. Luckily, there are popular sites like Bandcamp which offer lossless downloads.

 

[Judge]

Sign of the times. RIP CDs (pun shamelessly intended).



If you want to maintain the fidelity of the original recording, then you would be advised to rip to a lossless format - FLAC or WAV. WAV format is the format stored on your CD and is the closest in terms of quality and fidelity to the CD. FLAC is also good, and the format that I always rip to, but it is usually at least 800 kbs, so files are big and take up a lot of space. You also need a music player which supports FLAC, as well as a decent sound card or DAC (digital analog converter). Mp3 files are lossy and lower quality, even higher quality 350 kps ones.


There isn't a great difference between 192kbs and 256kbs, but there is a difference between 192kbs and 350 kbs. Certainly, I can tell the difference. There's an even bigger difference between 192 kbs and lossless, or CD quality. Low quality mp3s sound awful, especially if, like me, you have sensitive hearing and hyperacusis.

I have spent a lot of money on decent audio equipment, and IMO it would be a waste to listen to low quality mp3s on it, so no thank you - lossless download or CD for me, and vinyl, of course.

I think that there will still be a market for CDs, but it will become more of a hipster or niche market, a bit like vinyls now are. Luckily, there are popular sites like Bandcamp which offer lossless downloads.

I don't archive recordings in MP3. I archived all my original vinyl and cassette recordings in lossless CDA format. To play them on my Bose audio system in my car, those recordings were then converted to MP3 format where critical listening concerns aren't much of an issue.

While my hearing isn't what it used to be (tinnitus), as an audiophile I'd never archive files exclusively in any lossy compression format. Though that doesn't change the reality that the public-at-large is less discerning about such things, and that they inevitably drive the market in this respect.

One other thing should also be considered relative to what I posted. That in fact this may be as much of an admission of retail failure for Best Buy as any alleged move to imply that the CD format is officially obsolete. That in essence, Best Buy simply cannot compete with retailers like Amazon when it comes to CD sales. Which should not come as a surprise to much of anyone these days regarding the sales of so many products.

When we hear that Amazon is no longer willing to sell CDs (or DVDs), then we'll likely know for certain when such formats are truly obsolete. Clearly people are still purchasing them, or the mega-retailers wouldn't bother.

 

[Mr Allen]

Meh, nobody buys CDs any more, they either use streaming services such as Napster, Amazon music, Spotify etc or even possibly have an Amazon Echo as I do.

 

[Judge]

Anything in a lossy compression format amounts to inherently degraded sound for bandwidth/limited media purposes. The trick being that most people may not even notice- or care of the difference. But yes, in essence customers are getting less than what they got with CDs. A trade-off of quality sound for the sake of convenience. MP3 is fine for me in my car or my computer. But the living room ? Not so much.

Recording studios are no doubt eating it up in less overhead, while some artists have to be miffed because we are not hearing the full product in the most literal manner. It all comes down to those algorithms that subtract from what may- or may not be audibly apparent. And of course, how well one physically hears.

Imagine the correlation between all those concertgoers and their inevitable diminished sense of hearing. Perhaps the ultimate target audience for the retail sale of compressed sound sources. For them to sell more and for the customer to get less. But then most of us would lament that this is "bu$iness as u$ual".

Sadly this is all about business. Not an improvement in technology. It's actually a step backwards. Unless perhaps one is accustomed to listening to music outputted through a relatively primitive audio device.

As for me, I have no intention of giving up my Boston Acoustics T-830 speakers.

 

[Metalhead]

I have not purchased a CD in many years for myself. I have become spoiled with the convenience of streaming music on my iPod through their subscription service, and I have become spoiled with the quality of having a decent vinyl playing setup at my place. I am too much of a hipster to buy CDs these days. >_<

 

[Judge]

OK, so probably a stupid question...you've had more time with this though (or not?)...is there a noticeable difference between 192kbps and 256kbps? Or, put it this way, do you notice any difference?

I'm asking because I've got a MP3 player that's just sitting around collecting dust and I'm thinking about filling it up to the brim and finally putting it to use. Only thing is, I need a good bitrate to settle on for all my songs.

I should probably have added that I once ripped a CD without paying attention to the bitrate setting in the Windows Media Player. I had inadvertently set it at 128k instead of 192k.

Ouch. Painfully noticeable. Made the source (Star Trek TV Soundtrack) sound like it was coming through a pipe. Far too compressed. Something to consider for anyone wanting to conserve disk space at the expense of their music.

I simply went back and ripped it again since the source was a CD at 192k, only this time set the media player as well at 192k and it sounded much better.

 

[Butterfly88]

To me it seems too early to stop selling CDs, I wish they'd wait another five years or so.

 

[Judge]

To me it seems too early to stop selling CDs, I wish they'd wait another five years or so.

Luckily there are other more important retailers to gauge the longevity of the CD format such as Amazon and Walmart. IMO Walmart has always had both a better selection and lower prices than Best Buy. And of course while Amazon's prices are all over the chart, their selection of music is like how brick-and-mortal retailer Tower Records once was many years ago.

Not to mention that if one follows Wall Street on the retailer sector, you're liable to get a fair amount of feedback questioning whether Best Buy will even be in the marketplace in another five years, whether the CD format goes away over the convenience of compressed, somewhat inferior audio files streamed or not.

I go to places like Best Buy mostly to look at things. However I'm more apt to buy them online from Newegg.com or Amazon. Better selection, and more often than not, better prices. Yet before I predict Amazon will take over the planet, I also have this image of Jeff Bezos sitting in court much like John D. Rockefellar, awaiting a judicial tribunal to break up his company in accordance with antitrust sentiments.

 

[Butterfly88]

Luckily there are other more important retailers to gauge the longevity of the CD format such as Amazon and Walmart. IMO Walmart has always had both a better selection and lower prices than Best Buy. And of course while Amazon's prices are all over the chart, their selection of music is like how brick-and-mortal retailer Tower Records once was many years ago.

Not to mention that if one follows Wall Street on the retailer sector, you're liable to get a fair amount of feedback questioning whether Best Buy will even be in the marketplace in another five years, whether the CD format goes away over the convenience of compressed, somewhat inferior audio file downloads or not.

I go to places like Best Buy mostly to look at things. However I'm more apt to buy them online from Newegg.com or Amazon. Better selection, and more often than not, better prices. Yet before I predict Amazon will take over the planet, I also have this image of Jeff Bezos sitting in court much like John D. Rockefellar, awaiting a judicial tribunal to break up his company in accordance with antitrust sentiments.

That's true. Best Buy always seemed a little more sensory friendly to me compared to Walmart though, so I will miss it.

 

[Judge]

That's true. Best Buy always seemed a little more sensory friendly to me compared to Walmart though, so I will miss it.

You're much to kind to Walmart. To me they're not at all sensory friendly.

However their prices and selection keep me tolerating them. No telling for sure whether Best Buy lasts another five years or not. But then Amazon is putting pressure on most brick-and-mortar retailers, including Walmart let alone Best Buy.

 

[pjcnet]

There's not much need for now dated limited capacity CDs any more with super-fast Internet download speeds and very cheap memory, similar is starting to become true even of DVDs which are also now dated and eventually even blu-rays will die out, why go to the shop to buy a movie on a disc that can get damaged when you can download or even stream it, often cheaper or in some cases it can even be included with a cheap subscription service like Netflix or Amazon Prime? Also piracy has a greater impact than ever too with numerous online sites where you can download or even stream any of the latest movies or series for free, the same is true for music, in fact despite trying to clamp down most music is still obtainable even on Youtube and it's not difficult to install a Youtube downloader if you wanted.

Just a note, there's also lossless compression such as FLAC format, not as small as MP3s, but still much smaller than uncompressed audio with exactly the same output. Standard audio formats and even FLACs are however well behind in a lot of ways with technology simply because they're all only stereo, what's happened to surround sound and even Dolby Atmos music? At the moment to get better than stereo music we have to buy an audio only blu-ray disc (basically like a movie with the video part missing) or use other video formats, so it's about time there was a standard audio only compressed format that directly replaces MP3s (loss compression) and FLACs (lossless compression) with widespread use that supports multi-channel surround, E.g. 5.1, 7.1 and Dolby Atmos (5.1.2, 7.1.2) Etc.

 

[Judge]

I just bought a CD the other day that sounded fabulous on my 1000 watt 5.1 system. I was going to play it on my 100 watt stereo system, but I decided just for the heck of it to run it through the home theater system. Quite a surprise. Native American flutes with ambient sounds of nature...with the flute being played from the center channel and occasionally left and right front channels....and the nature sounds from left, right front and rear speakers. Really nice 3D effect.

Though I think it's unrealistic to expect that from more mainstream music sources. After all, when you go to a concert the sound may wrap around you given the acoustics of an auditorium, but it's still in front of you- left, right and center. Not behind you.

Still, stereo/multi channel sound...with uncompressed sources. Only way to go IMO.

 

[Butterfly88]

You're much to kind to Walmart. To me they're not at all sensory friendly.

However their prices and selection keep me tolerating them. No telling for sure whether Best Buy lasts another five years or not. But then Amazon is putting pressure on most brick-and-mortar retailers, including Walmart let alone Best Buy.

You're right. I actually said that though because sometimes Best Buy has tvs on and they can be pretty noisy too.

 

[pjcnet]

I just bought a CD the other day that sounded fabulous on my 1000 watt 5.1 system. I was going to play it on my 100 watt stereo system, but I decided just for the heck of it to run it through the home theater system. Quite a surprise. Native American flutes with ambient sounds of nature...with the flute being played from the center channel and occasionally left and right front channels....and the nature sounds from left, right front and rear speakers. Really nice 3D effect.

Though I think it's unrealistic to expect that from more mainstream music sources. After all, when you go to a concert the sound may wrap around you given the acoustics of an auditorium, but it's still in front of you- left, right and center. Not behind you.

Still, stereo/multi channel sound...with uncompressed sources. Only way to go IMO.

I assume it was a DTS CD? DTS was designed for video, but because there's still no very well used standard audio only format that supports multi channel surround they're using it as a workaround, not enough companies are releasing in this format however and older systems don't support it. I believe the most DTS can support is 7.1, although most tracks are 5.1 and there's no way to support Dolby Atmos, although I've very occasionally seen this on blu-ray music discs where again they're using a movie format for audio only as a workaround. As I said before I think optical disks will gradually be phased out with CDs and DVDs first and eventually even Blu-rays because memory including flash memory is now so cheap and Internet download speeds are much faster, but digital file formats will still obviously be used for both audio and video.

Eventually we could see a new lossless multi-channel music format that supports various speaker configurations including Dolby Atmos and maybe even custom configurations to make it more future proof. It may optionally have what would be effectively a separate track for each speaker configuration right down to stereo, but if they use clever lossless compression the file size still won't be too large because of the similarity between different speaker configuration tracks of the same audio, this would be better than real time down-mixing because if you were say listening to a down-mixed 7.1.2 track in stereo it may not sound quite as good as a track that is custom made to be in stereo.

 

[Judge]

The thing that bothers me most is that going from one lossless format to another to stream isn't in itself "progress". And even if you can pump it through the Internet with sufficient bandwidth for multi-channel use, I don't see that as "progress" either. Mostly just convenience.

But isn't convenience progress?

No, not when you have to continue to pay ever higher prices for a new way to deliver the same old product. After all, CDs have been around for decades. But they offer the obvious advantages which haven't changed. They are capable of producing dynamic range on a threshold of reality with past and present audio hardware. As for their limited disk capacity, that doesn't bother me in the least. I can still physically copy them to other forms of high-capacity media if I choose.

And the consumer maintains physical possession of them to play at any time they want, without either the capability or the legal and contractual permission of a third-party provider.

IMO real "progress" in this equation demands not only improvements in the audio quality of a signal, but also a more cost-efficient way to do it for consumers. So far with what has been posted, all I see are increased costs for the bandwidth needed to deliver uncompressed file formats of music that will never be in your physical possession as would an optical disk.

It's the "same-old same-old" Larry Ellison (Oracle) argument. He'll make your life so much easier controlling ALL your access to EVERYTHING in the cloud. Sounds great...until you factor in the telecommunications companies and their shareholders, all eager to charge you more money for more bandwidth. Not to mention that you no longer have physical possession of the media itself. No thanks.

It's a poor tradeoff. Paying more money for more bandwidth, just to hear the same music you already have on CD that is already on an uncompressed format. I may sound jaded about it all, but so far this "2.0" upgrade madness always has the same common denominator. To pay more- not less.

Such trends may well be inevitable, but it doesn't mean I have to like it, or be willing to pay for it.

Meanwhile on the video side of it all, by the time I finish this thread there will probably be an 8X or 24X format that we're all supposed to buy, replacing all the videos we already have in other "obsolete" formats. What's wrong with this picture? Who has the disposable income to support such a habit?

Just remember, there are two dollar signs in "progre$$".

 

[pjcnet]

The thing that bothers me most is that going from one lossless format to another to stream isn't in itself "progress". And even if you can pump it through the Internet with sufficient bandwidth for multi-channel use, I don't see that as "progress" either. Mostly just convenience.

But isn't convenience progress?

No, not when you have to continue to pay ever higher prices for a new way to deliver the same old product. After all, CDs have been around for decades. But they offer the obvious advantages which haven't changed. They are capable of producing dynamic range on a threshold of reality with past and present audio hardware. As for their limited disk capacity, that doesn't bother me in the least. I can still physically copy them to other forms of high-capacity media if I choose.

And the consumer maintains physical possession of them to play at any time they want, without either the capability or the legal and contractual permission of a third-party provider.

IMO real "progress" in this equation demands not only improvements in the audio quality of a signal, but also a more cost-efficient way to do it for consumers. So far with what has been posted, all I see are increased costs for the bandwidth needed to deliver uncompressed file formats of music that will never be in your physical possession as would an optical disk.

It's the "same-old same-old" Larry Ellison (Oracle) argument. He'll make your life so much easier controlling ALL your access to EVERYTHING in the cloud. Sounds great...until you factor in the telecommunications companies and their shareholders, all eager to charge you more money for more bandwidth. Not to mention that you no longer have physical possession of the media itself. No thanks.

It's a poor tradeoff. Paying more money for more bandwidth, just to hear the same music you already have on CD that is already on an uncompressed format. I may sound jaded about it all, but so far this "2.0" upgrade madness always has the same common denominator. To pay more- not less.

Such trends may well be inevitable, but it doesn't mean I have to like it, or be willing to pay for it.

Meanwhile on the video side of it all, by the time I finish this thread there will probably be an 8X or 24X format that we're all supposed to buy, replacing all the videos we already have in other "obsolete" formats. What's wrong with this picture? Who has the disposable income to support such a habit?

Just remember, there are two dollar signs in "progre$$".

It costs money to produce a CD and it's packaging for each and every sale, shops/warehouses also cost additional money with large overheads including staffing costs and even if you order them mail order there's the additional cost of shipping. A downloaded file can still be owned, you can put it on your smart phone, PC or memory stick to play where-ever you want, but it costs much less money for companies to store just one master copy on a remote server that can be downloaded an infinite number of times.

CDs only have certain stock levels which can run out and some CDs can even become rare, they also take up physical space and therefore their availability can become limited. Because only 1 master copy of any digital music track can be downloaded and duplicated as many times as people want to buy and download it, there's a vast never ending supply available with a greater selection overall.

CDs have to be looked after or they become unreliable and they can get scratched, then if a CD is damaged or lost there's barely ever a way to replace it without buying the whole thing again (if it's still easily available). If you have an online account however and something happens to a digital music file, you can simply login and re-download it since you own the track.

Since CDs are physical you have to go out to the shop to buy them or order them online, then wait for delivery. Digital music files can be downloaded almost instantly with the convenience of downloading them either from your home PC and other devices, or even by using a smart phone when out.

CDs have a limited storage capacity of approximately 700 MiB (Roughly 0.7 GiB) **, they only allow up to 74 minutes of uncompressed audio (you can get 80 minute CDs now too). This is tiny by today's standards, it's common to use memory cards of around 32 GiB or more in average devices today, but newer micro SDXC cards can support up to 2 TiB (2048 GiB), this is enough to store a massive library of albums even if uncompressed.

With CDs you often buy an album just to listen to 1 or 2 tracks that you like. With digital music downloads you can just pay for and download the tracks you really want, you can make up your own playlist if you so wish.

CDs are physically large when compared to memory cards, then a motorised system and laser are required to play them that also uses a lot of power, this makes portable usage a lot less practical (You couldn't exactly fit a CD player in a smart phone). There are portable CD players, but they have to be larger and have a limited battery life.

The only real advantages of CDs is they are sold as physical objects that some people prefer to own, they also have a physical value and could even be resold with a 2nd hand value, this can produce a market for collectable and also rare CDs. Also even though CDs can be pirated very easily, it's less convenient than simply downloading a pirated music file which at the time of writing can still be done very easily despite some clamp downs, instead of paying legally for music tracks from places such as iTunes. A lot of people don't see music as something you need to pay for any more.

There is currently a disadvantage of buying digital music online and that's the inflated prices, by rights they should be a lot cheaper than CDs since as I've already explained there's a lot less costs, but this often isn't the case. This only encourages piracy even more. Edit: Perhaps it's partly because of losses from piracy, if so it's a catch 22 situation that needs to be addressed.


** PS: I think it's absolutely stupid and ridiculously wrong that they've changed the perfectly good storage unit of Megabytes to Mebibytes (MB to MiB) and Gigabytes to Gibibytes (GB to GiB) Etc. Now a Megabyte (MB) means only 1000 Kilobytes (kB) to suit non computer literate people when in the past it was always based on 1024 times. It's not necessary, but if they insisted on including units for 1000 times instead of 1024 times for computer storage amounts they should have left the original units exactly as they were and added additional ones. Now people don't know which is which because older texts mean 1024 times and newer texts mean 1000 times, plus many older people will always use 1024 times which I see as the only correct measurement and even older computer systems use the older units. Also non computer literate people used to keep getting it wrong stating the units were 1000 times and I used to correct them, now they've got their own way even though it's detrimental to use this decimal system with computers. The 1000 factor just doesn't work with computers because it's not to the power of 2 for binary arithmetic. In short the change has caused nothing but unnecessary confusion and whoever thought it was a good idea to introduce the change should be shot lol!

 

[Judge]

There is currently a disadvantage of buying digital music online and that's the inflated prices, by rights they should be a lot cheaper than CDs since as I've already explained there's a lot less costs, but this often isn't the case. This only encourages piracy even more.

Yep. Greed supplanting technological innovation. Another trend I don't see changing any time soon which spoils the entire equation.

Unless of course the target market are consumers with money (or credit) to burn.

I guess I belong to an unfortunate generation still taught to save money rather than spend it like a drunken sailor. Thank my parents who endured the Great Depression.

 

[tducey]

No surprise to see this, I haven't bought a CD in quite a while.

 

[Judge]

I assume it was a DTS CD?

Had to think about that a bit. It wasn't the disk at all. That was conventionally coded in the standard two channels.

However I had my home theater receiver set to play it using Dolby Pro Logic II (though it will also process DTS). Effectively allowing a two-channel source to be outputted in five distinct channels. The emulation may amount to a crapshoot depending on the two-channel source, but in this case it just simply sounded damn good. Go figure. And apparently my Bose audio system in my car provides a similar effect with nine speakers. Very nice...