Not enough consumer demand for hi-res (Cookie Marenco)

[duxservit]

Thank you, everyone... for your concern.... we're still in business selling high resolution downloads, still making DSD recordings in the studio and don't plan on closing down. The excerpt was a generalization of the recording industry in general.. and we appreciated everyone's concern.

 

I was answering questions by both the surround and high resolution stereo community that have recently come to my attention. Music lovers want to know why (in general) there aren't more recordings available by all labels, including the major labels. Many consumers don't understand that high resolution music begins in the recording studio. Today, 95% of the projects recorded start as 44.1.. not considered high resolution audio.

 

The last 5 weeks, I've started writing a newsletter that is sent to 30,000 of our subscribers. In the newsletter, I've been addressing questions we're commonly asked about studios, artists and gear. For some reason, this latest post struck a chord for many people and has been reposted many times. For the full newsletter, here is the link.

Why Don't More Companies Produce Music in High Resolution? -- Blue Coast Records

 

You can sign up for the newsletter at Blue Coast Records | Exceptional Acoustic Recordings where you'll receive out weekly music offering and my weekly newsletter. We have more than 50 high resolution albums recorded to DSD and/or tape from Blue Coast Records. We also have a platform where we distribute more than 300 high resolution albums at Downloads NOW! | We don't plan on soon stopping our distribution service.

 

Here is an excerpt of the question I was answering.. asked by one of our customers....

You may not be able to answer this question, but you’re the only person I know in the industry: why don’t companies record and produce music in high-resolution formats? Is the process just that much more expensive?

 

I ask because I get frustrated when I happen upon an artist I like, most often an acoustic guitarist like Don Ross, and the only format in which I can purchase his or her music is MP3, which often sounds muddy, muted, messy, or just plain bad through my inexpensive DAC and mid-priced headphones. (I can’t imagine how sloppy those tracks would be through the much higher-end gear you offer on your website!)

 

Thank you, again, for your support of high resolution audio.

 

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Records

 

Thank you Cookie -- my apologies if my snippet ended-up misrepresenting your intentions.

 

Recently we have had several threads in CA relating to hi-res content, including the news about Tidal's financial woes to why Artists do not care about Hi-Res.

 

All this makes me wonder if the world (the Internet) could do with a "dating-site" for artists and recording studios (such as Blue Coast), adding into the mix some crown-funded model to record some albums/artist in something like DSD.

[mocenigo]

Hi Roberto,

 

Unless I misunderstand your posts here, you rip (SACDs) rather than purchase downloads. You also hope that at least your genre of recorded music interest, a definite niche within a niche, survives, grows, and prospers. It may interest you to know that the return to the label and artist from a CD/SACD/music BluRay averages about 25% of the sale price, whereas the return from the same download averages 60%.

 

If you would really like to support them, here's at least one way.

 

Tom

 

Hi Tom

 

point taken! Indeed I have moved only recently to purchasing downloads as well. I did not know that the difference in margins was so large, even though I had the information to derive it - my fault. This will motivate me further.

 

Now, I honestly see no point in purchasing the same recording twice, so if I already have a SACD (or find them in some sale) I rip that - Furthermore, most of these recordings I have are not available as a hi-res download (yet).

 

But I do want to support the artists and independent labels/small recording studios, so when I purchase new ones from the same, I shall look for downloads first.

 

Roberto

[cookiemarenco]

Thank you Cookie -- my apologies if my snippet ended-up misrepresenting your intentions.

 

Recently we have had several threads in CA relating to hi-res content, including the news about Tidal's financial woes to why Artists do not care about Hi-Res.

 

All this makes me wonder if the world (the Internet) could do with a "dating-site" for artists and recording studios (such as Blue Coast), adding into the mix some crown-funded model to record some albums/artist in something like DSD.

 

Thank you for your note. To understand Tidal, Spotify and others as to 'why' they are not profitable, it's a long story. But if you're involved in venture capital and technology, you realize that these companies are more often in the music business to create profits for investors -- fast growth, billions invested, not enough sales. The same happened to Tidal. Apple has never been profitable selling music... but selling their devices and using music as the bait seems to work well for tech.

 

If you're purely looking at a profitable example of a music company, bandcamp.com is a good one. Not necessarily high resolution, but they've kept their costs (and profile) down. They are profitable. Not easy to do, but helps when a founder invested the millions he made selling his software company. Bandcamp also provides the largest margin for artists.

 

The problem is that the majority of artists are not that interested in recording in high resolution. It's not where they make money. Artists of late generate revenue from live concerts. Recordings are a necessary cost of promotion... similar to videos. An artist will spend tens of thousands of dollars on a 44.1 protools recording, on their credit card to help publicize a tour. I know because at the studio, we process a lot of credit cards. (and they tell me).

 

If I like the music and it warrants high resolution distribution, I will cut a deal with the artist for distribution on our high end service, Downloads NOW! Most artists (and indie labels) will tell you they generate more sales from our downloads than their mp3/CDs combined. Still, the sales are never enough to cover the complete cost of the recording.

 

BTW, my studio is called OTR Studios and has been in operation since 1982. A studio generates revenue from selling studio time. Blue Coast Records (my label) is a separate company. It's generates revenue from sales to end customers. It took a while for me to accept the fact that musicians and many labels didn't know how to sell to the audiophile community so we took it upon ourselves to reach out to audiphiles.

 

Some artists understand the potential. Many artists trust on our Blue Coast belief. I know one day, most recordings will be high resolution but it's probably 10 years away to "most".

 

Cookie

Blue Coast Records

[duxservit]

 

...

 

The confusion for the consumer is this..... A recording made at 44.1 does not get better by upsampling to a higher resolution format. Even when recording at a higher resolution, there are 6 stages of production to deliver where the recording can be degraded to a lower resolution. It's up to the consumer to choose whether they want to know more about how the recording process works and how it affects what they are hearing and buying -- it's not easy to understand.

 

Thank you for mentioning I am a woman. I find it amusing when someone writes to me as Mr Marenco. I hope one day there are more woman audiophiles and producers. But until that time, I'll do what I do to present the music I love produced as I want to hear it.

 

Enjoy!

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Records

 

Educating the consumer (so that they can make a decision) is a hard task. Some audio gear/devices add the gold sticker ("Hi Res") but if the content is CD-quality or less, then the consumer may not be able to hear the difference.

[Kal Rubinson]

Surprising but most listeners have demanded better quality and received it. This audio improvement is in their cars. And I took a quick look the top 200 selling albums you tell me who would benefit from recording in hi resolution. I didn't see any.

I am not sure exactly what you are saying but the mass market/top 200 market won't get high resolution because the proportion of their customers who care is tiny compared to the overall size of their market. OTOH, hirez (and MCH) have made a bigger dent in the tiny classical market because, I believe, those of use who care represent a larger minority.

[Axiom05]

I am not sure exactly what you are saying but the mass market/top 200 market won't get high resolution because the proportion of their customers who care is tiny compared to the overall size of their market. OTOH, hirez (and MCH) have made a bigger dent in the tiny classical market because, I believe, those of use who care represent a larger minority.

 

I haven't looked at the top 200 selling albums, but my guess is that none of them would likely benefit from being recorded in high resolution. Highly volume compressed pop recordings don't even need the resolution of CD quality, thus the lack of interest in higher resolution product.

[jabbr]

Cookie, I would be thrilled if, for example, you recorded & produced Cecile McLorin Salvant rather than merely provided a download, or Regina Carter, although Is it hard to compete with Sony?

There are also a host of amazing quartets etc whom I've heard live but they sell CDs at their concerts (?self produced) eg Bluebird, Ariel etc.

I understand, with limited resources you make decisions on where to focus.

[austinpop]

Hi Roberto,

 

Unless I misunderstand your posts here, you rip (SACDs) rather than purchase downloads. You also hope that at least your genre of recorded music interest, a definite niche within a niche, survives, grows, and prospers. It may interest you to know that the return to the label and artist from a CD/SACD/music BluRay averages about 25% of the sale price, whereas the return from the same download averages 60%.

 

If you would really like to support them, here's at least one way.

 

Tom

 

I think that's unfair. Buying SACD's is supporting them. Ripping them to files is your right as an owner.

 

What is disgraceful is how some download sites have absolutely outrageous pricing for downloads. With an SACD purchase, you typically get a CD, 2ch DSD, and Mch DSD all for the $15-30 you paid for the purchase. Download sites will often charge you that for just the 2ch DSD. And the same again for the Mch version.

 

Native DSD is one of the few, if not the only one, that has a very reasonable price on both 2ch+Mch, but they are definitely the minority.

 

Blaming paying customers is never a good way to make a point.

[徐中銳]

Thank you for asking.. it's quite a long and confusing tale.. I give presentations on the subject that take an hour per stage. My newsletter (soon to be blog I think) will highlight each stage in upcoming releases.

 

Glad you're interested!

Cookie

 

I for one am extremely interested in knowing more about how the recording process works. For starters, I'd love to know what the 6 stages are (denial, anger...?).

 

Even when recording at a higher resolution, there are 6 stages of production to deliver where the recording can be degraded to a lower resolution. It's up to the consumer to choose whether they want to know more about how the recording process works and how it affects what they are hearing and buying -- it's not easy to understand.

 

Well, quickly skimming...

 

See :

I noticed but am currently too busy to study and contribute into your originating Thread' date=' Not enough consumer demand for hi-res...

Here's recalling a 65 minutes upload that may be of interest :

[video=youtube;p_WP-KR_o7M]

Moderator: Cookie Marenco, Blue Coast Records

Panelists: John Darko, Digital Audio Review; Fiona Joy, artist/performer; David Glasser, Airshow Mastering

 

We've identified six phases of music production that can alter the original sound of the recording. Only the first three phases are in the control of the artist and producer. We want to believe that all downloaded files or discs or streams sound the same, but we've found otherwise.

 

Can introducing audiophile standards at any of these stages increase commercial sales? We'll investigate how improvements in music and gear quality can positively effect an industry and what that means to the audiophile buyer.

I would like to apologize... I am a big fan of Cookie... I am hopeful that more artists will appreciate hi-res and will record with Blue Coast.

[mkrzych]

Thank you, everyone... for your concern.... we're still in business selling high resolution downloads, still making DSD recordings in the studio and don't plan on closing down. The excerpt was a generalization of the recording industry in general.. and we appreciated everyone's concern.

 

I was answering questions by both the surround and high resolution stereo community that have recently come to my attention. Music lovers want to know why (in general) there aren't more recordings available by all labels, including the major labels. Many consumers don't understand that high resolution music begins in the recording studio. Today, 95% of the projects recorded start as 44.1.. not considered high resolution audio.

 

The last 5 weeks, I've started writing a newsletter that is sent to 30,000 of our subscribers. In the newsletter, I've been addressing questions we're commonly asked about studios, artists and gear. For some reason, this latest post struck a chord for many people and has been reposted many times. For the full newsletter, here is the link.

Why Don't More Companies Produce Music in High Resolution? -- Blue Coast Records

 

You can sign up for the newsletter at Blue Coast Records | Exceptional Acoustic Recordings where you'll receive out weekly music offering and my weekly newsletter. We have more than 50 high resolution albums recorded to DSD and/or tape from Blue Coast Records. We also have a platform where we distribute more than 300 high resolution albums at Downloads NOW! | We don't plan on soon stopping our distribution service.

 

Here is an excerpt of the question I was answering.. asked by one of our customers....

You may not be able to answer this question, but you’re the only person I know in the industry: why don’t companies record and produce music in high-resolution formats? Is the process just that much more expensive?

 

I ask because I get frustrated when I happen upon an artist I like, most often an acoustic guitarist like Don Ross, and the only format in which I can purchase his or her music is MP3, which often sounds muddy, muted, messy, or just plain bad through my inexpensive DAC and mid-priced headphones. (I can’t imagine how sloppy those tracks would be through the much higher-end gear you offer on your website!)

 

Thank you, again, for your support of high resolution audio.

 

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Records

 

Hello Cookie,

That's so cool you're posting time to time to that forum and let us know honestly what is going on in the record industry. Regarding high resolution records that was and still is such hype and lot of web portals offers "so called" high resolution files to download. I named them "so called" because many of these are just poor upsampled content or much more compressed that the original ones - which I don't really understand why?! All of these has some impact on the customers which if tried ones and happened to purchase a fake file are reluctant to buy it again - been there. Pricing and to top it off lack of the PDF booklet are another story - especially lack of the booklet when the pricing is higher usually is something that bugs me a lot.

 

All of those issues when mitigated and done adequately of course make the cost of the production more expensive I guess and to justify that cost there certainly needs to be demand from us to purchase the final product. Hope that it will change in the future and industry forget about excessive compression, fake files and lack of the booklets and come back again to the old times when the music and sonics meant a lot for both producer and an artist.

[Kal Rubinson]

I haven't looked at the top 200 selling albums, but my guess is that none of them would likely benefit from being recorded in high resolution. Highly volume compressed pop recordings don't even need the resolution of CD quality, thus the lack of interest in higher resolution product.

I think we agree but I would reword the statement to: "The vast mojority of fans of highly volume compressed pop recordings don't care about quality, thus the lack of interest in higher resolution product. "

[tailspn]

I think that's unfair. Buying SACD's is supporting them. Ripping them to files is your right as an owner.

 

What is disgraceful is how some download sites have absolutely outrageous pricing for downloads. With an SACD purchase, you typically get a CD, 2ch DSD, and Mch DSD all for the $15-30 you paid for the purchase. Download sites will often charge you that for just the 2ch DSD. And the same again for the Mch version.

 

Native DSD is one of the few, if not the only one, that has a very reasonable price on both 2ch+Mch, but they are definitely the minority.

 

Blaming paying customers is never a good way to make a point.

 

Hi Austin,

 

I believe "blaming" is your word/sentiment, not mine, but I appologize if my wording led you to that conclusion. I was just pointing out a little known fact; an opportunity, for customers to further support their artists and labels of interest. But thank you for the NativeDSD mention and clarification.

 

I'd also question the belief that it's the customer's "right" to rip a copy protected encoded SACD, as it is with a CD, or CD layer. AFAIK, that's not been legally tested, and given the very small numbers involved, probably never will be. But I'll share with you that ripping the DSD layer is counter to both the intent of the physical format, and a primary reason that labels pay 3X the cost of manufacture over a CD to protect their work product.

 

Tom

[mrvco]

Hi Austin,

 

I believe "blaming" is your word/sentiment, not mine, but I appologize if my wording led you to that conclusion. I was just pointing out a little known fact; an opportunity, for customers to further support their artists and labels of interest. But thank you for the NativeDSD mention and clarification.

 

I'd also question the belief that it's the customer's "right" to rip a copy protected encoded SACD, as it is with a CD, or CD layer. AFAIK, that's not been legally tested, and given the very small numbers involved, probably never will be. But I'll share with you that ripping the DSD layer is counter to both the intent of the physical format, and a primary reason that labels pay 3X the cost of manufacture over a CD to protect their work product.

 

Tom

 

I believe that we're still in the situation where "personal back-up copies" are still allowed, while circumventing copy protection does violate the DMCA. It does not appear that there is much interest in testing this contradiction in the courts and take the chance on a decision in favor of personal back-up copies. The reality is that to identify and prosecute individuals ripping lawfully purchased DVDs and BRDs for their own personal use would be a ridiculously tedious and inflammatory process. The more practical and easier to justify approach has been to go after the bootleggers and file sharers.

[austinpop]

Hi Austin,

 

I believe "blaming" is your word/sentiment, not mine, but I appologize if my wording led you to that conclusion. I was just pointing out a little known fact; an opportunity, for customers to further support their artists and labels of interest. But thank you for the NativeDSD mention and clarification.

 

I'd also question the belief that it's the customer's "right" to rip a copy protected encoded SACD, as it is with a CD, or CD layer. AFAIK, that's not been legally tested, and given the very small numbers involved, probably never will be. But I'll share with you that ripping the DSD layer is counter to both the intent of the physical format, and a primary reason that labels pay 3X the cost of manufacture over a CD to protect their work product.

 

Tom

 

Tom,

 

Given that we're discussing high resolution music, an endangered species we both love and want to protect, the last thing I want to do is argue! So first - I did understand and appreciate your point that purchasing downloads is an opportunity for consumers to encourage their production.

 

However, I would respectfully ask labels to engage in sensible pricing practices. Let me give you an example from the label 2L. First off, I really admire their fantastic recordings, their production values, and their support for their 2l Test Bench site. Through those samples, I was incented to purchase several of their albums.

 

So far, so good.

 

But let's look at one of my favorites: Arnesen's Magnificat: Album: MAGNIFICAT (2L-106-SABD) Nidarosdomens jentekor & TrondheimSolistene

 

Let's break down their offerings. From their online store, I can buy either physical media or downloads.

 

Physical Media: a Blu-Ray+SACD offering for $28 (note - cheaper on Amazon, but let's support the label by buying direct) containing:

• STEREO 192kHz/24bit
  
• 5.1 SURROUND 192kHz/24bit
  
• 9.1 Auro-3D 96kHz/24bit
  
• 2ch DSD64
  
• Mch DSD64
  

 

Downloads:

• STEREO 192kHz/24bit - $23
  
• 5.1 SURROUND 192kHz/24bit - $24 (only 96/24 available for download)
  
• 9.1 Auro-3D 96kHz/24bit - not available for purchase
  
• 2ch DSD64 - $23
  
• Mch DSD64 - $24
  
• Total cost - $94
  

 

So I submit to you - how are labels incenting customers to prefer downloads when pricing like this? Even if I want to encourage high-resolution production and provide the best returns to the artist and label, I can't as a rational consumer justify a 3x increase in cost?

 

Like I said, I admire that NativeDSD is bucking this trend with sensible pricing that mimics what one can buy on disc, but how do we get labels to pay heed?

 

IMO - the above pricing is just alienating their small band of supporters.

[Axiom05]

I think we agree but I would reword the statement to: "The vast mojority of fans of highly volume compressed pop recordings don't care about quality, thus the lack of interest in higher resolution product. "

 

Hi Kal, this is not quite what I was getting at; apologies for not being more clear. I think we need to ask why people are fans of highly volume compressed recordings? I think it is because they have no other choice and probably don't know any different. For popular albums there is only one version, there aren't various remasters available. The album is what it is, for better or worse, nothing better is being offered. Of course people have a choice between buying mp3 or CD quality but that is another issue. For example, I liked the first album from Of Monsters and Men but it is highly compressed. I was very disappointed to see that their second album has even more volume compression and as a result I did not buy it. Obviously other people have bought it and don't know that it is highly compressed because they think that is what music is supposed to sound like. If someone is only fed "tube steaks" they have no clue what a good filet mignon tastes like. From a technical standpoint, if the industry is only producing recordings with low dynamic range, then there is no incentive to use higher bit rates or higher sampling rates as the benefits will not be realized. The blame for this lies both with the artists as well as the record labels. We need a paradigm shift in the way music is created and produced. There is no reason that good sound quality cannot go hand in hand with creativity. In fact, dynamic range is a strong creative tool that is being completely ignored!

[mrvco]

I think we agree but I would reword the statement to: "The vast mojority of fans of highly volume compressed pop recordings don't care about quality, thus the lack of interest in higher resolution product. "

 

I think that much of the issue is that Hi-res is sold as the be-all, end-all, when the reality is that production quality and technique is far more important. I'll take a 16/44.1 release with superior production quality over a Hi-res version with inferior production quality all day, every day. Even when it's the same performance, recording and mastering, I'm still reluctant to pay 2x+ for a Hi-res version of an otherwise identical CD version for most music that I buy.

[Hailey]

I think that much of the issue is that Hi-res is sold as the be-all, end-all, when the reality is that production quality and technique is far more important. I'll take a 16/44.1 release with superior production quality over a Hi-res version with inferior production quality all day, every day. I'm still reluctant to pay 2x+ for a Hi-res version of an otherwise identical CD version for most music that I buy.

 

I think that's self-evidently true, but must that be the choice?

[mansr]

I think that much of the issue is that Hi-res is sold as the be-all, end-all, when the reality is that production quality and technique is far more important. I'll take a 16/44.1 release with superior production quality over a Hi-res version with inferior production quality all day, every day. Even when it's the same performance, recording and mastering, I'm still reluctant to pay 2x+ for a Hi-res version of an otherwise identical CD version for most music that I buy.

Blue Coast CD quality is $15, 96k is $30. At those prices, I'm buying the CD quality, and it's fabulous. If the hi-res was just a little more expensive, say $18, I'd be more inclined to get it, just in case.

[robocop]

It is frustrating as Mark Waldrep(Dr.AIX) keeps reiterating in his posts re Hires.

 

But there is hope, a number of big artists are now recording in 24/96, Mark Knopfler and Leonard Cohen to name two. Unfortunately we are forced to download these from minimal sites. The main public release is still 16/44.

 

The Leonard Cohen "Old Ideas" was released on CD but a 24/44 version is available now and is a big improvement over the CD.

 

Mark Knopflers two recent albums are available in 24/96.

 

I myself am happy to pay more for better sounding recordings and most studios do have the ability to record 24/96. People with at least a blue ray player have the ability to play hi res audio.

 

Record companies have still to get there heads around the new markets is a major problem.

 

I don't know why, record companies don't sell direct online with different versions available. I still often can't get downloads of material I like and the CD's are out of print. You were able to get these from Torrents(illegal) but these are being forced out of the market and rightly so. If you want something badly enough where do you go?

 

Even though I use Spotify, mainly to find new music I always prefer to buy recordings and in as higher resolution as possible. I do have sympathy for musicians and don't like to see them miss out, they do after all perform to give us this pleasurable experience.

 

Robert

[mansr]

It is frustrating as Mark Waldrep(Dr.AIX) keeps reiterating in his posts re Hires.

 

Why? He seems mostly on the mark to me, whether or not you like his miking technique.

 

But there is hope, a number of big artists are now recording in 24/96, Mark Knopfler and Leonard Cohen to name two. Unfortunately we are forced to download these from minimal sites. The main public release is still 16/44.

 

The Leonard Cohen "Old Ideas" was released on CD but a 24/44 version is available now and is a big improvement over the CD.

 

Where from? How is it better? The CD seems a bit compressed to me. If there's a more dynamic version available, I'm all ears.

 

Mark Knopflers two recent albums are available in 24/96.

 

I myself am happy to pay more for better sounding recordings and most studios do have the ability to record 24/96 now. Because of piracy I suspect record companies have been reluctant to release 24/96 recordings but this is easing to some degree.

 

I don't know why record companies don't sell direct online with different versions available. I still often can't get downloads of material I like and the CD's are out of print. You were able to get these from Torrents(illegal) but these are being forced out of the market.

 

Even though I use Spotify, mainly to find new music I always prefer to buy them and in as higher resolution as possible.

 

Spotify is great for trying out new music, but far too much is simply unlistenable due to lossy compression.

[robocop]

Mark Waldrep records his frustrations with lack of progress in HiRes and I agree totally with him.

 

I downloaded Mark Knopfler and Leonard Cohen from HD Tracks. I do recognise that this site has some pretty dubious HiRes downloads especially supposed remasters of old stuff. Surely record labels are releasing 24/96 tracks(recorded in 24/96) to HDtracks for release as they can't be bothered.

 

I tried Tidal but couldn't justify the cost and limited range of recordings. Even thought this is 16/44 its still limited. In Spotify's favour I'm always amazed at some of the stuff(quite old) they have online that is not available anywhere but possibly second hand.

[YashN]

For starters, I'd love to know what the 6 stages are (denial, anger...?).

 

Haha, Jud.

[esldude]

Blue Coast CD quality is $15, 96k is $30. At those prices, I'm buying the CD quality, and it's fabulous. If the hi-res was just a little more expensive, say $18, I'd be more inclined to get it, just in case.

 

Yes, this is where the companies have their head up their behinds. When you record high rez there is more effort to make the CD quality available. If they do that at a profit at $15, then they would have even more profit for the hires version. I do get not everyone wants or needs the larger file size. So a slight premium as you suggest would work fine.

 

Getting more picayune, I don't know the slope of demand in this market. I wonder if they do. Perhaps their pricing is the maximum profit point for them, and perhaps they are throwing away sizable amounts of possible income. It does depend upon the slope of demand.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I think if the difference between CD quality and high resolution music was as obvious as the difference between standard definition and high definition video, there would be much greater demand for high resolution music.

 

A monkey can tell which video is HD versus SD. A golden ear may not be able to tell which version of audio is CD versus high resolution.

 

Also, there is a limitation when recording and working with audio that can keep sample rates down to 44.1. The number of tracks needed by some music is huge and this causes the engineers to use 44.1.

[徐中銳]

Weekend, recalling a couple of videos, firstly :

Moderators: Chris Connaker, Founder, Computer Audiophile and Pål Bråtelund, TIDAL

We've been through the worst of times with the transition of mainstream playback from lossless CD quality to lossy MP3 quality. It's finally time to bring back lossless CD quality and move studio master quality from the class market to the mass market. Technology is no longer a barrier to great HiFi playback. Access to more music than Joe Sixpack could ever store at home, all in CD quality or better, is a HiFI and music aficionado's dream. Much of this dream is either a reality now or will soon be a reality for many listeners around the world. Services such as TIDAL and Qobuz are strongly rumored to be coming to America and other countries this fall (2014). A few years ago listeners switching from physical Compact Discs to file based playback were overjoyed with access to their complete music collections at their fingertips. In a few months these listeners should be blown away with access to over 20 million lossless tracks for the price of purchasing a couple albums. Soon the traditional HiFi manufacturers and audio engineers can get back to what they do best, design the best performing audio gear in the world, rather than attempt to enter the realm of Apple and mobile app designers. Everyone has a speciality. Letting software developers employed by companies like TIDAL lead the application charge while HiFi legends stick to bringing us better sound quality will spring our wonderful hobby into the future sooner rather than later. There has never been a more exciting time to love great music and great sound quality. Click here for an in-depth description: Computer Audiophile - The Future Of HiFi