I have plastic shiny disks that are DRM free. They’re actually pretty great, lossless, and no monthly fees.
They are called _Compact Discs_ and you can get them pretty cheap these days!
They are called _Compact Discs_ and you can get them pretty cheap these days!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
Also, I believe you had to install junk software from the CD to a Windows or Mac Computer, before those OSs were hardened somewhat. Avoiding all things Sony seems a better strategy than otherwise benign CDs.
Source: I totally still do that with my CD collection.
I hear what you're saying, but the convenience of a vast and portable library is compelling.
I don't want the plastic, the physical storage requirements, etc, of a CD. With digital I don't "own" the music, sure, but I've definitely lost more music in my life from scratched discs, people not returning CDs than I ever will through Spotify.
I guess there are many reasons for this, but mainly I guess they are simply victims of copyright.
I can format it to MP3, or ALAC, of FLAC, or whatever I like, and I can play them on devices that are made today, or 40 years ago.
But secretly I just use Spotify for it’s discover features, and then buy CDs of the albums I like.
Spotify isn't going anywhere.
Also, all the people holding onto their 8-tracks are definitely thinking they showed all of us. /s
It is still, for me, a cheaper and more flexible option despite licensing squabbles. It also gives me the opportunity to find new artists and give albums a few listens before deciding on whether or not they do it for me.
My views are USA-centric, perhaps licensing issues are more prevalent in other countries.
It's the more esoteric artists that have become increasingly difficult to get CDs for. Streaming is really a boon for anything outside the mainstream.
I seem to recall that meant they weren't actually CDs, they just happened to look exactly like them, and usually function in a CD player. Computers often had trouble with them.
I don't know if this is true, or just bs, but there you go.
CDs aren't lossless unless the material was recorded at or below 16 bit/44.1kHz.
You can argue whether the difference is perceptible - some blind studies suggest not - but this fact is what led to a variety of semi-obscure audiophile disc formats that offered higher sampling rates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD).
Also, I’m aware SACDs exists. I actually have an amp that can decode DSD encoded audio but I failed to hear a difference.
The definition of lossless is that either no compression algorithm was used or the compression algorithm is capable of precisely recreating the original bits in as bits out. If you feed a lossless mechanism an 8 bit 3.5KHz mono bitstream, it must reproduce the same 8 bit 3.5Khz mono bitstream at the other end. Quality out equals quality in.
In your definition, no sound is ever lossless because no microphones can ever capture the complete audio experience available from a live performance - if you move your head a quarter of a wavelength, the sound will change.
That's why we don't use that definition.
Yes, if you blast humans with enough energy in any form they will eventually notice. This is not a relevant result for music.
Because from all accounts it is a myth.
Sensitivity to audio falls off a cliff as you approach 20KHz.
Especially if your hearing has been damaged by repeat exposure to 19 kHz at 138dB SPL.
From all accounts? Don't you mean from one account?
110 dBSPL represents thousands of times more energy (in watts) than you could plausibly expect in any musically derived ultrasonic content played at a volume level which doesn't pose a significant risk of permanent hearing loss. At such insane power levels, obviously nobody will be hearing the actual frequency but rather sub-harmonics and/or other physical sensations derived from that moronic level of sound pressure.