No expert on the matter, (though I should be in my line of work), but my guess would be: so all songs fit on one cd. The CD technology at that time probably didn't allow a higher bit/sample rate due to file size restrictions. The common audio CD still writes down data and I don't think that, at 24bit/48khz, a CD would be able to contain a standard full album (again, could be wrong here). There's a practically inaudible difference between 24bit/48khz vs 16bit/44.1khz as well, just like there's a practically inaudible difference between high quality wav files and slightly compressed mp3 files, or even highly compressed mp3 files. Go ahead, try it out: https://www.npr.org/sections/thereco...=1580040427911

I have recently given in to Spotify premium out of convenience. Their subscribers get to hear the audio at 320kbps, as opposed to the free 160 kbps. I wouldn't be able to tell the two apart with a ****ed and loaded gun to my head. I'm also willing to bet my life savings (which is around $15) on it that there's anyone out there who would flawlessly be able to tell the difference between a couple of flac, mp3, or 32bit/96khz master files through the same set of speakers. inb4 real amps vs modelers discussion

The end result for me is a pleasant sonic result, without audible compromises. MP3's being streamed through a nice high quality set of speakers will do just fine. Vinyl doesn't add anything to the experience for me. If anything I get distracted by the occasional pops/clicks/scratch sounds.

I meant why didn't the music industry adopt the DVD as the standard when it became available?

As for the audio quality test, I identified 2 of the 6 tracks as uncompressed wav. files: the Mozart - Piano Concerto and Suzanne Vega's "Tom's Diner." I'm ok with that. I actually took that same test 5 years ago and identified the same 2 tracks as uncompressed wav. files. I remember it as "the NPR audio test" and I got the "classical piece" and the "last one" correct. My memory is not good enough to remember which boxes I checked though.

Here is an alternative to the "NPR audio test." The approach is different: 2L High-Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH
2L is a Norwegian record label run by Morten Lindberg. They do some amazing work.

It's funny...we don't have "real amps vs. modeler" discussions. It might be good to have one.

My apologies, I misunderstood. The rant below is entirely my 2 cents on the matter and should not be considered a factual analysis.

I think it all has to do with convenience. That is the #1 reason why audio- and video-streaming services are just so popular. DVD-Audio did not offer any new sort of convenience and required quite the investment, when people were already knee-deep in Audio-CD's and their required hardware.

Video-DVD took off because it was yep, more convenient. No more rewinding your goddamn tapes, a lot more bonus content and clearer picture. Major win.
Audio-CD's took off because it was yep, more convenient. No more rewinding your goddamn tapes, no more flipping your tape to side B for the next batch of songs and an audible increase in quality. Major win.

Audio-DVD's had a slight increase in audio quality and was not more convenient than an Audio-CD. It also required expensive hardware (back in those days) and this during a time when people were getting stingy because that diabolical fiend of a Napster came crashing in through the doors.

Hold up... Free music with an inaudible difference in quality?!



Every kids dad was looking into how to download music. And the graph speaks for itself.



And talk about convenience. Double-clicking a file to listen to 1 specific song as opposed to getting the CD, taking it out of the jewel case, praying to God that the disc doesn't have scratches or isn't dirty, skipping through all the tracks to get to the song you wanted. Goodbye back-breaking labour! And a standard family only had one pc standing in the living room anyway so it was there for all to enjoy.

It was also around 2000 that video-DVD's were becoming a mainstream thing. I recall saving up for a PS2 around that time and being one of the first people in class being able to play a DVD. But by the end of the academic year, everyone had a DVD player. Sure, you could download movies on your PC back then, but it was a whole hassle getting it to play on your TV. For the people who watched movies on their PC monitor, it worked just fine. But when you got a family that wants to collectively enjoy movies, DVD's was still the best movie-watching option. I'm starting to feel like Randy Marsh after buying that Blockbuster video store.

Audio-DVD's were a very niche market and offered no new form of convenience. Kind of like why 4K Blu-Rays aren't taking off (and probably never will), despite the fact that the picture quality is better (in theory) as opposed to streaming (4K) video content. The average person just digs the whole comfort of Netflix, Amazon Prime etc, even though they are compromising on quality when compared to the best physical media out there.

Man I used the word "convenience" a lot.

It does make you think, why so many people spend so much time, energy, and money on particular pickups, certain strings, TUBE amplifiers, magic microphones, etc... when all of it ends up in a compressed, small db range (with mp3s). Really makes you wonder if it even matters. (I realize it matters to the player siting in front of the gear, but otherwise...)

Great post!
Yep, I like CD's and miss those days, but another measure of convenience - actual physical storage space! Ten years ago I had walls of CD's and DVD's. Now? I have two kids and less space for "stuff." I dumped about 2/3rds of all physical content, keeping the things I really wanted. And really streaming has made even movies easier. I'm not going to get up from the couch to get the Empire Strikes Back blu ray when I can just hit play on Disney+. Granted, Diseny+'s quality and buffering is shockingly bad for a "premium Disney brand."
Now with streaming you can scratch any itch almost instantaneously by going online and pressing "play" as well. I'm on Amazon music, mostly because I had already bought a ton of MP3s from them and you can play them on Music Unlimited even if they're not available on the standard streaming menu. And right now I'm listening to Big Game by White Lion. Much better quality than when I bought this back in the day on tape. LOL! CD - obviously better. But really, measuring audio quality versus convenience how much MORE am I really getting with more high definition? Even on new albums recorded on modern gear, how much better is it?
And like people who prefer vinyl / analog to digital - is it really preferable to have THAT MUCH more clarity? Again, like image smoothing. I think it's cool, but on a movie I like a little haze to help me believe the mountains in the background are actually far away.

Also, a bit of irony. My wife works in the biz dealing with physical media.

Perhaps this will clarify what I find frustrating: Using the CD as the standard, any resolution below CD quality is described as "you can't tell the difference." Any resolution above CD quality is described as "you can't hear the difference except for film which is at 24bit/48kHz." This does not make sense but implies all sound is the same unless you are watching a movie...

You mentioned "a nice high-quality set of speakers" as part of a pleasant listening experience for yourself. That makes sense. I could be wrong, but I think more people might think this makes more sense (and is more convenient): https://www.amazon.com/Echo-Studio/d...2-a3c48a1d60b7

People like cheap speakers they can talk to and you are an a**hole if you don't like them too. That's frustrating.

Now, after all this negativity I need a pick me up, so I'm going to watch a movie on my iPhone using the phone's speakers because it is convenient...

People listen to music out of a hockey puck these days. 'Nuff said.

On the film watching spectrum, things are sort of the same except nothing is free or low quality. Convenience is still important but in order for Netflix, Disney, and every film studio to maintain control over their “content,” some convenience is sacrificed. For example, you can’t watch a movie in 4K HDR on a 15 year old TV. In fact, the only way to watch 4K content is if you have a 4K or higher TV and HDMI 2.0 ports that support HDCP 2.2. If any component does not support HDCP 2.2, all the media reverts to 1080p. The reason things are like this is because of money. TV/Film is really expensive to create so the parties involved implement security measures to protect it from theft. I can burn a CD, I can’t burn a BluRay disc. It can be done but not with your computer at home. Lucky Patcher Kodi nox

To branch out the topic of “How We Listen to Music” I am curious about how many times people listen to a song/album they like? Rough guesses are welcome.

Personally, it depends on the music, how long it is, how demanding it is to listen to, etc. It turns out, I like listening to movies as background sound to allow sounds I hadn’t noticed before to emerge. According to iTunes, I “played” Star Wars - The Force Awakens 1,000+ times. I think “played” means “pressed play” not “watched the whole thing” because that would be rather remarkable if I had in fact listened/watched the entire movie 1,000+ times.

The 2nd most listened to song was Muramasa by Periphery at 400+ but closer to 500. I think that is pretty accurate. The song is a 2:52 album intro. I tend to consume specific music in a relatively short period of time until I am familiar with everything about it and then rarely ever listen to it again. This is probably not the norm, which I am fine with, however, when the powers at be were deciding how much a streamed song is worth, they made their decision based on the belief “a song is listened to 30 times over the life of the medium.” I have no idea where they got that number but it seems low.

How many times do you listen to music before the newness wears off?