Nicolas Negroponte: The Physical Book is Dead in Five Years

[mikij]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Strictly speaking, this is true but, assuming both are high quality reproductions, it takes some pretty expensive equipment and a really good ear to hear the difference.

I always had above average sound systems so I cannot say how this sounds on cheapos. I know how it sounded on "real machines". Although I cannot hear any more a lot of transients (age) , I "hear" or rather feel when they are missing (in MP3).

[mikij]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Are you sure *both* forms will be available to buy? Forever?

Not forever, but as long as baby-boomers walk on this Earth, I am pretty sure they will. Not every one in this generation (of boomers) is a geek like I am, so many will still continue the "traditional way". I changed, many will not.
And if they ask, publishers will respond. Boomers' economic power is still quite impressive.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by mikij

I always had above average sound systems so I cannot say how this sounds on cheapos. I know how it sounded on "real machines". Although I cannot hear any more a lot of transients (age) , I "hear" or rather feel when they are missing (in MP3).

You're not the only one "enjoying" age.

One thing many people forget when comparing sound systems are acoustics. A small room is just not going to have the sound of a large room. Sure, one can tweak the sound with an equalizer, fool with reverb, etc., but it's just never the same. This is one case where pouring more money into equipment will reap little to no gain after a certain point. After that, the only real gain is bragging rights. Once I get the settings right, I can get as good or better sound in my 12'x12' bedroom with a 7' (where I do my music listening) from my $99 (it was $129 when I got it) Logitech 5.1 system hooked up to my computer than from a Bose costing two or three times as much. The Bose systems would be able to sound better than the Logitecs if I was listening in a 20'x30' room with a 9' ceiling (which will never happen).

[carld]

Originally Posted by mikij

Not forever, but as long as baby-boomers walk on this Earth, I am pretty sure they will. Not every one in this generation (of boomers) is a geek like I am, so many will still continue the "traditional way". I changed, many will not.
And if they ask, publishers will respond. Boomers' economic power is still quite impressive.

Ebook readers tend to skew older than the general population. If I remember right older readers make up the biggest segment of the ereader population. As printed books get harder for Boomers to read I see them flocking to ereaders in ever greater numbers.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by mikij

Digitalized music (compressed or not, even CDs), by its nature (0 and 1) is always of lesser quality than the analog one. Curves are always at least a little bit squared and sample rate should be unbelievably high to pick up every transient that exists on the original analog recording (where the master exists). Even for music captured by digital devices, this "squaring" still exists, but filters mask and "improve" a sound. However, the transients will still be missing. But, with today's music there is not much to do: no fine guitar nuances (is this instrument still used ? LOL), even the singers that can't sing do the albums that sounds correctly (voice pitching software will fix their wrong singing and adapt it to the instrumental part and nobody will even notice something was wrong).

Vinyl is back and their sales, although still small, increase a lot every day. But not every Rihanna or Britney Spears will use them. They reveal too much the lack of talent. Vinyl is for the people who know the music and the good real warm sound. My ears are no more what they used to be, but there is still a huge difference (on a good stereo system) between a vinyl and any MP3.

However, vinyl will never be as portable as digital music. And if you are in a subway, you won't be able to bring your collection of vinyls (and fill the whole wagon), neither you'll take 200 CDs with you. MP3 player will be correct.

Books are different at the point that letters are letters. no matter paper or electronic version. No loss of characters or words (no "squaring").
pBook could be like vinyl - warm by touch, with a smell; eBook can be like any digital form. If you are at home an you have a pBook collection you like, you can read it. If you have an eBook version of the same, you can read it either. While commuting, you can use either (but if the books are heavy, you won't be able to bring two of them to continue reading when you finish the first one during the travel - something you can do with a reader).
It's personal.

So, to return to the topic - I don't believe Negroponte's prediction is correct. There will always be those who like any of the two forms of reading and maybe even those who will continue to buy both forms (not of the same book). I grew up surrounded by thousands of books, but now I appreciate my reader and the possibility to bring with me dozens of selected books and read any whenever I want. But when at home - I have a choice.

Yup, I actually prefer vinyl, but I moved overseas years ago, gave up vinyl and didn't have heart to rebuild a collection on return to the U.S., because I figured I'd want to return overseas again. Vinyl doesn't travel and store as easily as CDs, so I gave up some sound quality. It's good to have friends with big vinyl collections, kinda like having a friend with a boat -- you enjoy without the responsibility, lol.

I'm no music expert. To me, CDs sound better than MP3s for what I like, so I listen to CDs at home. I like older jazz, including Django Reinhardt, who was a guitarist. Much of my music is in instrumentals only.

[mikij]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

Yup, I actually prefer vinyl, but I moved overseas years ago, gave up vinyl and didn't have heart to rebuild a collection on return to the U.S., because I figured I'd want to return overseas again. Vinyl doesn't travel and store as easily as CDs, so I gave up some sound quality. It's good to have friends with big vinyl collections, kinda like having a friend with a boat -- you enjoy without the responsibility, lol.

I'm no music expert. To me, CDs sound better than MP3s for what I like, so I listen to CDs at home. I like older jazz, including Django Reinhardt, who was a guitarist. Much of my music is in instrumentals only.

My story is the same (moved overseas, left a huge vinyl collection, etc.). It sounded so good, especially in a room acoustically prepared for this, with turntables on the walls, on the marble to prevent any interference, etc. We all make compromises. Several hundred vinyls weren't something I could move easily from Europe to N. America.

Oh, yes, the old Django who did with three fingers better music than many with five

[mikij]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

You're not the only one "enjoying" age.

One thing many people forget when comparing sound systems are acoustics. A small room is just not going to have the sound of a large room. Sure, one can tweak the sound with an equalizer, fool with reverb, etc., but it's just never the same. This is one case where pouring more money into equipment will reap little to no gain after a certain point. After that, the only real gain is bragging rights. Once I get the settings right, I can get as good or better sound in my 12'x12' bedroom with a 7' (where I do my music listening) from my $99 (it was $129 when I got it) Logitech 5.1 system hooked up to my computer than from a Bose costing two or three times as much. The Bose systems would be able to sound better than the Logitecs if I was listening in a 20'x30' room with a 9' ceiling (which will never happen).

He! he! My music room (8 x 5 m, whatever in feet) was specially prepared for listening. Acoustic wall coverings (you know, the "pyramids"), rugs, etc. Turntables were on the wall consoles, on the marble, no equalizers, big full-range speakers, antistatic devices and carbon-fiber brushes... I miss all of this.

[jholanda]

I don't think it's fair to compare books and music. And though I am an enthusiastic ebook reader I am more than concerned with the perspectives presented to humanity by such prognostic.

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

I think that public libraries will be among the first to dump them. They don't have the money to maintain the purchases and shelf space. You'll have to go to private collectors (and there are lots of book hoarders) to find print books.

that's on the the things what worries me the most.

[GreenMonkey]

Given the huge amount of people that only read one or two books a year...given all of the older folks that don't want to hassle with technology...given the occasional holdouts like me (DRM and loss of resale-ability sucks)...I don't think so.

Hell, they've been saying this for over 10 years now for CDs. Guess what? They're still here. I still prefer a CD. Sure, they get ripped to the media server and stored in a drawer...and provide a nice physical backup. And I can resell it for a couple of bucks (sometimes) or I can buy a used one for a couple of bucks. And don't start me on itunes. I hate itunes. At least most of the music doesn't have DRM any more.

You might see music CDs finally replaced in that amount of time...maybe. Books are a long way off still.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Strictly speaking, this is true but, assuming both are high quality reproductions, it takes some pretty expensive equipment and a really good ear to hear the difference. Not very many people are going to be able to hear the difference and even fewer are going to be willing to pay for the equipment required. Also, analog has to be recorded on media that is subject to wear and tear which will eventually degrade the quality of the sound. Digital media is subject to similar wear and tear but, due to its nature of each sound sampling being all or none, still can be played at the original quality despite wear and tear of the media (up to a point, of course). Also, as long as the wear and tear is not too bad, a digital recording can be reproduced on fresh media and be as good as the original recording. So, basically, analog will sound better initially but will degrade over time but digital can maintain its quality over time.



There has been a huge debate regarding the "warmer" sound of vinyl over digital. My experience had been, other than really obsure nuances digital may not pick up, digital sounds closer to a live performance than vinyl. I much prefer the brighter sound of a live performance (sans the faint sound of someone clearing their throat, people shuffling in their seats, or applauding during or just before the end of a piece but then there are people who like those sounds; that's a whole 'nuther debate) over the warmth of vinyl. I suspect many people prefer the warmth because they grew up with it. I also prefer the convenience of not having to hassle with trying to take care of a vinyl disk that will eventually wear anyway no matter how careful I am. I like being able to put together playlists from multiple albums that can play for several hours with no attention from me. I like the idea I can put up to thirty hours worth of music in my car stereo and not be at the mercy of broadcast stations that may or may not (generally not) play what I like to listen to, especially when driving a stretch of road that has no stations I like (I'm a persnicketive old bitch).

Btw, I'm not knocking people for prefering vinyl over digital; I'm just pointing out it is just a preference and not necessarily better.

Outstanding post Jeannie!

I'm a member of Polk Audio's forum, and there are always disagreements popping up between those of us who focus more on the music & those who focus more on the gear and endlessly tweeking it to find the ULTIMATE sound.

Most of the tweekers swear by tubes & vinyl. Me while I do know & hear that cd's sound better, I'd rather spend the whole day listening to my music on my San Disk mp3 player, that's connected to my audio system rather than hopping up all day long changing cds!

The tweekers get a kick out of CUSTOMIZING the sound they hear with tubes. Me? I just want to listen to music.

Pbooks aren't going anywhere anytime soon anymore than cd's are. But with an aging population of Baby Boomers the benefits of the customizing the fonts on an ereader will be just too much to pass up.

[Freeshadow]

pbooks ll be as long up as the educating personnel keeps saying "no you aren't allowed to use ebook textbooks on the test, we cannot cointrol what people have else on edevices so they are not allowed"

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by jholanda

that's on the the things what worries me the most.

It is something to ponder for sure.
But it is also worth remembering that libraries are more than just communal bookshelves. If pbooks start getting in the way of libraries' mission then pbooks will have to go. One thing that modern libraries have always had going for them is that they are not afraid to adapt with the times.

I notice that even among people who are familiar with ebooks and modern information technologies the idea that print books might be marginalized is disturbing and discomforting. It goes against the grain. But change comes whether we like it or not and if we refuse to even consider the possibility upfront it'll just sneak up on us and then we'll be blindsided by it.

Considering disturbing scenarios is essential to prepare to deal with them if and when.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Outstanding post Jeannie!...

Aw, shucks! (said, Jeannie, shyly looking down and scuffing the dirt with the toe of her shoe)

Originally Posted by cfrizz

...I'm a member of Polk Audio's forum, and there are always disagreements popping up between those of us who focus more on the music & those who focus more on the gear and endlessly tweeking it to find the ULTIMATE sound.

Most of the tweekers swear by tubes & vinyl. Me while I do know & hear that cd's sound better, I'd rather spend the whole day listening to my music on my San Disk mp3 player, rather than hopping up all day long changing cds!

The tweekers get a kick out of CUSTOMIZING the sound they hear with tubes. Me? I just want to listen to music.

Pbooks aren't going anywhere anytime soon anymore than cd's are. But with an aging population of Baby Boomers the benefits of the customizing the fonts on an ereader will be just too much to pass up.

Thanks for reminding me about the argument that tube amps sound better than transistors. Never mind that the difference is the almost subliminal power line hum of the tube amps.

[HamsterRage]

Analog, by definition, is going to have issues with noise. It also depends heavily on the quality of the media and the playback equipment.

Digital, on the other hand, only has the noise that came along from the recording equipment itself. The digitizing process itself, though, loses some of the qualities of the original sound - it's only an approximation.

It should be noted that CDs are an obsolete format. They were designed to store the data on a media with what we would consider today to have an extremely small capacity. The reason that they haven't been replaced with newer technology is because nobody is going to invest in playback equipment for a newer physical media, especially when people are moving toward downloaded music.

For the vast amount of pop and rock music, it isn't really possible to hear much difference between a CD and an MP3 at 192kbps, and even harder at 256kbps. There's really no reason why digital formats in the future can't run at much higher sample rates or use more bits per sample, all of which will shrink the difference between analog and digital.

A quick Google search came up with an article that indicated that digital sales would outstrip CD sales in 2010.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Analog, by definition, is going to have issues with noise. It also depends heavily on the quality of the media and the playback equipment.

Digital, on the other hand, only has the noise that came along from the recording equipment itself. The digitizing process itself, though, loses some of the qualities of the original sound - it's only an approximation.

It should be noted that CDs are an obsolete format. They were designed to store the data on a media with what we would consider today to have an extremely small capacity. The reason that they haven't been replaced with newer technology is because nobody is going to invest in playback equipment for a newer physical media, especially when people are moving toward downloaded music.

For the vast amount of pop and rock music, it isn't really possible to hear much difference between a CD and an MP3 at 192kbps, and even harder at 256kbps. There's really no reason why digital formats in the future can't run at much higher sample rates or use more bits per sample, all of which will shrink the difference between analog and digital.

A quick Google search came up with an article that indicated that digital sales would outstrip CD sales in 2010.

Amazon's now doing their mp3s at 320kbps. I also do my rips at that sample rate. Even that high of a rate is roughly 1/10 the size of a wave file. One would have to have some really good equipment and an even better ear to hear the difference.