Will local files come to be regarded as being as obsolete as turntables?

Got it. In my case, I can play my files to multiple endpoints (synched or separate streams) via LMS or via a single endpoint via foobar2000. Roon is just one of my music platforms.

1 Like

I’m 52, been through the whole thing, Napster, Winamp and the lot… remember Salling Clicker :grinning:?
Not sure if I qualify for “oldster” but it would take some serious change in how the world works today to make me go back to owning music, in any form…

1 Like

:wheel_of_dharma: :pray:

As George sang on Beware of Darkness:

As each unconscious sufferer
Wanders aimlessly
Beware of Maya


I subscribe to both Qobuz and TIDAL because each has certain key albums that are not available on the other. Sometimes albums in my Qobuz or TIDAL libraries are suddenly removed, which can really mess up my playlists.

I have a good number of well-organized historic jazz reissue CDs from the '90s that are not available on Qobuz or TIDAL. Streaming services are often missing some of those tracks. The reissues can only be imitated by grabbing tracks from numerous low-quality minor label compilations which might be pulled from catalogs at any time. Also a few CDs from local artists and a number of limited-edition boxed sets from Mosaic Records.

Bottom line: I don’t keep a comprehensive library of local music files but they do fill important gaps from streaming services.

1 Like

I’ve also got those historic jazz reissues, and things like the Mosaic reissues of Beiderbecke/Trumbauer/Teagarden tracks. Yes, important gaps. Along with my rips of local vinyl pressings from the 70’s.

You know, I’m not saying it’s a good thing, that local files become irrelevant. I’m saying it may be inevitable.

I have many albums in local files that do not exist in streaming services. And many albums where the version I prefer does not exist in streaming services. So in my case, local files will always be an important part of my library.


I never understood if this 10-year-old Bruce Willis thing was true. In any case, it offers interesting food for thought

There’s a lot of this going on. The Author’s Guild convinced Amazon to restrict ebook returns, for instance. Generally speaking, these are licenses to read the book, or listen to the music, much as when you “buy” a movie on a streaming service, what you are really buying is a license to watch it in some period of time.

Semantics keep cropping up regarding owning music. I think it is entirely obvious when one says they own the music (CD, vinyl, 8track etc), it is implied that it relates to the physical artefacts that have recorded material on them, that the moniker of ownership relates to exactly that, and that alone. In popular discourse, the vernacular of owning the music is widely accepted as a proxy for having the physical media and maintaining unencumbered access to it. Licence to use is not limited in time when granted along with the physical media itself; it is effectively granted in perpetuity as it relates to the single piece of media in one’s possession.

It is not productive to split hairs or to start an existential discussion regarding possessions.


You’re focusing on physical media. In case of digital downloads, there is no physical media involved, but the ownership terms are/should be the same, since the usual containers (WAV, FLAC, etc.) are DRM-free.

I deliberately avoided talking about digital files as somebody would likely suggest that the file, if it were ripped from a CD say, although having no DRM, could fall into a grey area with regards to legality (no lending, copying, public broadcasting without prior written consent - or similar warning). You know how this place gets with regards to correctitude…

Notwithstanding, a bona fide digital download is entirely the same, as you point out.

I’m now awaiting the inevitable response to your post, telling all of us that files on a disk are physical because the disk is physical and the sectors on it too etc etc… (see points above on semantics, correctitude, pedantry etc) :roll_eyes:

1 Like

I would love to see the demographics of who is buying vinyl. I personally would buy some because I enjoy the experience of playing vinyl at times but it is so cost prohibitive to me. To buy 4 albums cost the same as a yearly subscription to qobuz. Who is buying all this vinyl and why are they prepared to pay such a high price for it.

There are plenty of people who don’t care how much something costs. Some of them can actually afford to feel that way. :slight_smile:

MoFi anyone?

MoFi pressed LP’s and advertised them falsely. OK fine, there will probably be lawsuits and they will probably take a hit to revenue. The few that I own that fall into this category still sound very good.

What does MoFi have to do with this discussion, other then sniping? Do you own any?

It’s just an example of an expensive record manufacturer.

Nice kit there Holo, Oppo…well ordered CD’s no doubt too.

1 Like

Don’t tell the makers of uber pricey turntables that they are obsolete:-). I went digital (CD) in 1982 and sold my turntables. Never miss the pops and ticks.


Newer, well cleaned vinyl doesn’t do that.

There was a time, because there was such a demand for music and LPs or 8 tracks were the only choices, that vinyl was made so thin and from re-constituted material that the pressings were atrocious. That hang over lasted well into the '80s.

1 Like

… what if local files come to be regarded as being as obsolete as turntables … ?

I truly hope not. I’ve spent decades building up my local collection.