CDs are in every way better than vinyl records. They are smaller, much higher quality audio, lower noise floor and don’t wear out by being played. The fact that CD sales are behind vinyl is a sign that the world has gone mad. The fact you can rip and stream your own CD media is fantastic because generally remasters are not good and streaming services typically only have remastered versions, not originals. You have no control on streaming services about what version of an album you’re served or whether it’ll still be there tomorrow. Not an issue with physical media.
The vast majority of people listen to music using equipment that produces audio of poor quality, especially those that stream using ear buds. It makes me very sad when people don’t care that what they’re listening to could sound so much better, especially if played through a hifi from a CD player, or using half decent (not beats) headphones.
There’s plenty of good sounding and well produced music out there, but it’s typically played back through the equivalent of two cans and some string. I’m not sure people remember how good good music can sound when played back through good kit.
The fact that CD sales are behind vinyl is a sign that the world has gone mad.
Not really. It’s a sign that Vinyl has turned into a symbol of support for the creative ideals of musicians and romance for a bygone era, while CDs, superior as they are (except in the case of records in good repair being played on high quality turntables), are “just” things that hold digital music. They sold in insane numbers because they were the standard format until streaming truly took over. Sure, Vinyl sales are up to 40 million or so in the US, but the bigger thing is that the 37 million CD sales are down from almost a billion in each of 1999 and 2000.
Vinils also have huge art that look good as decoration.
I like vinyls because they’re basically posters that I can listen to
This is why when I want to support an artist I purchase vinyl. I get better art than the CD and it looks better on a shelf than a CD. Vinyl isn’t about audio quality. It’s about collecting, supporting the artist, and the experience.
As a vinyl dork who a huge music fan, it’s definitely a way to support artists but let’s not pretend that vinyl sound better, technically CDs will always be more clear, but I happen to enjoy the warmth of vinyl even if it’s not as perfect as CD audio.
Like watching a recording of a play and the play itself.
The recording won’t ever miss a line, is clean, a known quantity.
A play is great but also potentially imperfect which is possibly part of the experience some people look for.
Some might argue that both are recordings so why not get the cleaner one, LOL. ;-)
That said, I don’t really collect my music in any meaningful way, but I can still see the appeal of vinyl. The actual soundwaves from your favorite artist (theoretically… digital masters? What? :-) ) actually moved a membrane that was amplified to move a needle to cut a master, that was copied by mushing something hot and squishy until it had an imprint of those same actual soundwaves. It’s all very tactile and dramatic and connected. Like going to Grauman’s theater and seeing the stars’ handprints.
Then there’s the fact that the record could theoretically have captured sound that the digital process intentionally discards as part of its encoding algorithm. Something about that possibility of being nearer to perfection has to hold some appeal as well.
Plus the covers are pretty.
symbol of support for the creative ideals of musicians and romance for a bygone era
i think this is happening to CDs as we speak.
see: op
I see your point, but I don’t think you’re going to see quite the same reverence, precisely because it doesn’t have that visceral connection to the music and its creation that vinyl does. There has to be computing technology as an intermediary to get sound waves onto CDs, so at that point why not skip the middle man? Vinyl is also a more tactilely “old” technology, that’s still modern enough to have a practical setup around it. Think fountain pens or muscle cars with carburetors and no electronics. Then, there’s the fact that it’s deeply connected even to the terminology of the music industry. “Record,” “album,” “track,” even “single” all come from vinyl itself. The cultural cachet is unmatched.
People switched to CDs en masse because they were easier to live with than vinyl and a huge improvement over cassettes in every way (except height and width, LOL), but it was very transactional, so CDs were always apt to being replaced again if something even more convenient came along. Even in their heyday, there were people pining for the days of vinyl, and it’s the spiritual descendants of that crew that are keeping records alive. CDs will not disappear, and there will be a certain crew that appreciates all the things that made them a good mass market distribution medium, but I don’t think they’re going to inspire tastemakers the same way vinyl does.
I am getting old now, and I could be wrong, but it’s fun to predict. :-)
You’re mistakenly thinking people are buying vinyl records for sound quality, and there may be a few misguided people out there, but the vast majority aren’t.
For many it’s about simply supporting their favourite artists, and getting a cool item to enjoy. I’d say most vinyl record gatefolds often have a load of extra interesting stuff going on compared to a CD jewel case release. It also lends itself to forcing you to be more deliberate about listening, you need to pay attention to flip the record, you need to physically interact with the thing—I imagine the majority that still buy CDs end up just ripping them to another device and then basically never open the case again. Which I’d say encourages entirely different kinds of listening experience. Neither are invalid ways to engage with an album.
I guess that leads onto the other thing to point out, which is most of the modern records I buy come with a code to download FLACs of the album, sometimes even at higher quality (24-bit/96khz) than a CD release (16-bit/44.1khz). This is also more convenient for increasing numbers of people that simply don’t have a way to play CDs at all any more, let alone on a hi-fi or something.
I’ll agree though that most people are listening with mediocre equipment. But FWIW, there are fantastic quality “ear bud” style IEMs out there (I like Shure’s range) that’ll blow a lot of non-professional headphones out the water.
Foreword: I only stream my music, from FLAC preferably. I don’t own vynils but mostly i don’t own CD’s anymore either.
CD is dead and should be dead. Rip it and stream it, full stop. No need or reason to keep a degrading digital format when you can just rip it (full quality and store as FLAC) and stream it. That’s the whole point.
Vynil instead gives you the experience of listening, with all the associated crap/fun depending on your POV.
So while there is a case for vynil today, but I don’t share it, there is zero case for CDs. Just download the bits. Don’t waste plastic and shit with a polluting and degrading medium that make no sense today that downloading a full quality uncompressed audio file takes seconds.
Compartmentalized optical media is a really nice way of storing things, though. I’m way more likely to listen to an album from start to finish if it’s from a CD than a folder of files on my PC. Plus CDs are dirt cheap now more than ever. I get used CDs for like $2-5 each.
Yeah, a CD? Incredible, can hold Twelve songs!!
I’d even prefer a cassette.
Moreover… ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
CD is dead and should be dead. Rip it and stream it, full stop. No need or reason to keep a degrading digital format when you can just rip it (full quality and store as FLAC) and stream it. That’s the whole point.
This sentiment is somehow hostile to both artists and listeners. That’s not the whole point. The whole point is that when I buy a thing (book, music, video), I own the thing and can store, backup, and transfer ownership as I see fit, not according to the whims of future licensing deals. I don’t want to buy what is basically an NFT of the music. I want to buy the physical object. I want to be able to physically transfer that object.
You’ll own nothing and like it I guess. Not me though. I’ve lived through too many failing companies, disappearing websites and services, hostile licensing deals that alienate and disenfranchise artists and fans, and general corporate greed. Let me buy the CD as directly from the band as possible. Let me take it from there and use whatever I choose for equipment, format, or software to enjoy it.
For the last few decades, very few people that have declared a popular media format dead have turned out to be correct.
You want to purchase a vibration of the air?
a sound?
I understand why you want a physical object to hold, but owning the music to me means no DRM, then the bits are mine and I can do whatever I want with them.
Indeed go buy posters, lyrics, any physical item you want from your band. Caps, cups, t-shirts, any form of art.
But I still don’t see a reason for CDs. Then buy vinyls, at least the art is far bigger!
Yes, I want an unencumbered physical representation of the artists work, just like you’d expect from an art print or book. I thought I was pretty clear about that. I don’t want merch. I want the art. It’s my money to spend to support the artists the way I choose, not an argument you can “win”.
Not trying to win anything. But isn’t the music the art from the artist? Do usually the artist also design the covers and albums themselves?
Obviously I was talking about the recording, not the album art. It’s like you’re going out of your way to misinterpret everything I’ve said that doesn’t already align with the way you think. Kinda super frustrating.
You rip those CDs to get rid of degrading physical storage… onto a hard drive that can also fail. A hard drive being degrading/corruptable physical storage.
It’s pretty unlikely that all your harddrives fail at the same time. Just back them up regularly, it’s pretty easy compared to a physical CD or vinyl collection.
That said, most of my music collection is stored in high quality mp3, not lossless. Lossless would make the backup process quite a bit more expensive.
We actually have the technology to make Audio CDs that last 100s of years, but the manufacturers refuse to use it in CDs, reserving it for DVD-R and BD-R discs for archiving. It doesn’t even cost much more to produce (but they certainly charge more for it).
So I rip all my audio CDs to Flac and then burn them to a single 100GB M–Disc for archival.
We could print to stone maybe, with redoundancy and CRC codes embedded, using chisels.
That could last a bit longer, maybe.
/s
I’ve just realised you spelled vynil correctly and everyone else has been either spelling it wrong or pronouncing it wrong since its conception
I just spent 5 minutes looking it up and can’t find any version of the word spelled vynil.
It’s vinyl because that’s the material the records are made from. Just like vinyl flooring.
Vinyl is pronounced “vy”- “nil”. It’s written "“vi”-“nyl” which makes no sense to a non native speaker, which the OP obviously was.
His spelling of it makes more sense than our native spelling of it
I’m sorry you have to have jokes explained to you, the internet must be confusing ☺️
Only bad jokes.
Something only said by people who are unable to make jokes
Since when is that the standard pronounciation of ‘y’? You wouldn’t pronounce the ‘y’ in ‘Sandy’ like that.
Why?
Did I? Maybe because I am not an English speaker? Good to know tough, I went by instinct
I was joking in that your spelling makes far more literal sense than the actual spelling
I prefer yours and I’m using it from now on 😂
LOL
Did you see how upset that other guy got about your spelling and my joke? Spent five minutes looking it up apparently.
The British English for that is a pedantic wanker. It just trips off the tongue
I can understand pedantic when referring to language, spelling and grammar…
Bit honestly, in English? It’s probably the most fluid language in the world today… Spoken so differently all around the globe… Always evolving and surprising…
No I am not a native English speaker, but I am sometimes pedantic on my mother language with my kids… So… :)
My amplifier has all the streaming services available and some of them like Tidal stream at higher bitrates than a CD. CD’s are obsolete these days, I don’t know anyone who still has a CD player. So obviously sales decline.
Vinyl on the other hand is an (analog) experience by itself. In my experience there is nothing like crate digging for unique samples at the local record shops, sampling them with my AKAI S-1100, the warm dynamic sound of it, the noise floor bringing harmonic distortion, the ticks and cracks that add to the groove.
Yeah, vinyls would die if it was only about sound quality. So as would heating food over campfire when there are perfect convection ovens, effective microwaves, etc
I really like the campfire analogy. It’s worse on purpose because that’s the experience they want.
Another AKAI S-1100 chad. respect
I don’t know anyone who still has a CD player.
It’s me, hi. I’m the problem, it’s me.
You’re making multiple arguments here and trying to wrap them up into one.
CDs are in every way better than vinyl records. They are smaller, much higher quality audio, lower noise floor and don’t wear out by being played.
Most of these aren’t universal positives for most people.
Economy of space is not a big concern for me when it comes to physical media. Playing physical media is a ritual more than anything for most folks, and I want to hold that giant 13"x13" cardboard sleeve in my hands while listening to the music, not toss around a little plastic jewelcase.
On audio quality: that has been debated on audiophile forums for decades now and the most political conclusion to it is that: music sounds best on the format it was mastered for. Not all music was (properly) mastered for digital.
The bit about LPs “wearing out” is overstated to say the least and 99/100 times, that degradation comes from poor setups. Other than that, you’re kind of just describing a alluring fault of analog media. The fact that a piece of plastic can change with you over time as you listen to it, at the exact pace you set it to and in an environment you create, humanizes it and helps build a connection in a way that files on a computer don’t really do. Let’s not act like disc rot isn’t a thing, either.
The fact you can rip and stream your own CD media is fantastic because generally remasters are not good
Funny, because CDs were one of the first examples of shitty remasters in the 90s. You can also rip LPs with minimal effort, too.
streaming services typically only have remastered versions, not originals. You have no control on streaming services about what version of an album you’re served or whether it’ll still be there tomorrow. Not an issue with physical media
None of this supports “CDs are better than vinyl records.”
On the rest of your post, none of that really supports CD > Vinyl, either. If you’re talking about how people interact with their music and the equipment they do it through, there’s far more support for analog setups than CD.
With analog, you can actually make real, physical, adjustments to the audio output. On digital, you’re effectively just messing with a bunch of 1s and 0s inside a computer. The whole process is much less authentic.
👊🎤
The whole process is much less authentic.
I remember reading a letter to the editor in Stereophile magazine 30 years ago, when tube amps were coming back into style after decades of transistor and semiconductor amps. The reader pointed out that the language used in a review to describe the benefits of tube amps was ridiculous, and that calling the output “warm” or “intimate” (or dare I say, “authentic”) compared to semiconductor amps was simply an admission that the tube amps were making a change to the audio output that was not part of the original recording.
The function of an audio reproduction and amplification system, the author pointed out, was to reproduce the audio signal as accurately as possible to capture the content of the original recorded signal. Full stop. Anything else is nonsense.
Like, I get your points but
With analog, you can actually make real, physical, adjustments to the audio output. On digital, you’re effectively just messing with a bunch of 1s and 0s inside a computer. The whole process is much less authentic.
That’s just damn ridiculous. The signal gets converted into audio, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to hear it.
Well, yes, but I’m referring to the process of converting that audio and the active participation that it takes from the user to get to that point. I’m reminded of this one minute clip of Jeremy Clarkson where he talks about Charles Babbage’s ‘alluring uncertainty of machinery’, which I kind of alluded to in my parent comment. The process of setting up, adjusting, equalizing, etc., an analog setup just feels more real in a way that’s hard to explain. Obviously Clarkson is talking about cars in the video, but I think it applies just as well to any sort of machine whose output is essentially “built” by you. Knowing my audience on Lemmy, it’s the difference between Windows and Linux. One might perform out-the-box better than the other, but the other is yours in a way that the first one never will be. That’s the difference between experiencing music through an analog or digital setup.
After the DAC it’s all analog anyway. Same hardware for the same effect. It’s a personal choice to do eq etc on the digital end vs after the DAC.
You can still do all that stuff on CD
There is no discussion about audio quality. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. You can talk about the format, cds being less nice to handle with that awkward plastic box which always breaks. But not about the audio quality. Its measurable.
Yes, perfectly pressed vinyl can sound fantastic on very hq hifi. But it will crack. It will hiss. It will degrade each time you play the record. Thats not up for debate. How much, or how little, that is up for debate. And also, how you store your vinyl has a big impact on how they age. (but the medium will always age) Anyway :thats what you are referring too. How much. But how much isn’t the issue: it is, unmistakenly, always there. It’s physics. You can’t deny it.
On the same hq hifi setup a hq hifi (super) cd player will at the very least sound equally good. It will never hiss. It will never crack. It will never pop. It will not degrade.
Most times it will sound better. It will always sound cleaner. But we don’t like cleaner. We like stuff that creeks. We, people, like things which seem to “live”. It makes it easier to relate too. It’s why we cannot say goodbye to big steamengines of bygone eras. Its why we loooove the sound of high octane ICE’s and still use them a lot while we all know electric is probably better in every way. And the same applies to music: the pops and hisses make it sound more authentic, more alive. And this is where science goes of the rails and feelings take over. Its a slippery slope.
Op is talking about the loudness war. Look it up, its a real thing, but reading your comment you must be aware already. “remasters” these days are all most always oversteered in every way possible because… Reasons. I recently listened to a vinyl remaster of a 90s dance record: horrible on hifi. But sufficient on a Bluetooth phonogram player.
Like you said: nobody plays on hifi anymore. So its getting remastered more and more for shit setups. Sonos. Bluetooth headphones and the likes. And while sounding nice, that is a far cry from hifi.
When playing your original cd’s you get the original remaster. Not that oversteered shit on apple music, youtube or Spotify which sound horrible on a hifi setup. There is a very definite difference. Easy to spot.
And tbh: I’m guilty too. I chose the comfort (ease of use) of sonos over the sound quality of a hifi setup. In the end it costed the same and my wife is happier without the cabling. Living (together) is always compromising ;).
I get why people chose vinyl. It’s the experience. It’s like smoking cigars in a lounge with some friends while drinking brandy. But like those cigars vinyl is not the best choice. But I do like cigars and brandy anyway…
And lastly: no. Ripping LPs is a tough job taking at least the playtime of the album. Cd’s can be ripped and the files automatically named in minutes.
Is ripping LPs complex? No. But it takes a good setup and it takes a lot of time. You dont need neither when ripping cd’s.
So, anyway: physics, science, support the statement “cds are superior to vinyl”. It’s measurable. You may not like it, you may miss the authenticity but the dynamic range coming of a cd vs lp setup (of the same cost, mind you) is almost always better.
But hey, I’m no bob Dylan. Who never was and still isn’t a fan of anything digital. He swears he misses something. I don’t. I look at the science and see better numbers for cds.
And I do believe that analog recordings of anything (sound and vision) can always be superior to digital. Digital always has a max. So many pixels. So many kbit. Analog does not have that problem. The only problem analog has, is the medium on which it is set on. That has limitations. And those limitations always always result in a lower quality then what you can easily achieve with digital. At home. (for a reasonable cost) add a megapixel. Add a mbit. In the end it will and has crossed the anolog boundaries of the used mediums far and wide.
Oh boy you made me bust out the desktop and keyboard for this one
Yes, perfectly pressed vinyl can sound fantastic on very hq hifi. But it will crack. It will hiss. It will degrade each time you play the record… It’s physics. You can’t deny it.
I mentioned this in my parent comment. The medium will respond to the environment that you listen to it in. For many, that connects you to the music. This has long since been acknowledged as a feature of analog media, not a shortcoming. Digital media comes with a sense of imposition, authority, that’s off-putting to people who have relationships with their music.
(super) cd player will at the very least sound equally good… It will always sound cleaner.
I’m going to strongly disagree with this and say that you weren’t around in the early 90s when all the classics were getting “Digitally Remastered” (butchered) for the first time, when producers were pushing every band as high as they could get away with because “louder is better.” It was hell with tracks peaking with distortion from disrespectful engineers. You even mention the Loudness War in your comment. How you can know about that and still conclude that CD is the universally superior format makes no sense to me. That goes back to my above point that music sounds best in the format it was mastered for. That format isn’t always CD.
We like stuff that creeks. We, people, like things which seem to “live”. It makes it easier to relate too… the pops and hisses make it sound more authentic, more alive. And this is where science goes of the rails and feelings take over. Its a slippery slope.
I touched touched on this in another reply, I won’t repeat myself but I’ll say that your idea that science says that there’s a best way to listen to music is ridiculous. There never has been a scientific way to measure how good music is and there never will be. You can measure bitrates, fiedlity, all you want, but the best way for art to exist will never have a universal answer. I assume you think oil on canvas painting is a waste of time because MS Paint exists?
He swears he misses something. I don’t. I look at the science and see better numbers for cds.
I’m just going to turn this around on you and leave it at that. You see better numbers, you think it’s better. I see a format that builds a relationship between the medium and user in a way that the other does, I think it’s better.
Also, CDs degrade much faster than vinyls (not with use, just by themselves, over time).
Only reasonable way at the moment to archive digital media for a long time is to periodically keep copying it with error checking.
Or just upload it as torrents and hope enough people keep sharing it.
Well put
This is 100% correct, but I don’t think most people buy vinyls because of the audio quality. I own plenty of vinyls, but I know for a fact that my CDs and even higher bitrate FLACs stomp all over it for audio quality. Records are just kind of fun and nostalgic.
and make you feel like you are more authentic than people who don’t own vinyl.
all my record owning-friends love to go on about how they are the only folks who ‘really’ appreciate music…
Nah, that’s silly. I just think its a cool thing to collect and listen to. I still do most of my music listening on high end headphones while I work, but records are fun too.
They are probably just noobs experiencing the process of listening to an album as if that’s a novelty. Most kids these days just listen to streaming selections of various artists and probably mostly hits. Listening to an album seems old-school now, when it used to be the norm when CDs and tapes were the dominant music media format.
Some of my 25+ year old cd’s appear to have started “rotting” inside and playback has been compromised / ruined in many cases.
Can I ask how they were stored? I’ve got 30+ year old CDs that run great. Only ones that I have issues with are those that are scratched.
Same here, I have many that are 30+ years old and haven’t found any that don’t work yet.
Of course you can… normally kept on shelves in houses. Occasionally bagged in garages. I did a quick web search for “rotting cd” after I posted. Scanned the “discogs” and Wikipedia boxes. It is a thing. They also mention that the manufacture of the disc might play a part - regardless of how they are looked after. I always believed that (some?) discs were made by sandwiching a vegetable component between the two plastic discs and it is this layer where the zeros and ones get written.
I mean, if we’re just talking high bitrate digital audio then yeah, convenience and sound wise digital beats the pants off of analog any day. CDs in particular though? Nah. Gimme that solid state no moving parts convenience I get from packing 50GB of flac, aac or vorbis rips onto my phone and a Chromecast audio to plug into my sound system.
deleted by creator
Why would i not preserve all the audio though?
deleted by creator
Storage capacity will keep getting cheaper and more reliable; a lot is invested on that horse. Preserving the audio will always be the best bet for the future!
deleted by creator
With displays getting cheaper and bendable, batteries and energy being more efficient, etc… For the vinyl lovers on this thread, imagine having the art displayed on color accurate screens dedicated for it (can show lyrics, and other “extras” you like as well). Having access to it globally with the best quality possible without transporting basically anything. The future is 1000% this and it is awesome!
deleted by creator
This is from the same crew that says eyes can’t see more than 30fps
deleted by creator
Kind of late to the party here, but I’m going to offer my take anyway.
You’re right, and you’re wrong. CDs are better than vinyl records in terms of sound quality, but CDs are absolutely pointless. Instead of a CD, go to Bandcamp, send some money to your favorite artist, and download the audio files in FLAC format. You own the media (albeit digitally) and it can never be taken away from you as you make sure it’s saved to a safe location. You may even be getting better quality audio than you would on a CD.
On the other hand, while I recognize that CDs are better quality, I am an avid collector of vinyl records, at least for a few specific genres. I’ve spent thousands of dollars on my HiFi setup, built my own tube amplifier, and I can say as a point of pride that there are absolutely no solid-state components in the signal path between the record and my speakers. While owning your own media makes sense in the era of streaming, owning physical media is in no way practical, but it’s just fun. When I want to listen to a record, it’s an event. I’ll remove the record from its sleeve, maybe take it over to my record cleaner if it’s a bit dusty or has some static charge. At the same time, I’ve just switched on my isolation transformer, and the tubes in my preamp and power amp are warming up. Then I’ll place the record on the turntable, start the motor, drop the needle, and sit back in my recliner to enjoy the music.
If I’m sitting at my desk working, I’ll put on some bluetooth headphones and play some music from my phone. But I’m not listening to music, I’m working and putting on music to pass the time, help get me motivated, whatever. If I want to listen to music solely for the joy of listening to music, I’m going to play a record.
You may even be getting better quality audio than you would on a CD.
Not disagreeing, but “may” is the operative word here. But it’s always worthwhile to support your favorite artist when and where you can. :)
Here’s the rub: It’s possible to have way more lossless resolution than 44khz/16bit (CD audio) with FLAC, but that depends on what the artist is going to ship. And don’t forget that your playback device also matters - not everything has a DAC that natively supports higher resolution audio, forcing some loss to perform playback.
Yep. That’s exactly what I was referring to when I said “may.” In my experience, most artists release 44k/16 files, but I have some 24-bit versions.
I would venture a guess, though, that given the same audio hardware, no human being can tell the difference. I can hear differences between lossy compression at “moderate” nitrates and lossless audio, but I feel like anything over 256k MP3 is getting into placebo territory.
That doesn’t keep me from downloading 24-bit FLAC, though, because I’m s huge data hoarder.
Have you not heard of FLAC? You can get files at higher bit rates and sampling frequencies than CDs. That being said I much prefer vinyl collecting. No it doesn’t always sound the best but I feel more in touch with the album. No ability to skip tracks, having to flip it over or change disks is more engaging than just pressing play.
You can still choose your tracks on vinyl, it’s just more manual.
Look at the grooves, and in-between them there’d be thin almost ungrooved flat lines going into the centre: those are the track separators. Hover the tonearm above those and drop it in to play the track you want.
I used to do this with some records I wouldn’t have a big care about with preservation (compilations such as Now That’s What I Call Music!), since it would mean those tracks would have more wear than the record as a whole.
I listen to 128.kb mp3’s on my phone speaker.
You mean kbps.
I hope.
I feel sorry for you.
Lolhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
I’m doing my part!
You should have put that in bold.
I was searching for this comment. Good work soldier.
I can easily get equal or higher quality than CDs online.
I’d rather support artists by buying a nice vinyl so I can appreciate the artwork.
Higher quality than CD is a pretty dubious claim. CD quality is so good, the industry had nothing better to throw into the market. As video went from VHS, to DVD, to Blu-ray, CD simply couldn’t be topped.
https://www.33rdsquare.com/do-cds-sound-better-than-spotify-yes-cds-still-provide-superior-fidelity/
CD is PCM audio of 16-bit samples at 44.1khz
I have many FLACs that came as downloadable versions with vinyl records funnily enough. Some stick to CD quality, many to go to 24-bit audio at 96khz, and I think I’ve got a couple of 24-bit/192khz albums knocking about.
Higher quality than CD has been around for a while, it’s just apart from that brief couple of years with SACD, it never made it onto physical media.
Edit: correct sample rate
41.1khz
44.1
Ah yeah, you’re right! I should double check before posting technical specs before my morning coffee
Qobuz offers higher than CD quality, I think Tidal does too.
The difference isn’t as noticeable as video though, so I expect CDs were just good enough and not worth it to upgrade for a niche market.
The main advantage of Blu-ray audio is supporting 7.1 surround, while a CD is limited to 2 channels. Unless you have the equipment to take advantage of that, though, it’s a moot point.
Playing the devil’s advocate, why would you need 7 channels when you only have two ears?
While this is obviously a silly question on some scenarios, it’s quite valid for the headphone use case.
Your ears can tell if something is coming from:
In front
Behind
Front right
Back left
etcWe don’t just percieve audio from left right so with 7.1 support an artist can take advantage of it and make different sounds come from different areas for a more full listening experience (though i doubt many actually do that)
Even some headphones can emulate 3d audio pretty well so it’s not an exclusive use for surround sound speakers
Your ears can tell if something is coming from:
If course it can, and it can do better for certain frequencies than for others I think.
However, the point is that this is not because you have more than two “sensors” for sound, but rather because of some clever processing of the signals in the brain. The information that the brain uses however can be coded into the stereo signal, under the assumption that it will be listened to with a controlled setup like headphones.
That’s not related to quality though. Perfectly possible to have 7.1 audio sound like a tin can. Surround CDs exist, just not common.
I was talking about visual quality for video media as compared to audio quality for CD medium.
Did you just wake up from a coma that started in 1985?
CDs are better than vinyl for every reason that MP3s are better than CDs. That’s not news to anyone.
Vinyl is not “better” by any of the metrics you mentioned, but I prefer it because if I feel like buying a physical medium for the purpose of collecting music, I want my music to actually be physical. I don’t want a collection that boils down to 1s and 0s, I want one that more closely replicates the original source of the music.
That’s the reason I like vinyl, even if I do listen to digital music far far more.
Nope, mp3 is not “better” than CD since its a lossy format. It uses how we perceive audio so we notice it as little as possible, but you definitely loose details
Which is why I buy from sources like BandCamp when possible, that offer lossless download options.
Absolutely! With half decent very affordable headphones and my middle aged hearing it is possible to tell MP3 from FLAC pretty accurately.
You just can’t tell the difference with 320bps mp3. Less yes for sure.
So sometimes yes, sometimes no 🤷🏻
Study was done when most adults had hearing damage. I can tell the difference between mp3 and flac using headphones under $10 no amp just straight from laptop 3.5mm
128 bits mp3 sure, 160 bits mp3 too, 256 bits mp3 on an okay setup why not, 320bits mp3 no way Jose.
Are you also hearing the difference with gold cables and all that audiofoolery stuff?
No actually i cannot tell the difference at all between 128kbps thru 320kbps but 320kbps sounds very different from flac lossless. Keep in mind the encoding used in the old days were very bad because it used to take more time to encode with old hardware so they used fast compression (kinda like how video encoding uses fast for encoding live streaming but it looks horrendous compared to slow encoding for non-live Youtube)
Modern high quality 128kbps encoding sounds the same as 320k
Now you’re just grabbing at straws. Back in the day you didn’t encode to 320bps because your usb-player held like 64MB.
Also no, todays 128bps does not sound lossless, 320bps do. Try it out to see for yourself! From a nice wav or flac ofc.
CDs more closely represent the original music than vinyl though and are physical media you can collect.
mp3s are objectively inferior on all fronts except file size
