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.
You’re making multiple arguments here and trying to wrap them up into one.
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.
Funny, because CDs were one of the first examples of shitty remasters in the 90s. You can also rip LPs with minimal effort, too.
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.
👊🎤
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Well put