[stop]

Im not talking about headphones, im asking how you listen to music, from what, cd or youtube? what gives the best quality in your opinion?

 

[stop]

bumpses

 

[cswann1]

That is a very general question that is open to a lot of interpretation or personal bias.
 
The short answer is CD/uncompressed digital. However, I have played around with A/B testing compressed and uncompressed and on almost all material I can't tell the difference with the audio gear I own.  Any streaming internet source is almost certainly heavily compressed.
 
Analog sources have their fans (look in the music and sound science forums) but those mediums have some very significant performance barriers.  "Best" is an entirely subjective term.  If however you are asking what medium offers the highest playback performance in terms of dynamic range, noise and wow/flutter  (speed fluctuation in the mechanical components) then digital wins handily. 
 
The analog vs digital debate will rage as long as there are folks willing to argue....and there are always folks willing to argue. And proponents of analog media typically have a very significant investment in equipment and if you go to their house/studio and listen to their systems you would no doubt, be treated to some very high-quality music playback.   But analog or digital, the main reason a recording sounds good or like stir-fried-dog-poop is the work done by the recording engineer who mastered the recording

 

[Croftengea]

Just to add to the previous comment - Youtube is the worst source for listening a good audio. Youtube's audio is always compressed and in most cases compressed literally to death. There are few HD videos which have 192kbps sound (codec bitrate, not sampling rate!) but its not even close to your average iTunes downloads. And many youtube videos may go as low as 64kbps which is totally unacceptable for music.

 

[Shaffer]

Im not talking about headphones, im asking how you listen to music, from what, cd or youtube? what gives the best quality in your opinion?

A good analog setup - tape and/or LP - but this isn't simple and inexpensive, unfortunately.

HD/DSD files are next in line. Redbook (ie. CDs) after that, in a very general sense. MP3s don't even enter the picture.

Edit: text

 

[Headzone]

A good analog setup - tape and/or LP - but this isn't simple and inexpensive, unfortunately.

HD/DSD files are next in line. Redbook (ie. CDs) after that, in a very general sense. MP3s don't even enter the picture.

Edit: text

You think MP3 really sounds that bad?

 

[Shaffer]

You think MP3 really sounds that bad?

Yes. Even a 320kbps stream sounds like garbage next to the real thing. This being said, one won't necessarily gauge the difference on a similar order of magnitude, given an alternate set of expectations. I mean, I remember when nothing sounded better to me than my uncle's AR9/Sanyo-based system. Times change.



Edit: typo

 

[Me x3]

  That is a very general question that is open to a lot of interpretation or personal bias.
(...)
But analog or digital, the main reason a recording sounds good or like stir-fried-dog-poop is the work done by the recording engineer who mastered the recording

+1

 

[Me x3]

Talking about how music is digitally stored (Mp3, Flac, etc), you should find this information quite useful:
 
www.whatinterviewprep.com/prepare-for-the-interview/transcodes/
 
Best Luck!