[twopint32oz]

Some Pandora, some CDs from library, but mostly 320k MP3.

 

[Hetfield72]

For bands I really love, I still buy physical CDs (usually from an online retailer). More often than not, I purchase mp3s from amazon. I used to use iTunes, but I really prefer that amazon gives you the file as an mp3 directly, stores them all online for you to play on other computers, and is generally a little cheaper. I also get library CDs since my wife is a librarian. A lot of the music I listen to is a little obscure or from Europe (different types of heavy metal) and so the CDs are hard to get here in the US. For this reason, I end up buying mp3s. I'm old fashioned though and still have giant binders of 700+ cds in my house that I carry around every time I more.

 

[NightFlight]

Quote:

I don't really like the way vinyl sounds as a format, and it has its clear technological limitations compared to digital (bulk, lack of portability, gradual deterioration).

You would think that a vinyl rip would solve those problems, but unfortunately, in every vinyl rip I have, I can quite clearly hear the surface noise of the vinyl, even on rips that I know to have been recorded on very high-end equipment.

Admittedly, I haven't heard a huge selection of vinyl in my time, but what I have heard has been pretty mediocre.

 
I unfortunately (depending how you see it) was exposed to a lot of kick ass vinyl.  And the trade-off of dynamics vs minor noise on some LPs is worth it IMHO. Most of the time hardly noticeable, or so I thought. Especially  if you know how to handle vinyl properly. But I've seen people handle vinyl, and they handle it the same way 4yr old handles CDs.  Of course it doesn't last and of course it sounds like crap on the crappy tin box.

 

[GREQ]

Quote:

Meh - not flawed. Just limited. They can sound great, until you find the same recording on a better medium. Then you realize the actual recording kicks ass.

This still doesn't explain anything to me.
How can there be a better medium than an 'industry standard' digital binary encoding? 
 
I'm just trying to understand your point - from my POV, a CD holds a huge amount of digital information that a DAC translates into sound (more information than human ears are able to perceive).
Other mediums I can think of, (vinyl and tapes) suffer from an array of mechanical limitations and variables inherant with old tech which I can only deduce affect the sound, instead of preserving it's integrity (needle surface noise for example).

 

[p a t r i c k]

Quote:

  I'm just trying to understand your point - from my POV, a CD holds a huge amount of digital information that a DAC translates into sound (more information than human ears are able to perceive).
Other mediums I can think of, (vinyl and tapes) suffer from an array of mechanical limitations and variables inherant with old tech which I can only deduce affect the sound, instead of preserving it's integrity (needle surface noise for example).

 
Vinyl vs CD debates do take me back
 
I remember of course when CDs first arrived. At that time many gurus of the Hi Fi world were attacking them. The CD of course was a product of the general consumer electronics industry. At the time I was impressionable enough to believe the Hi Fi gurus and it was quite a long time before I got a CD player.
 
Those gurus did me and many a great disservice because the CD is a far better medium for storing music that the vinyl LP.
 
Those same gurus (people like Peter Qvortrup and others) have companies which now make CD players along with magical cables (charging vast amounts of money) and other nonsense.
 
The biggest advance in recording audio in my time has been the CD. This was a product of solid engineering science, not the magical pseudo-science loved by the gurus of the so-called Hi Fi world.

 

[GREQ]

Quote:

This was a product of solid engineering science, not the magical pseudo-science loved by the gurus of the so-called Hi Fi world.

This is the kind of logical trail of thought I've had. 

 

[NightFlight]

Quote:

 
Vinyl vs CD debates do take me back
 
I remember of course when CDs first arrived. At that time many gurus of the Hi Fi world were attacking them. The CD of course was a product of the general consumer electronics industry. At the time I was impressionable enough to believe the Hi Fi gurus and it was quite a long time before I got a CD player.
 
Those gurus did me and many a great disservice because the CD is a far better medium for storing music that the vinyl LP.
 
Those same gurus (people like Peter Qvortrup and others) have companies which now make CD players along with magical cables (charging vast amounts of money) and other nonsense.
 
The biggest advance in recording audio in my time has been the CD. This was a product of solid engineering science, not the magical pseudo-science loved by the gurus of the so-called Hi Fi world.

 
You can take the same master and have one on vinyl and one on CD and many times the CD will be more harsh. IMHO.
Ultimately I can't convince with text, it would take a lot of sit down time, which I would really enjoy if I could do that with everyone here. But that won't happen, hell I don't even own a turntable.
 
And I'm not totally trashing CD here. I've got a lot of CD FLAC rips in my collection, as I can't get it any other way. I'm just saying that if bit rate and sample rates were higher, it would go a long way to getting one closer to experience you can only get with live instruments. By live I don't mean that amplified PA crap either. A good example would be the immediacy of brought from string and wind instruments perceived directly by the ear.  That sort of experience I think everyone can agree is the goal.
 
I don't think 16/44 is there. Not by a long shot. And laugh if you wish, but I think the 150yr old medium had a lot of time to mature and develop. I'm not saying it hasn't been surpassed by digital mediums either. I'm saying the CD didn't do it. But its all conjecture and opinion until you experience it. It can't be done on the cheap either and there are limits on what people are willing to pursue for a little music.

 

[Sound Quest]

Cd's should sound better than vinyl, but don't due to the mastering. They can't squash dynamic range on vinyl anywhere near as much as they do on CD, because the needle would keep popping out of the groove.
 
That's why vinyl generally sounds better. Not because it should sound better, but because mastering engineers can't use nearly as much dynamic compression as they can when dealing with digital.
 
Over compression also leads to a harsher sound, which is why CD more often than not sounds much harsher than LP.

 

[p a t r i c k]

Quote:

 
You can take the same master and have one on vinyl and one on CD and many times the CD will be more harsh. IMHO.

 
That will be your problem, not the CD.
 
I remember when the idea of CDs sounding "harsh" was first put about. This was before most people had them.
 
Why don't you listen to any CDs you have? They don't sound harsh at all.
 
What a load of rubbish.
 
 

A good example would be the immediacy of brought from string and wind instruments perceived directly by the ear.  That sort of experience I think everyone can agree is the goal.
 

 
 
You get that with CDs not LPs
 
I have thousands of LPs. I listened to LPs for many years before CDs arrived.
 
I listen to classical music almost exclusively.
 
You will hear the natural and accurate sounds of string and wind instruments far more often on CDs than on LPs.
 
This is for the very good reason that CDs offer a huge improvement in recording quality than LPs.
 

 
I don't think 16/44 is there. Not by a long shot. And laugh if you wish, but I think the 150yr old medium had a lot of time to mature and develop. I'm not saying it hasn't been surpassed by digital mediums either. I'm saying the CD didn't do it. But its all conjecture and opinion until you experience it. It can't be done on the cheap either and there are limits on what people are willing to pursue for a little music.
 

 
Well I have listening to music through stereo Hi Fi's since the late 70s.
 
Vinyl LPs were surpassed by CDs in every single respect from when CDs first arrived.

 

[TealRice]

AMAZON WHEN THEY HAVE free mp3 credit and CD sales for like 3 dollars, ive got atleast 20 dollars in mp3 creds from amazon in my account haha

 

[p a t r i c k]

Quote:

Cd's should sound better than vinyl, but don't due to the mastering. They can't squash dynamic range on vinyl anywhere near as much as they do on CD, because the needle would keep popping out of the groove.
 
That's why vinyl generally sounds better. Not because it should sound better, but because mastering engineers can't use nearly as much dynamic compression as they can when dealing with digital.
 
Over compression also leads to a harsher sound, which is why CD more often than not sounds much harsher than LP.

 
Dynamic range is inherently limited on LPs. This is because if you record too quietly on them detail just disappears beneath the surface noise.
 
CDs do not sound harsh compared to LPs. This is just nonsense.
 
Vinyl doesn't "generally sound better", it only does so if you delude yourself with this stuff.
 
Look I have thousands of LPs. I started listening to music on stereo systems in the late 70s. I listen to classical music over 90% of the time.
 
My "frame of reference" is the marvellous Royal Festival Hall in London, which has, possibly, the best acoustic in the world (after a massive makeover in 2000).
 
To believe that LPs bring a more accurate sound than CDs requires a great deal of self delusion.
 
Fortunately the rubbish spread about CDs by the gurus of the Hi Fi world did not win although I see it repeated here.
 
CDs and digital recording has been the biggest advance in audio in my lifetime and I am very glad it has happened.
 

 

[bbophead]

Quote:

Quote:

 
You can take the same master and have one on vinyl and one on CD and many times the CD will be more harsh. IMHO.

 
That will be your problem, not the CD.
 
I remember when the idea of CDs sounding "harsh" was first put about. This was before most people had them.
 
Why don't you listen to any CDs you have? They don't sound harsh at all.
 
What a load of rubbish.
 
 

A good example would be the immediacy of brought from string and wind instruments perceived directly by the ear.  That sort of experience I think everyone can agree is the goal.
 

 
 
You get that with CDs not LPs
 
I have thousands of LPs. I listened to LPs for many years before CDs arrived.
 
I listen to classical music almost exclusively.
 
You will hear the natural and accurate sounds of string and wind instruments far more often on CDs than on LPs.
 
This is for the very good reason that CDs offer a huge improvement in recording quality than LPs.
 

 
I don't think 16/44 is there. Not by a long shot. And laugh if you wish, but I think the 150yr old medium had a lot of time to mature and develop. I'm not saying it hasn't been surpassed by digital mediums either. I'm saying the CD didn't do it. But its all conjecture and opinion until you experience it. It can't be done on the cheap either and there are limits on what people are willing to pursue for a little music.
 

 
Well I have listening to music through stereo Hi Fi's since the late 70s.
 
Vinyl LPs were surpassed by CDs in every single respect from when CDs first arrived.

Yup, those early CD masterings were perfect sound forever.

 

[p a t r i c k]

There are powerful myths put about concerning vinyl and CDs.
 
I remember when CDs first arrived and I remember how the Hi Fi world gurus went into overdrive spreading nonsense about the new recording medium.
 
These are the same sort of gurus who want you to spend a fortune on magical cables etc.
 
At the time I was impressionable enough to believe the rubbish they were talking, and this delayed my getting a CD player for some years.
 
Those gurus had a very significant reason for dissing CDs. They were often representing companies manufacturing vinyl record players. Audio Note (UK) is an obvious example.
 
There are some useful resources on the web that seek to debunk these myths.
 
I think this is a pretty good one:
 
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)
 
The myth that Vinyl has higher dynamic range has appeared in this thread. From the resource I've linked to above I think this is useful reading:
 
The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as the ratio of a peak sinusoidal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80 dB. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120 dB. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150 dB. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback.
 
It is also good to read the section about remastering.
 
It has been said in this thread that apparently CDs are mastered with a great deal of compression, whereas LPs are not.
 
I have very many CDs and very many LPs. I have the same recordings on LP as well as CD. I listen to classical music and I have to my knowledge no instances of CDs with masters compressed in someway compared to their LP version.
 
I don't know about rock/pop etc. but I notice that at that link above they write:
 
In fact, if you purchase an album produced in the last two decades on vinyl, it is likely that the master will be no different than the one used on CD. Alternative masters for vinyl cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record.
 
Which is pretty much what I expected. I can't imagine record companies going through a lot of remastering in this way.
 
I do have some seminal recordings on CD and LP. The CD versions are a revelation of detail and information.
 
 
 

 

[Sound Quest]

Quote:

 
Dynamic range is inherently limited on LPs. This is because if you record too quietly on them detail just disappears beneath the surface noise.
 
CDs do not sound harsh compared to LPs. This is just nonsense.
 
Vinyl doesn't "generally sound better", it only does so if you delude yourself with this stuff.
 
Look I have thousands of LPs. I started listening to music on stereo systems in the late 70s. I listen to classical music over 90% of the time.
 
My "frame of reference" is the marvellous Royal Festival Hall in London, which has, possibly, the best acoustic in the world (after a massive makeover in 2000).
 
To believe that LPs bring a more accurate sound than CDs requires a great deal of self delusion.
 
Fortunately the rubbish spread about CDs by the gurus of the Hi Fi world did not win although I see it repeated here.
 
CDs and digital recording has been the biggest advance in audio in my lifetime and I am very glad it has happened.
 

 
CD's more often than not, do sound harsher than vinyl. Not due to any techinical limitations, but due to the mastering. If you listen to a lot of classical, then CD's probably will sound better to you, but thats because classical music is generally very well mastered, even for CD's.
 
But for most types of music, dreadful mastering and over compression lets the CD format down.
 
I know LP has its dynamic range limits. But i'm not talking about noise floor sound, or sounds beings too quiet. I'm talking about the complete opposite. I'm talking about music that has the life compressed out of it, all in the name of extreme loudness.
 
There's a limit to how much compression can be used for vinyl, which is great, because it prevents the mastering engineer from going over board and making everything sound "in your face".
 
Some people prefer the sound of vinyl. Not because they think its more accurate, but because the music actually has room to breathe.

 

[smedley]

  I have a lot vinyl which to me sounds best . Also have a lot of cd's which seem to vary a lot in  sound quality from some that sound horrid to others that were done right and really sound very good. I have a audiophile Marantz CD player to play them on .  I have some itunes  and ripped cd stuff on a ipod which by far sounds the worse.