Is the CD a dead medium? What is the best way to listen to music?

[eversonpoe]

look, i'm an audio nerd too, but this whole thread is turning to shit. can we take this conversation elsewhere, or just agree to disagree?

some people like vinyl
some people like CDs
some people like hi-res digital downloads
everything is going to be ok, we're all allowed to like what we like
can we please stop talking about this?

[ninjaw]

look, i'm an audio nerd too, but this whole thread is turning to shit. can we take this conversation elsewhere, or just agree to disagree?
some people like vinyl
some people like CDs
some people like hi-res digital downloads
everything is going to be ok, we're all allowed to like what we like
can we please stop talking about this?

Just no

[Quantum550]

They transferred the original tapes in 24/96 for all 2017 DEs. That's why it's available in 24/96.
Also, 16/44.1 doesn't mean it can accurately contain all the data up to 44.1kHz. The cap is actually lower than that.

Did you do the experiment I told you to?
Are you in denial?
Isn't the analogue tape supposed to contain an infinity of headroom/loudness/amplitude/dB/audio data and so forth?
Now answer me, in that graph... why is it completely void of audio beyond 21kHz and up?
Do you really want to believe UFOs and little dwarfs?

Ok, now it's the part that you're going to say:
"But Broken was done with limited technology... That is why the studio tapes had that limitation". Fine.
Let's get another "newer" master tape. 1999 should be all digital, The Fragile era. Let's take a look at the "Hi-Rez" of LA MER.

Take a look at LA MER - Definitive Edition:
http://www.upl.co/uploads/lamer1505829447.png

This one is even "worse". There is NOTHING above 22 kHz. Null. Zero.

I did a zoom here. Some data is crossing over 23 kHz. Is it LISTENABLE? Or is it just NOISE?
http://www.upl.co/uploads/lamer21505829456.png

But WOW? Where is that little engineer talking about 140dB headroom and shit?
Isn't this version supposed to be filled up with audio all the way to 96 thousand samples on a Hertz cycle?
How come is this version completely void of audio in that range? You see?
Marketing - make people believe it's superior; make people believe it's better.

I will make a sample of that, amplified to a stratospheric level. And you will tell me about these HD Tracks.

I'm not against vinyl or digital downloads.
But let's treat this thing the way they should be properly handled.
And everyone's happy.

But I'm not done with it yet. I will grab an actual file with 96000 content and we will listen to it. (22kHz-96kHz range).

[botley]

This argument/rant/whatever completely ignores and belittles the whole point TR has been repeatedly making about a physical object being key to completing one's understanding of or appreciation for music with the right mindset. It's off topic, and it is convincing nobody.

It's high time we shut the fuck up about it and play some music.

[Quantum550]

This argument/rant/whatever completely ignores and belittles the whole point TR has been repeatedly making about a physical object being key to completing one's understanding of or appreciation for music with the right mindset.

You're getting this wrong. No one here is against the physical object.
I'm all for it. I've said it: Deliver on CD, Vinyl and what have you.
I'm just bringing down to earth some beliefs and misconceptions that seem to make up the minds of the alienated.
I agree with you... and the third EP is approaching... "Omniscience"?

Here is a test for those who think are able to listen to Hi-Def.
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/...-hearing-test/

[henryeatscereal]

I still like Cd's, they are easier to store than Vinyl (that i also love!).
Digital files are convenient but they don't have artwork and aren't as fun to collect as CD's, Vinyls or Tapes...

So neither one is better, they all have advantages/disadvantages

[eversonpoe]

Just no

sorry, why? why "just no"? what is so unreasonable about what i said that you have to be a dick to me (like you so often are)?

[ninjaw]

sorry, why? why "just no"? what is so unreasonable about what i said that you have to be a dick to me (like you so often are)?

Hey, that's me

[ninsp]

@jmtd

And here is a pretty informative post about digital sources and vinyl releases today...

Most modern recordings are made digitally, these days. They're just made at much higher resolutions and bitrates than what comes out on CD/iTunes/various other download formats.

As long as the DACs used to cut the vinyl masters are of a high enough quality, you shouldn't hear any "digital noise" or harshness.

Usually, the digital masters will use a resolution of at least 24-bit/96 kHz, sometimes going as high as 32-bit/192 kHz. At these resolutions, and assuming quality DACs that spread out the digital noise to push it out of the audible spectrum, the music will sound just as good (if not better) than a pure analogue source, as long as what you're looking for is true reproduction, and not the "artificial warmth" of true analogue signals that some people crave.

Now, those high-resolution masters often aren't limited/compressed/squashed yet (check out the link/u/andrewswaffordposted about the loudness wars) and you normally want to use that for the vinyl for added fidelity, although the signal-to-noise ratio on vinyl is not that good (it's very dependent on the turntable, for one) and sometimes, you have to add a little compression, or at least a bit of peak limiting, to ensure that the average-volume moments don't get lost in the noise floor just to preserve a few loud hits.

That's the main reason why some new releases (not remasters or repressings of older records) actually sound better on vinyl than CD/digital download: the high-res masters, on one hand, are carefully mastered for vinyl, to preserve as much of the dynamics as possible, while the CD, meant for mass-consumption gets mastered to be as loud as possible, so people can hear it clearly on the MP3 players and on the radio.

One good example for me was the album Icky Thump, by The White Stripes. I loved the album on CD, but I couldn't listen to it too regularly, because it caused "ear fatigue". The extreme compression used on the CD to make it as loud as possible actually causes my ears to tire (the same way staring at a lot of quickly flickering images is visually tiring.) I recently bought the vinyl for that album, and suddenly, the sound opens up, the drum hits hit harder, and I generally get more dynamics, and less ear fatigue.

Unfortunately, this isn't the case for all new vinyl releases: often, the producer or engineer at the recording session pre-masters the music to be as loud as possible, leaving the vinyl mastering engineer with a lot less to work with. I have some new vinyl releases that just sound the same as the CD, with perhaps just a tiny bit more resolution and "warmth", but otherwise very similar, remaining fairly loud all the way through.

And that brings us back to vintage vinyl that was recorded, mixed and mastered, all in analogue, before the loudness wars. That's where vinyl can shine: it's not about the vinyl having such a high resolution, it's about the quirks of the medium that require engineers to master in a certain way for the music to sound good, and the fact that they couldn't compress/limit their masters too much without causing other problems, so they let the percussion and bass in their analogue masters thump harder (especially in Soul/R'nB 45's from the 60's and 70's.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/vinyl/comme...ssed_from_the/


This is a really good article that points our specific releases and labels and what they cut from and how some fudge the truth:

Reissue Labels To Avoid and Some Best to Proceed With Caution
"Just because something's been pressed on 180 gram vinyl doesn't mean its going to sound good or that it was sourced from analog."
https://www.analogplanet.com/content...roceed-caution


You can find more discussions here in regards to cutting from digital versus analog:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...asters.451850/

http://www.progressiveears.org/forum...ng-the-purpose

https://www.vinylengine.com/turntabl...p?f=41&t=90219

https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/698620

well, you just won the thread.

shut it down, boys.

[neorev]

well, you just won the thread.

shut it down, boys.

LOL, well this was a conversation happening in another thread that looks to have been merged with this one it seems.
I was trying to point out there are vinyl releases cut from digital and others cut from analog sources as well as CD transfers to vinyl.

[Lerxto]

Did you do the experiment I told you to?
Are you in denial?
Isn't the analogue tape supposed to contain an infinity of headroom/loudness/amplitude/dB/audio data and so forth?
Now answer me, in that graph... why is it completely void of audio beyond 21kHz and up?
Do you really want to believe UFOs and little dwarfs?

Ok, now it's the part that you're going to say:
"But Broken was done with limited technology... That is why the studio tapes had that limitation". Fine.
Let's get another "newer" master tape. 1999 should be all digital, The Fragile era. Let's take a look at the "Hi-Rez" of LA MER.

Take a look at LA MER - Definitive Edition:
http://www.upl.co/uploads/lamer1505829447.png

This one is even "worse". There is NOTHING above 22 kHz. Null. Zero.

I did a zoom here. Some data is crossing over 23 kHz. Is it LISTENABLE? Or is it just NOISE?
http://www.upl.co/uploads/lamer21505829456.png

But WOW? Where is that little engineer talking about 140dB headroom and shit?
Isn't this version supposed to be filled up with audio all the way to 96 thousand samples on a Hertz cycle?
How come is this version completely void of audio in that range? You see?
Marketing - make people believe it's superior; make people believe it's better.

I will make a sample of that, amplified to a stratospheric level. And you will tell me about these HD Tracks.

I'm not against vinyl or digital downloads.
But let's treat this thing the way they should be properly handled.
And everyone's happy.

But I'm not done with it yet. I will grab an actual file with 96000 content and we will listen to it. (22kHz-96kHz range).

It looks like you're having trouble understanding those two sentences that I wrote.
Those are the facts. Literally what Trent said. 24/96 files that are available to download are the same files used to press 2017 'definitive edition' vinyl.
The whole reissue campaign is about VINYL. Not CDs. Just look at The Fragile. Do you see Ripe (With Decay) or just Ripe?

Conclusion: CDs with 2017 remaster = not happening.

[GulDukat]

The CD is a dead format. New computers omit optical drives. New vehicles omit optical drives in favor of a USB port & bluetooth.

CDs are shitty pieces of plastic with shitty limitations on duration and audio fidelity.

Trent choosing to offer hifi downloads with vinyl purchases is a great idea. You get bigger, cooler artwork on the physical component and a proper studio quality lossless audio download.

CDs sound just fine, take up less space a hifi download with a vinyl is only a great idea if you own a turntable. Release new music on both record and CD, it's really that simple. I don't have any stats but I would be willing to bet CDs outsell records.

[GulDukat]

CDs are dying because digital files and streaming are now the most popular way to listen to music and vinyl is the exact opposite experience of listening to music in your computer. Vinyl records are large objects that require time and a whole ritual to listen to their music. Vinyl with its big artwork, and the "not quick use" works as the perfect counterpart to digital files, while CDs are like a soon to be obsolete way to store digital music. It's not as much about the sound quality as to the experience.
I have lots of CDs, but at this point it's obvious to me that they can't offer enough. The idea of the Physical Component works perfect for me, and you always can burn the digital files into a CD and still get a (much more unique) piece of artwork, so I don't see where the problem is.

The problem is CD-Rs aren't as good as professionally pressed CDs. They scratch easily and have a limited lifespan.

[Jinsai]

as someone who is currently organizing a physical release of my new album that I've worked on for the past three years, and I live in a world where almost nobody gives a shit...

He's right. The physical artifact is vital and important... and I don't think people will dig into digital material in a similar way. I've watched how my tiny little audience responded to other forms of art roll-out. No, people like the physical product. It matters.

[Quantum550]

It looks like you're having trouble understanding those two sentences that I wrote.
Those are the facts. Literally what Trent said. 24/96 files that are available to download are the same files used to press 2017 'definitive edition' vinyl.
The whole reissue campaign is about VINYL. Not CDs. Just look at The Fragile. Do you see Ripe (With Decay) or just Ripe?

Conclusion: CDs with 2017 remaster = not happening.

Well, ok.
I thought I read "Remastered" versions and that these versions are "Definitive".
Remastered on whatever is being put out, that is vinyl and digital files.
Those are not just vinyl reissues. Not in question but, doesn't make any sense to press a vinyl with that high resolution.
Since the audio does not go past 22kHz, not a single sense.

I don't want these on CD.
What I want on CD is the new EPS and Deviations 1. That is all.
LPs have been remastered - they sound different. It's a different master.

[Jinsai]

it is strange to me that many people don't seem to understand what some of these terms mean and what they imply. The idea of consuming music, on the listener end, at 96k is kind of ludicrous, unless you're planning on processing that audio in some other way beyond listening to it.

[Halo Infinity]

In spite of the debates between vinyl records and CDs, I like how collecting and enjoying any physical media at all is still accepted here on Echoing the Sound on some level. Most Nine Inch Nails fans I've ever met and known have been very understanding to the appeal of vinyl records and CDs at the same time. Admitting that I still collect any physical media sometimes seems to give off the impression as if I came from another planet, or dimension for that matter.

But as far as most people I know and come across in real life, the CD and all physical media is dead when it comes to music with it all being about file-sharing and online streaming. And as much as I feel alone on that, I obviously can't, nor should I blame them either due to the convenience of it all, with all the free alternatives included. There's certainly no question with that in my mind, and especially even more more with the 2010s about to come to a close. That stance already extends to TV shows and movies anyway.

The last couple of years CDs seemed to be popular, or even in vogue for that matter, seems to have ranged around 2000-2004.

But for me, personally, as I've mentioned, CDs are still my favorite medium for albums since I can upload them to my laptop, while simply just having more means to play them at home on DVD players and stereos. It's also nostalgia mixed with affordability when compared to vinyl. (Although, CDs, even used ones can also unfortunately get far too overpiced as we all know far too well.)