Compact Disc Collectors Lament

[r_z]

I'm, too, still buying cd's when they're a) great and b) have a nice packaging. Not so keen on jewel cases tbh.

Btw, here's a nice little defense of the CD via The Quietus:

http://thequietus.com/articles/24710...-compact-discs

a few excerpts:

CDs still offer a more accurate representation of the music than that offered by most streaming services. Of the dominant streaming services, only relative underdog Tidal offers music in lossless CD quality. [...]

I don’t find pops, hisses and crackles "part of the experience," but a thing that compromises the integrity of a great deal of the music I enjoy. Add to this the fact that much of today’s new vinyl is exorbitantly expensive, prone to issues of quality control due to overburdened pressing plants, and often digitally sourced - which means a new LP is basically a big, expensive CD with added vinyl noise - and, well, you could say I’m finding vinyl an increasingly tough sell. [...]

Then there are the tens of thousands of titles that have never been issued on any physical format but CD (some of which are unavailable even on Spotify). The majority of the extensive discographies of artists like Coil, John Zorn, and Matthew Shipp, for instance, has never been issued on vinyl. [...]

[ninsp]

I'm, too, still buying cd's when they're a) great and b) have a nice packaging. Not so keen on jewel cases tbh.

Btw, here's a nice little defense of the CD via The Quietus:

http://thequietus.com/articles/24710...-compact-discs

a few excerpts:

It’s nonsensical. Yes, a lot of vinyl are sourced from digital. A digital file that surpasses redbook.

[ninsp]

I have a huge CD collection and one of the finest CD players money can buy (RIP Oppo) and the only CD I’ve listened to was Pulse, to test the player.

furthermore, cheap vinyl is still readily available. Picked a used copy of Joshua Tree up for $7 recently and all of Gabriel’s discography for $20 in good condition.

The only used record i’ve Spent more than $20 for was an original pressing UK mint copy of Heroes.

[gorast]

One thing I still greatly appreciate about CDs is how cheap they've become. Makes it easier to pick up albums with cool packaging when they're under ten bucks, even lower if they're used.

I've also found that CDs tend to be the only way to get music by indie or obscure artists, particularly in the 2000s. I've run into a couple bands whose music isn't even available digitally, either legally or pirated, so a CD is the only way to even hear it. My CD consumption has definitely taken a massive nosedive since around 2013, though.

[tremolo]

Yesterday I bought Filter’s Short Bus for 3 bucks.

Most of my music is on CD cause that was the dominant format when I started having enough money to spend in music.

I haven’t bought many lately though... but whenever I find a used CD/records store, I can spend hours browsing through everything.

It’s nice that someone mentioned Japan. They have BOOK OFF... a fucking paradise if you love CDs... used, in excellent shape and for prices that are a total joke. They had one in Vancouver... I used to raid the store. Now it’s gone. But there are a few in the states. I know there is one in NY, but I’ve been told it is expensive.

[Shunt]

Because what’s the point of CDs when digital files far exceed that quality? Blu-rays exist because it’s impossible to get the same quality from streaming/digital files on your computer.

I can get SUPERIOR quality at 24/96 w/ digital files while I’m limited to 16/44 with CD. And then I can get lossless analog quality AND the artwork in a better size with a physical medium that retains value.

CDs are obsolete. Sell them while there is any value left, you’re about to end up with cassettes.

I know it's not a popular opinion, particularly among the audiophile community, but seriously, science already established that 16/44.1 is already enough for any human being. More so for anyone over 35, when hearing loss on the higher end of the spectrum is getting apparent.

Edit: and vinyl allows for less dynamic range than CD, let alone noise, stability, noise, crosstalk, reduced stereo image... all those defects may be desirable for some listeners in particular, but that audioformat is certainly far from being the best one.

Don't want to turn this into a vinyl vs CD debate, but I reckon I just did that. There's not much more I would say about it, though.

[ninsp]

I know it's not a popular opinion, particularly among the audiophile community, but seriously, science already established that 16/44.1 is already enough for any human being. More so for anyone over 35, when hearing loss in the higher end of the spectrum is getting apparent.

Not necessarily, no.

That’s more or less psuedo-Sony science like the stair step.

If you can find me a totally non-biased article by an organization or a person not trying to pimp THEIR format, post it.

No, not Monty, pimping for Vorbis and FLAC.

[neorev]

Music should have moved over to Blu-ray. Blu-ray is a disc format that has enough space to hold hi-res audio and let us play that 24 bit audio. What's great is that it is an existing format with existing players, unlike SACD. SACD required companies to make a new player and for the consumer to buy a new player or find specific ones that could play it. Forget that and go with Blu-ray as it is existing format. I've seen some music releases come at on Blu-ray, like Underworld's Dubnobasswithmyheadman and Nirvana's Nevermind and In Utero. I think it would be silly to create a new format when you already have an existing one that can play 24 bit hi-res. Plus many folks already have these players in their homes and there's even laptops with Blu-ray drives in them. Hell, even video game systems have Blu-ray drives in them (except the twats who made the PS4, seriously no 4K Blu-ray drive, Sony? WTF?)

[ninsp]

Music should have moved over to Blu-ray. Blu-ray is a disc format that has enough space to hold hi-res audio and let us play that 24 bit audio. What's great is that it is an existing format with existing players, unlike SACD. SACD required companies to make a new player and for the consumer to buy a new player or find specific ones that could play it. Forget that and go with Blu-ray as it is existing format. I've seen some music releases come at on Blu-ray, like Underworld's Dubnobasswithmyheadman and Nirvana's Nevermind and In Utero. I think it would be silly to create a new format when you already have an existing one that can play 24 bit hi-res. Plus many folks already have these players in their homes and there's even laptops with Blu-ray drives in them. Hell, even video game systems have Blu-ray drives in them (except the twats who made the PS4, seriously no 4K Blu-ray drive, Sony? WTF?)

Why though? DVD-A and SACD were already higher quality than the recordings and the formats both failed.

[Shunt]

Not necessarily, no.

That’s more or less psuedo-Sony science like the stair step.

If you can find me a totally non-biased article by an organization or a person not trying to pimp THEIR format, post it.

No, not Monty, pimping for Vorbis and FLAC.

If you can find just one double blind article stating people consistently choosing 24/96 over 16/44.1 I'm ready to reconsider my stance. The burden of proof is on the one who has to prove there's a discernible difference.

The fact is that most people will fail a blind test choosing between a 320 kbps mp3 and a 16/44.1, let alone the one above.

[Shunt]

Actually, I'm considering testing you, if you are up for it. Give me a 24/96 file of your choice and I'll convert it to 16/44.1. I'll send you about a dozen files re-encoded to 24/96 and see what it happens. Of course you would have to believe I'm being honest and i would have to believe you didn't see the spectrograms, so the experiment would leave something to be desired, but if you want to do it, I'll be glad to help.

[Space Suicide]

Even though I gush and post vinyl galore on here I have a FUCKLOAD of CDs. I still regularly buy them as well.

[neorev]

Why though? DVD-A and SACD were already higher quality than the recordings and the formats both failed.

I don't think it helped either format's case, especially DVD-A, when Blu-ray was first shown off in 2000 right when DVD-A was launched. Here they are launching DVD-A and a brand new format is displayed that can hold quadruple the amount compared to what DVD-A can. Right then and there, the industry knew the DVD would become an old, outdated and dead format. Of course, the industry wasn't going to back DVD anymore when they knew what was coming out would top it. Blu-ray officially hit the streets in 2006 and DVD-A and SACD both officially died in 2007. Plus it killed HD DVD. I think it was just the wrong time for both SACD and DVD-A formats when a disc format killer like Blu-ray was announced. Nothing has topped Blu-ray. It's the last great disc format.

[Pbgut]

Actually, I'm considering testing you, if you are up for it. Give me a 24/96 file of your choice and I'll convert it to 16/44.1. I'll send you about a dozen files re-encoded to 24/96 and see what it happens. Of course you would have to believe I'm being honest and i would have to believe you didn't see the spectrograms, so the experiment would leave something to be desired, but if you want to do it, I'll be glad to help.

There's a problem with resampling: depending on the filter used, the high frequencies that *are* audible can be cutoff to the extent that they are noticeable. This is the best explanation I have for why people prefer hi-res stuff even though it's supposedly inaudible; it's not the inaudible frequencies that go missing, but the resampling of the audible ones that creates the quality difference. I've noticed it on my own music when I've done experiments.

[MrLobster]

When it comes to CDs vs. vinyl, nine times out of ten I'd go with vinyl due to the inherent limitations of the CD. But a well produced CD that takes advantage of the format (to my ears, most 93+ electronic-based music does this quite well...) is certainly worth listening to. What I really hate about CDs is having to use an equalizer to get them to sound the best... if CDs were 24/96 I bet that wouldn't be the case. That's my main issue with CDs, the false limit. And now we have bands are releasing their older material as re-mastered 24-bit and it sounds great in comparison to the original CD. And the people who are saying you automatically lose hearing ability after 35 are trying to sell you something.

[Shunt]

When it comes to CDs vs. vinyl, nine times out of ten I'd go with vinyl due to the inherent limitations of the CD. But a well produced CD that takes advantage of the format (to my ears, most 93+ electronic-based music does this quite well...) is certainly worth listening to. What I really hate about CDs is having to use an equalizer to get them to sound the best... if CDs were 24/96 I bet that wouldn't be the case. That's my main issue with CDs, the false limit. And now we have bands are releasing their older material as re-mastered 24-bit and it sounds great in comparison to the original CD. And the people who are saying you automatically lose hearing ability after 35 are trying to sell you something.

People don't start losing hearing ability after 35, but sooner (and gradually). And nobody is trying to sell me anything, as you can count myself among those who affirm that, both as a biologist and as an amateur musician.

I certainly can't hear anything past the 16 kHz mark, and, I know it because I tested it myself. Additionally, I had to go to a doctor to test for hearing loss because of a tinnitus I got. Surprise, the doctor said there's no hearing loss beyond the normal values for my age. Everyone who knows just a bit about the science involved knows that's a fact.

[Shunt]

I don't think it helped either format's case, especially DVD-A, when Blu-ray was first shown off in 2000 right when DVD-A was launched. Here they are launching DVD-A and a brand new format is displayed that can hold quadruple the amount compared to what DVD-A can. Right then and there, the industry knew the DVD would become an old, outdated and dead format. Of course, the industry wasn't going to back DVD anymore when they knew what was coming out would top it. Blu-ray officially hit the streets in 2006 and DVD-A and SACD both officially died in 2007. Plus it killed HD DVD. I think it was just the wrong time for both SACD and DVD-A formats when a disc format killer like Blu-ray was announced. Nothing has topped Blu-ray. It's the last great disc format.

I might test my filters then, as I have never done such an experiment. If they are not up to the task, there may be other viable alternatives, though.

By the way, I forgot to mention the tiny detail that adding those ultrasonic frequencies might actually be detrimental to the sound quality in equipment that can reproduce then, due to the intermodulation distortion https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[Mike]

I’ve done some research on 16-44.1 vs 24-96 and determined there’s no real clear answer as there are too many variables that tend to skew the results. As mentioned above, the filters and DAC and ADC can have a huge effect, dither, antialiasing, etc... the same tests can go one way on system A and the other on system B. That might sound like there is no real winner between the two, but all it really tells us is that testing consistency is a problem. Personally, I record all my music in 24-44.1 because I can only hear the difference in the noise floor between the bit depths, but going to 48 or 88.2, or 96 only seems to just use up my hard drive space.

[Mike]

Not necessarily, no.

That’s more or less psuedo-Sony science like the stair step.

If you can find me a totally non-biased article by an organization or a person not trying to pimp THEIR format, post it.

No, not Monty, pimping for Vorbis and FLAC.

Ian Shepard has a podcast called The Mastering Show and has discussed these topics at length. The short version is that he thinks vinyl is a bad format for audio quality, and samplerate is maybe overrated, but you should use whatever the client wants. Bitdepth is more important and most modern equipment runs circles around the state of the art from the 80’s and 90’s, which is where most opinions on this topic were first formed.

[Pbgut]

I also am not sure that the movie industry to music industry parallel is totally fair, because it is *really* hard (for me, at least) to multitask and watch a movie, whereas I multitask all the time with music. That's part of the reason why people don't care about quality (to a degree), and a major reason why it's so much more portable. And while I *think* I can hear a difference between hi res audio and 44.1/16 sound, the quality between 1080p and DVD is enormous and undeniable (and DVD vs. VHS as well) for nearly everyone.

Sadly I think discs lost out because most people want very different things from music than they do from movies. Bluray would make sense if all music came out in surround sound, but I feel like the failures of SACD and DVD-A attest to the fact that very few people can detect the quality difference, and even if they can, very few people care. The iPod/streaming revolution, even though it moves in the opposite direction quality wise, was similar to the leap from VHS to DVD to 1080p — but (most) people want different things from movies and music. They want movies to look and sound the best they can, while they want music to be everywhere they go, like a friend or emotional support animal, even if the quality suffers. I care about the quality, and I make a lot of layered music, but I'm not a trained musician, and I'm sure I miss details that are there in recorded all the time.

In terms of vinyl, very often I've found (even on my friends' higher end setups) that the bass is lacking (not so much on older releases, I guess they didn't have great sub bass in until sometime in the 80s) and the very high end can suffer sometimes. I still like it because I'm ADD in a colloquial sense and it helps me focus on the material and is a singular experience, like reading an actual book is. And the artwork can't be beat. But technically, CDs and digital audio sound better to me even if they're a little harsher at times. If I was born five or ten years later, I'm not sure I'd care at all about physical media, even though I think it's weird to be so disconnected from the tactile world now.

[Mike]

I still like it because I'm ADD in a colloquial sense and it helps me focus on the material and is a singular experience, like reading an actual book is. And the artwork can't be beat. But technically, CDs and digital audio sound better to me even if they're a little harsher at times. If I was born five or ten years later, I'm not sure I'd care at all about physical media, even though I think it's weird to be so disconnected from the tactile world now.

I definitely appreciate vinyl for the listening experience and that’s something that I used to do that I wish I could get back again. It doesn’t necessarily have to be vinyl to do that, but just deciding to put on an album and cranking it up a bit and just listening to it. It’s just so hard to do when there’s always family stuff going on at any given time.

[neorev]

Sooooooooooooooo...
CDs huh, am I right?

[roolfdriht]

SO much to say, but since I barely know where to begin, some quick lamentations in no particular order:

My name is roolfdriht, and I'm a CD addict.

I've been collecting CDs for the last 24 years. Aside from a modest purge in the late 90s (goodbye alt-rock mediocrities), I've retained EVERYTHING purchased during that time period. As a consequence, I now have boxes upon boxes spread across my apartment and 2 storage units in 2 different states. Only my vague, self-imposed genre limitations - primarily various flavors of industrial, EBM and synth pop with the occasional detour - have made it possible to avoid going totally broke.

My collection is a source of great personal enthusiasm, but also frustration and shame - especially when I'm forced to confront the sheer weight and volume of the thing, to say nothing of the ongoing maintenance cost.

NIN was the first artist for which I became a completionist (from a compositional standpoint; thankfully I never got hung up on collecting musically identical geographic variants). They were far from the last. Any artist or niche label I developed more than a passing interest in became a potential target for a 100% score, even when my enthusiasm for the actual music waned. Only recently have I mustered the self-discipline to "unsubscribe" from some deeply unsatisfying mental commitments. Thanks, Alfa Matrix, for pumping out so much dreck that even I couldn't take it any more!

For all of the above reasons, I simultaneously dread and crave the inevitable end to CD production. I fear what my acquisitive compulsion will find as a substitute.

[MrLobster]

If I encode one CD a day (since I'm typing up lyrics and liner notes in the metadata), it will take me... *sigh*



(there's one more chuck of CDs unseen there)
((not in any sort of order, just moved it into the new shelving))

[kaydraven]

So glad is thread is here!

I still collect CDs, partly because that's what I grew up with and because I was so broke it was all I could afford! Since I got a working turntable a few years ago, I started getting some of my absolute favorite albums on vinyl and yeah, it's really nice to listen to. But CDs are just so easy.

I've been collecting since my teeny bopper days and I have quite a few discs from when I first started. I dunno, I just like them. I love the packaging, the art, the durability. And just how easy it is to pop into my computer or boombox. And sometimes if I know I like a band or an album, but I'm not in love with it, I'll save money and pick up the CD instead of the vinyl. I feel like I only save LPs for really special artists or albums, like anything by The Cure.

Now, I buy a lot of my CDs used. I love going to thrift stores and record stores and checking out their bargain bins. Sure, it may not be anything rare, but I love that it's something new I get to add to my collection. It's like taking home a little treasure. And honestly, CDs and vinyl is usually all I want for Xmas and birthday now! Since CDs are so cheap now, it keeps me collecting. I can find some cheap vinyl too, but it's not always in my budget.

I still listen to a lot of my music digitally, but when I'm at home chilling or doing chores I prefer to pop in a CD. It's just more satisfying to hold and listen to. It kind of sucks that since CDs aren't as popular it feels like so many artists don't put a lot of stock into the art or booklets for physical releases. Hell, a lot of new CDs I buy barely have booklets - I'm lucky if I get a folded glossy sheet with one picture. And I hate digi paks - they just feel so cheap.

[MrLobster]

Fun: going through my CDs and enjoying the music
Bad: finding damaged CDs that skip parts of songs (2 of 8 albums so far...)
Meh: buying replacement copies

[brotha52]

Discussion of CD as a format always brings me back to the loudness war. If you're looking for CDs with great dynamic range, I have to recommend the site: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr/desc

[Shunt]

Discussion of CD as a format always brings me back to the loudness war. If you're looking for CDs with great dynamic range, I have to recommend the site: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr/desc

I'll never forget the impression I got after I saw the numbers for the horridly mastered Ones and Sixes, by Low. Way to destroy a great collection of songs, and it apparently was Alan Sparhawk's idea. The loudness war was nowhere near as bad in 2015 as in the later half of the 00s, so the crime is even more unforgivable.

It's such a shame I've had to look for vinyl rips in order to enjoy certain albums, when a proper CD master would easily be the superior choice.

[PhoenixML]

I bought cds until 2016. I have nothing to play them. Except the car, or maybe a dvd player. Before that, I would buy the cd and place it on the shelf. That's it. 99% of the time, I had already downloaded the leak or something. Then I realize that most of my mp3 were 128kbps because I used to have a 1Gb mp3 player so many years ago. And I hadn't updated my libraries in forever. So once I started to rip my cds again (at work), it became a hassle to keep all my libraries updated (my phone, my laptop, my computer at work, my wife's phone, my wife's computer) and rebuilding all the playlists....

Then it struck me : streaming. The simplicity to have it all. After consideration, Apple Music was the choice because it could hold my own music that isn't available in the service (like b-sides and demos). And here I am, not "owning" music anymore... My kids might never know what it felt to ever buy music, if ever the family plan still exists.

The last cds I bought were Archive and Deftones. Not even Radiohead. I was happy with the "physical components" for the latests ep but then... Bad Witch. Will it be the first NIN release I won't buy "something" for it? That can't be right... I still have 2 days to figure it out.

[Merriweather]

After a couple of moves I’ve pared down my CD collection but I haven’t really gotten into the vinyl craze.

Last week I moved to my wife’s hometown in rural Ohio. It turns out we’re just far enough out of town that the major ISPs don’t have any service out here. Netflix streaming is going to be a major pain, as will any other kind of streaming or downloading. So to say that I’m really appreciating my physical media right now is an understatement.