I remember when CDs came out
I thought they were wank then and I still do.... they were marketed as indestructible - anyone remember that?
They're marginally useful as a medium for transferring music around as long as you don't actually use them to listen to it but put it straight into your computer.
Cassettes were much cooler. I still have a cassette I was given when I was 8, almost 30 years ago and it still works. It's a bit wobbly in places and I had to operate on it when one end got snagged in the mechanism of a tape recorder so there's a little bit missing but can you imagine a CD lasting 30 years of being used and abused?
(teasus likes tea, Tue 12 Jun 2012, 9:16, 14 replies)

I agree they sounded rough initially
But my first exposure was in the early 80's, when the players only had 16 bit decoders in them. A friend's Marantz sounded as rough as a badger's arse. The sound was very harsh compared to Vinyl.

Later bitstream players using the same CD's however sounded as good as any CD today. True, some of my CD's from the mid 80's are beginning to dissolve due to the acid used in the plastic but they do still play nearly 30 years after they were made.

I can't see why you think the sound is so bad, considering nowadays the main option is an MP3, which will never contain as much data as the CD version...
(Kliper Filllets Getting noticed by twats on the internet since, Tue 12 Jun 2012, 10:33, closed)

There are those that talk about vinyl like it's the holy grail
It isn't.
(Captain Placid 24/7 ball gags, brownie mix and clown porn, Tue 12 Jun 2012, 11:04, closed)

A clean record did sound superb
Unfortunately I don't think I've got any without the odd scratch or dirt in them now.

A few years ago I listened to an vinyl audiophile version of the Rolling Stones "Hot Rocks" album on a Mitchell Gyrodec, compared to my decent Sony CD player (same power amps and speakers).

The CD sounded really good through the setup, but when we put the vinyl on the difference made the hairs on my neck stand up. You could "hear the soundstage" and almost pinpoint where people were standing.

Obviously you needed a quiet room, perfect speaker positioning, £20k of equipment etc., to hear the difference, but it was there.

I should think 99% of the population don't get a chance to compare CD to MP3, and that think their little earphones give good quality. In the end it's all down to what you're able to hear, what you can afford and what you're happy to put up with.

No doubt today a decent digital setup can easily match an analogue setup, providing the source has at least as much information as a CD/SACD.
(Kliper Filllets Getting noticed by twats on the internet since, Tue 12 Jun 2012, 11:23, closed)

I do rip my CDs to a lossless format when I can. The problem is, if you haven't got £500 to spend on headphones or £3k for a sound system then it sounds the same as a 192 MP3
(tyrellsOwl, Tue 12 Jun 2012, 11:36, closed)

I work with a chap that extolled the virtues of MP3's
Said he had thousands of songs on his player.
I did suggest that the compression required would affect the quality. His reply; "MP3's aren't that bad a compression format".
When asked to name a popular format that was worse, he couldn't.

(OK low compression won't sound much different from CD's, but technically I think I made my point).
(Kliper Filllets Getting noticed by twats on the internet since, Tue 12 Jun 2012, 14:16, closed)

Even on my relatively modest set-up...
...a decent 12 inch single will blow the pants off any cd version.
(minimalist ..., Tue 12 Jun 2012, 13:58, closed)

Were the CD and the vinyl cut from the same masters?
If they were I'll be genuinely impressed.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Wed 13 Jun 2012, 0:50, closed)

I don't know
But it took a record deck with a stylus worth more than my modest £600 CD player to bring out the information.

That was a good 15 years ago, so by now my CD will sound the same but I can't say the record and stylus will have lasted so well.
(Kliper Filllets Getting noticed by twats on the internet since, Wed 13 Jun 2012, 7:13, closed)

To me it sounds like the difference lay in the way the two versions of the album were mixed, rather than the physical format of the recording.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Wed 13 Jun 2012, 20:40, closed)

Possibly
The CD was no doubt done 'on the cheap', although I'm not sure how much effort would have gone into the vinyl. It wasn't *that* expensive.
(Kliper Filllets Getting noticed by twats on the internet since, Thu 14 Jun 2012, 12:20, closed)

I don't object to digital music at all
I almost exclusively listen to music in mp3 format which isn't even that good. I just think spinning optical disks are a bit crap and unreliable. I just trust everything to spinning magnetic plates instead. hmmm
But, having shared a house with a DJ who had a spiffy sound system, my old records do seem to produce more of a full sound than the mp3s I've got of the same tracks.
I think the thing I like most of all about tapes and records is actually understanding what's going on when it's recorded and played back. It's also quite nice being able to fix stuff when it breaks.
(teasus likes tea, Tue 12 Jun 2012, 13:42, closed)

I thought CD's were great when they came out and still do.
You do need to look after them a bit more, but I still have the first CD I ever bought 'Queen Greatest Hits' and it still plays. All my tapes from back then are long gone. Either chewed up, or the sound is so fuzzy you can't hear anything.
( The Awful Puppy Bakery is still bored, Tue 12 Jun 2012, 11:45, closed)

I followed the advice of Tomorrow's World
and coated all my CDs in honey, before rubbing them with sandpaper.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Tue 12 Jun 2012, 11:53, closed)

Fucking hell that made me laugh

( Ken Oath, Tue 12 Jun 2012, 12:28, closed)