Rediscovering CD sound

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
u2popmofo

u2popmofo

Blue Meth Addict
Joined
Aug 12, 2000
Messages
37,248
Location
Utah
For the last number of years, when I buy a new album I immediately go home and rip it to my computer and then listen to the rip. I don't rip at too high of a bit rate, as I would like to fit all my music on my iPod and portable harddrive as well. Because of that, I unfortunately have been listening to everything I own at a lower sound quality than I could have been hearing for years.

Here and there I've been trying to listen to CDs again (at least if I'm going to listen to a full album at home). To some extent, I'd almost forgotten that things REALLY DO sound better on CD. That's one of the unfortunate downfalls of "digital media", we've forgotten that 128, 160, 192, and 256 bit rates are still no match for the CD quality sound.

What do the rest of you do to counter this bit rate/digital files/mp3 inferiority quality issue? How many of you still actually listen to CDs? What quality do you rip your albums at, and does ripping at higher levels cause issues with not being able to fit things on your iPod/digital music device or computer? Let's discuss.
 
I still buy CDs, because they do sound better, and I make a point every time I purchase one to listen to it the first time all the way through before ripping it to the iPod. For subsequent listens, it will mostly be at mp3 quality strictly for convenience.

And usually at home, I'll put a CD on with my home system instead of the iPod, because it's an even bigger difference there.
 
I still listen to CDs regularly, as they indeed do sound better than rips. All albums I purchase I listen to on CD at least once shortly after I've bought them. And whenever I'm doing stuff in my living room then I pop in a CD.
That said, I also listen to computer rips quite often, as I have (almost) my whole music collection ripped to my computer. As I've dedicated a 110 GB disc exclusively to my music collection, I don't have storage issues (yet). I think around 75GB is used at the moment. I rip music at 192 kbs VBR (variable bit rate) to OGG files (like MP3 but a different format with a slightly better quality/size curve).
:)
 
I haven't listened to an actual cd in a long time. When I buy them, I directly rip them into my computer so there's no chance of mishap/scratch in a cd player before ripping. Then I generally just listen to music on my computer/ipod. I rip at 224.
 
When I'm at home I play CDs exclusively, unless I'm in a mood for random listening which is easier with iPod shuffle. I never got into listening to music on my computer, mostly because it distracts me too much from reading and posting.
 
I still buy CDs...but the CD immediately gets ripped onto my computer and then put on my iPod. The CD usually hangs out in the car with me for awhile before it gets put on the rack. Then it's pretty much iPod and iTunes until I want that CD in my car again.

The difference in sound quality is something that I just don't really get bothered by much. :shrug:
 
I rip my CDs at 128 and I can't really tell the difference to tell the truth (damn my non discerning ears!). I used to have a smaller MP3 player (4 GB) so I would rip stuff at 96 and even 64 - now with those I could hear a difference.

I still like having the CDs though - there is something comforting about owning a physical copy to me but I hardly find myself listening to them, especially since I bought an FM transmitter for my iPod in the car...
 
I still buy CDs and virtually always rip it to the laptop right away. But, I also rip either at 256 VBR or 320 VBR, so the quality's pretty decent, even on my iPod. And, for certain albums, I do have lossless rips, but that's impractical for most things.
 
A coworker and I were arguing this very issue the other week. He said there was no difference and I argued that CD's did sound better. The debate went on for a couple of days then I brought in Flying Club Cup by Beirut along with my Grado 225 headphones. Within the hour he brought them both back and simply said "Alright, you win, that was awesome..."

I listen to my iPod so much at work that I really do forget how much better a CD sounds than its digital counterpart. Anytime I listen to something with a lot of depth and layers on the iPod, I'm always surprised by how much more I can hear and notice with the CD version. While digital is by far more convenient, CD wins in sound for me.
 
Bryandiophile's mentioning of Grados brings up a good point, good headphones and speakers also help bring out the difference in audio quality. I still surprisingly see many people using the miserable headphones that come with iPods. I think I used mine for a few songs before switching them out to a $10 pair of crap Sony earbuds that sound 10x better. For those us who do listen to large amounts of music (pretty much every one here), it is well worth your money to buy a nice pair of headphones and/or speakers.

For headphones, I highly recommend Grados as he mentioned. They're handmade hi-fi / "audiophile" headphones. The SR60 or SR80 models are relatively inexpensive, but will truly give you some of the best sound you've ever experienced. Even MP3s sound decent on these: http://www.gradolabs.com/
 
I used to rip all my mp3s at 192k. Then I moved to VBR. Now my minimum is 256k, though I often rip at 320. One of these days I'll get around to re-ripping everything to at least 256. I find once you get into the 256k VBR or just straight 320k rips, it gets really hard to tell apart from the CD. Storage space is cheap, and I likes me some sound quality. :)

That said, when I'm at home I usually just pop cds into the stereo and listen that way. It does really help to have a good stereo system and/or headphones to appreciate the difference, but even in my car I can easily tell which songs were ripped at higher bitrates than others.
 
u2popmofo said:
For the last number of years, when I buy a new album I immediately go home and rip it to my computer and then listen to the rip. I don't rip at too high of a bit rate, as I would like to fit all my music on my iPod and portable harddrive as well. Because of that, I unfortunately have been listening to everything I own at a lower sound quality than I could have been hearing for years.

Here and there I've been trying to listen to CDs again (at least if I'm going to listen to a full album at home). To some extent, I'd almost forgotten that things REALLY DO sound better on CD. That's one of the unfortunate downfalls of "digital media", we've forgotten that 128, 160, 192, and 256 bit rates are still no match for the CD quality sound.

What do the rest of you do to counter this bit rate/digital files/mp3 inferiority quality issue? How many of you still actually listen to CDs? What quality do you rip your albums at, and does ripping at higher levels cause issues with not being able to fit things on your iPod/digital music device or computer? Let's discuss.
Click to expand...

Let me ask - what are you using to rip your CDs with? An album ripped at 256kbps with iTunes sounds noticeably different to an album ripped at 256kbps with EAC (Exact Audio Copy).
 
Compressed is compressed. There's still a difference that decent equipment (headphones or speakers) and a discerning ear should be able to easily identify.
 
I'm done buying cds for several reasons, despite the better sound quality.

1. I don't have room to keep all the damn things, especially with jewel cases or digipaks.

2. Fuck the prices. Until the industry catches up with modern technology and consumer trends and preferences, I'm more than happy to get my music through iTunes store or illegally these days. And no. I don't care. The industry has had time now to take steps towards a digitally-driven market, and they've only taken baby steps thus far. One day there won't be a difference in sound quality, and will the record company's still be trying to sell us all cd's with this shit on them? Probably. I'll pass, thanks.

I'm more than willing to put up with lossy sound until then.
 
We have lost the art, literally, of listening to music.

Getting that vinyl home and cracking it open and setting aside this thing called TIME, with 20/20 hindsight, was the most valuable part of listening to new music.

Reading the lyrics, the credits, actually looking at the artwork (Rush albums were the best, you could always find stuff in there of interest).

Playing side 1, not convenient to skip a song that didn't grab you at first listen, then flipping over for side 2.

All done in 35-45 minutes, no 75-minute albums full of filler to wade through.

Then repeat.

Too many artists feel the need to totally stuff albums to the brim these days, whatever happened to only choosing the prime material ? If you've got too much, save it for the next album. Led Zeppelin for example never released singles and ALWAYS had extra material for the following album, well, maybe not always, they did get a bit indulgent with Physical Graffitti.

When an artist released a non-live double album there was always a bit of trepidation that there would be too much filler. I believe if released in vinyl days that AB, Pop, R+H and possibly others would be double albums.

There were no loudness wars going on either.

CDs are far superior to mp3s, if you have a halfway decent system in your home or car then I seriously believe you are are either in need of a hearing check or you need to pay more attention.

You can DVR the damn show and read the forums later, take some time and just sit down and LISTEN for a while.

There, I'm done reminiscing and ranting.
 
Lancemc said:
2. Fuck the prices. Until the industry catches up with modern technology and consumer trends and preferences, I'm more than happy to get my music through iTunes store or illegally these days. And no. I don't care. The industry has had time now to take steps towards a digitally-driven market, and they've only taken baby steps thus far. One day there won't be a difference in sound quality, and will the record company's still be trying to sell us all cd's with this shit on them? Probably. I'll pass, thanks.
Click to expand...

15% of all music sales were digital downloads last year (3/4 of that 15% was on iTunes). The industry has no need to move to digital when 85% of the market is still in physical sales. The industry is not digital driven, not even close.
 
u2popmofo said:
15% of all music sales were digital downloads last year (3/4 of that 15% was on iTunes). The industry has no need to move to digital when 85% of the market is still in physical sales. The industry is not digital driven, not even close.
Click to expand...


It is though for the singles market; albums on the other hand seem to be holding their own physically for now at least.
 
Good point. Which makes it ultra frustrating to try to get a hold of import singles in the US these days!
 
u2popmofo said:
15% of all music sales were digital downloads last year (3/4 of that 15% was on iTunes). The industry has no need to move to digital when 85% of the market is still in physical sales. The industry is not digital driven, not even close.
Click to expand...

Because the only worthwhile places to download music legally are Napster and Itunes? Hardly great options. Which is what I'm getting at. We need some sort of industry standard in digital distribution. The studios themselves need to invest in this for it to take off, while they've been little more than reluctantly cooperative to this point, if not at all. The number of people under 30 who download music illegally/rip and swap with friends is bigger than anyone likes to admit, and that number is only going to continue to grow. Most people who still buy CDs are likely older generations who haven't been raised in the digital era. In order for the industry to grow and survive it needs to cater to the cutting edge, which it is completely failing to acknowledge.
 
Lancemc said:
Because the only worthwhile places to download music legally are Napster and Itunes? Hardly great options. Which is what I'm getting at. We need some sort of industry standard in digital distribution. The studios themselves need to invest in this for it to take off, while they've been little more than reluctantly cooperative to this point, if not at all.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I read some shitty article about Myspace a week or two ago that pissed me off beyond belief. Apparently Myspace is releasing some sort of music downloading option in the near future (they may have already introduced some of it). Their big selling point at bringing in labels to sell on their site is that they'd let them charge more than iTunes charges for new releases or other "specials". All I got out of it was that most of the major labels hate iTunes because they're sticklers with not allowing major labels to charge more than $9.99 for an album.

It does seem that the majors all want to live in dinosaur land still, unfortunately.
 
i only listen to my ipod at work where i do not have a cd player. otherwise, i listen to cds in my car and never the ipod because of the sound quality.

:up:


fuck major labels, and fuck myspace.
 
Unfortunately I listen to all my music either thru itunes or my ipod (in the car) and there is indeed a dip in quality! The other day I played a CD on my home stereo and it felt like I was listening to a different album!

Dear Readers,

Forgive me if this has been addressed before but is 192 kbps the most optimal speed for importing? Can one get better quality at higher speed/bit rate? But will higher quality sacrifice memory space? Eagerly awaiting your reply,

Clueless in Central Jersey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Digital Spy 2
I am back
Replies
2
Views
267
Digital Spy 2
Digital Spy 2
W
A Boy Falls From the Sky is some U2's best work
Replies
3
Views
2K
zoocarolina
Z
Reggie Thee Dog
Are we NOT discussing the Dolby Atmos Mix of Achtung Baby?
Replies
13
Views
1K
count rushmore
count rushmore
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
285
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
O
Live U2 concerts for sale
Replies
0
Views
585
one_cool_dude17
O

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom