CD vs Vinyl

Its clearly a stock image retard.

go out to see the bands live. they really make dick all from physical media sales compared to merch and tickets

You think I don't know that? The stock photographers are still dumb.

CD, it's a pretty little case and you get effortless digital rips

I'm not even a CD fag, I collect vinyl. CDs are objectively better and are a more accurate representation of the recording. Like I said though, you can prefer the sound of vinyl (like I do) because the differences in mastering, analog source, and whatnot. Also you have no idea what you're talking about if you think vinyl has a bigger dynamic range and that using the loudness war is a good argument.

it’s literally impossible for a CD to be higher quality than a vinyl. Vinyls are analogue, that will never be topped by the inaccuracy of digital waveforms. do your research before you post.

Attached: DEEF5B82-8948-4E3E-A0DE-11980A8DF3BD.png (600x463, 12K)

Of course, most music is recorded digitally these days, so it wouldn't make any difference.

Both are pointless

D I G I T A L D O W N L O A D F T W

if you want physical vinyl is the most physical medium

ok retard, I did a single engine search and found several articles saying otherwise
wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)
yoursoundmatters.com/measuring-vinyl-dynamic-range-complicated/

ya know this reminds me of many years ago, when certain technicians said 2k digital projection offered more resolution than 35mm. And they did their best to prove their point. I laughed then and I laugh now.

nothingin these articles contradict me. either you haven’t read my post or you haven’t read the articles.

Here's the definitive response:

CDs
Pros: Produces the truest reproduction of the source sound; More faithful on "dynamics" (the "punchiness" of sound); Lower lows and higher highs.
Cons: Originally, CDs were touted as having a 100 year lifespan. They would outlive YOU. That was wildly off. CDs DO deteriorate over time, in extreme cases, they become unplayable. As a personal opinion, not based on science, I think vinyl reproduces the sound of drums better than CD, but CDs outperform vinyl on everything else.

Vinyl
Pros: Big, full size art, lyric sheets, liner notes.
Cons: At the end of each side, you have to physically flip the record; From the very first play, the media is compromised (needle damaging the groove). A record will not sound as good on its 100th play as it did its first, unlike a CD; Ticks, pops, wow, flutter, and bass feedback; Unless the spindle hole is EXACTLY in the center of the record (and you'd be surprised how many AREN'T!!) the playback will be warped.

Records' fatal flaw is that the very system of playback physically damages the media. With CDs, they are read by laser light. Unless your CD player has a laser malfunction, the amount of damage done by a laser read is so minimal as to be almost unmeasurable.

I literally have over 1000 vinyl records and 1000 CDs. I have CDs I bought in 1988 that sound pristine today. I have others I bought after 2000 that crapped out after just a few months. A lot has to do with the manufacturer's quality control.

Attached: tommy-smothers-john-lennon-anecdote.jpg (670x441, 71K)

CD for ripping and having physical backup.
Vinyl for collectibility.
Cassette for faggots.

CDs are better but boring to look at, boring to collect and boring to play. I don't feel any reward in buying that small piece of shit.
Vinyls are worse but fun to look at, fun to collect and fun to play. I feel a big reward in flipping through a tray of hundreds of records, just to pull out a huge cover of one of my favorite albums.

Please recommend me a portable vinyl player I can listen to on the subway.

Will you look at that, I wrote Vinyls.

Attached: 1556203983273.jpg (1296x1268, 618K)

It's called a phone you tranny

>CDs are better
>but
Didn't even need to continue, just end it right there

You have problems with reading comprehension as well as a faggot.

>Cassette for faggots.
underrated comment

why would you want to listen to cds in a portable fashion either lol its not 1999

CDs actually have worse fidelity than cassettes
youtu.be/VfHa_XTvi54

*vhs cassettes

>he doesn't know about reconstruction filters
All audio is analog. Stairstepping isn't real. Digital recording represents analog waveforms more accurately than analog recording. Proof using analog test gear:
youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

>CDs DO deteriorate over time, in extreme cases, they become unplayable.
I have CDs >30 years old that still rip bit-for-bit perfect.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

Vinyl is for fags.

Attached: 464678F0-CD83-4E9F-B4B6-C13F1F82A996.jpg (1125x1358, 212K)

>certain technicians said 2k digital projection offered more resolution than 35mm
Only retarded technicians said that. 35mm is approximately equivalent to 6K digital resolution, and that was known from the start. 8K is better than 35mm, but 70mm is still higher resolution than any commonly available digital format.

CDs and vinyl both exceed the frequency response of human hearing. Correctly mastered CDs meet the dynamic range of human hearing when used at safe listening volumes, while vinyl doesn't even come close. (CDs are 16 bit, and vinyl dynamic range is equivalent to about 12 bit.)

>RIAA_equalization
What's wrong with that? It's a clever way of making vinyl dynamic range tolerable (although still much worse than CDs). Human ears are less sensitive to bass, so you don't need so much SNR there, which gives you more physical space to put higher quality signal where it matters. It's a kind of lossy compression, like a low-tech MP3.

If the best version is the vinyl release, which is sometimes true, that doesn't mean you should actually listen to it from vinyl. Instead listen to a good digital recording of it, which will sound literally identical, with all the "vinyl warmth", except it won't destroy itself with repeated listens.

>What’s wrong with that?
>like a low-tech MP3

Attached: 141C2F3A-D23A-4A55-BC06-F49B9851282D.jpg (1200x1600, 374K)

I'm sorry where exactly did you do your research? because if you have a small understanding on electronics, digital/analog signals and filters you know that's some bullshit when your are talking about audio

You do realize that the vast majority of vinyl today is pressed from a DIGITAL master right? of course record companies are happy that you believe that bullshit because vinyls >40$ Cds

Vinyl is just a nostalgia fueled meme.. it needs to die already.

If the music was recorded with analog equipment, it would benefit from Vinyl, if it was recorded with digital equipment, it won't make a difference, so you can go with CD's.

Cassette.

>Vinyls

and that's the problem, I'm sure 99% of vinyl today is sourced from a digital master, most of the record companies won't go back to the equipment necesary for a complete analog treatment because it will make them lose money. but they are very happy making you believe that your digitally mastered vinyl "sounds better because analog and shit"

>Correctly mastered CDs meet the dynamic range of human hearing when used at safe listening volumes, while vinyl doesn't even come close. (CDs are 16 bit, and vinyl dynamic range is equivalent to about 12 bit.)
hmmmmmm

Attached: 1F3406BB-96CE-43F0-907E-7FB6E6391FA7.jpg (1242x1507, 1.11M)

>vinyl has great dynamic range if you ignore the vinyl
Yes, good cartridges and preamps exist. The noise comes from the vinyl itself.

>duuuude vinyl has a lower dynamic range as long as it’s played incorrectly on bad equipment

Go digital

A portable CD player helps with my ADHD. I can focus on one album easier instead of flipping through endless streams.
I can easily rip a CD to mp3 player. ripping a vinyl requires additional specialized equipment.