Who here is still in love with CDs?

[quote name='Sporadic']CDs suck.

Amazon MP3 has everything in DRM-free 256kbps MP3 which is good enough for me (even better if it's a younger band, they usually rip in LAME) and unlike a CD, I don't have to wait for it or figure out where to store the case or worry if it has gotten too scratched up.
[/QUOTE]

You pay money for 256kbps MP3s and you're saying CDs suck? Crazy.
 
I'm in love with ripping CDs to FLAC.
cagus.smile.jpg
 
Let's not forget that there are those Beatles remasters coming out on 9/9/09. Apparently they are supposed to fly off of shelves even if they are way overpriced.... but whatever.
 
When I was younger I had the enthusiasm of having a physical collection of many things, CD's, DVD's, Comics, etc. Now I'm not that much older, 31, but I'm tired of the clutter and want a simpler life. I've sold off all of that with the exception of some comics cause I've been lazy.

I buy music digitally through Itunes if only because I get free Itunes gift cards through my Apple credit card. I listen to albums the old fashioned way, from beginning to end. Sometimes I'll skip around if I'm on a short car ride. Generally it's playing through itunes when on I'm the computer all day.

I rarely buy DVD/Blu-rays unless it's one of those must own never get tired of it in my life movies like the Dark Knight. Outside of those, it's Netflix physical or digital through my 360.

As for books, I rent everything I can through the library. I only recently purchase a Kindle edition to read on my Iphone since I don't have a Kindle. I thought I wouldn't like the digital reading but so far I'm loving it even if it's on a small screen. If they make a color version, I may just get it if I can start reading digital comics that way.

With comics, I can't wait for a color digital reader that supports all major publishers. I don't care about collecting anymore, I just want to read entertaining stories.

With all these options, I can go through thousands of items without having to go to a store, it's immediate, and I don't have to have hundreds of shelves to store everything let alone dust it all.
 
I love buying CD's. Sure I put them into my iTunes but the chance to play them in my stereo when I'm home is what it's all about.
 
Not very sentimental towards CDs.. in fact after reading this thread I realized how much of a pain CDs are and looked into buying a radio for my car I can put a SD card full of mp3s on so my digital music collection is now extended to my car.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']You pay money for 256kbps MP3s and you're saying CDs suck? Crazy.[/QUOTE]

What's the big difference? Most people buy CDs, rip them to MP3 and never touch the original CD again.

I'd rather cut out the middleman, pay $7-8 for the MP3 version, get it delivered instantly and just burn it to a CD-R if I don't feel like bringing my MP3 player with me.

Only time I buy physical stuff nowadays is if something special comes with it (preordered HEALTH - Get Color on vinyl and recieved the MP3 version a month before release, a free 7" & poster for $13.99) or if it is really rare (paid out the ass for Modwheelmood - Pearls To Pigs on vinyl, signed & hand numbered, limited to 500 and came with a free MP3 download of the album plus the album betas)

- edit Not to mention the deals you can get. Here's my last few purchases I've made from Amazon MP3

the American Tragedy - No Formula & The Soundtrack (2 albums - $10.98 after a $5 off coupon)
Street Sweeper Social Club ($3.98 - deal of the day)
The Benjy Davis Project - Dust (Free)
Eagle Records Live at Montreux 2009 Sampler (Free)
Radio Moscow - Brain Cycles ($8.99)
The Prodigy - Invaders Must Die ($1.99 - deal of the day)
blindoldfreak - 1 ($5.98)

So, 8 albums for $31.92. Not bad at all.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']What's the big difference? Most people buy CDs, rip them to MP3 and never touch the original CD again.
[/QUOTE]

The difference is one is an album you can rip to whichever format you wish as many times as you want (or just lossless and transcode as many times as you want) and the other is a single lossy version of the album. Whether you can hear the difference between the actual album or a lossless version and a high quality mp3 doesn't matter, the fact is that the difference exists. If I'm going to pay for something, I want my money's worth. I wouldn't mind paying for a flac album, but I'd still prefer the cd. I will never pay for an mp3/m4a/wma/etc.
 
I guess it makes sense, I mean people do buy disc-only games at Gamestop. I wouldn't pay for something that has no actual value and is incomplete (MP3s are actually missing some of the sound).
 
[quote name='its phillip']The difference is one is an album you can rip to whichever format you wish as many times as you want (or just lossless and transcode as many times as you want) and the other is a single lossy version of the album. Whether you can hear the difference between the actual album or a lossless version and a high quality mp3 doesn't matter, the fact is that the difference exists. If I'm going to pay for something, I want my money's worth. I wouldn't mind paying for a flac album, but I'd still prefer the cd. I will never pay for an mp3/m4a/wma/etc.[/QUOTE]

I think you missed my point.

What's the difference when most people rip the CD to MP3 (usually at a lower bit rate than 256) and shelve the CD permanently? I guess it's cool if you have room for FLAC files or bust out the CD every time you want to listen but most people don't so the advantages are lost (unless you love artwork) and it's a waste of space.

256 is fine with me since I usually rip at V0 anyways (and my music folder is already 300GBs)
 
A lot of people do most of their listening on the go, at work etc. on MP3s ripped from CDs, but listen to the CDs at home on their nice stereo set ups.

I don't much anymore as I got rid of my bigger speakers I used to use for music, and just have my little, tiny surround sound speakers which sound decent enough for TV, movies, games etc. but aren't very good for music. But I keep my CDs around as I'll eventually drop a couple ground and get a great sound set up when I have a house and not a small condo.

And other advantages are just having a back up, I have everything ripped, but I probably only back up my MP3s to another hard drive once or twice a year if even that often, so I'd loose a lot of stuff I bought and downloaded, where at least I can re-rip if my hard drive dies.

For audiphiles the sound quality is better, and they can rip it to FLAC or a higher bit rate MP3 that's more to their liking that what's for sale.

And of course some people just like collecting things, and for some collecting albums is their thing. You just don't get the same feel with buying mp3s vs. buying CDs or vinyl.

Space isn't a big issue. I have 350-375 cds problem, their all on one cd rack in a corner in an out of the way wall. But it's more of a problem for people with thousands of albums of course. But even then I hope to eventually have a media room that's full of nothing but a big TV, surround set up and all my movies, cds and games.

Now I couldn't care less that people like you prefer buying digital music. I don't really get some of the antagonism in this thread. Who cares what format people prefer to buy. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114'] But it's more of a problem for people with thousands of albums of course. [/QUOTE]

Most people here with thousands of albums likely didn't pay for them.
 
The last CD I purchased was back in 2004 and it was 'Exodus' by Utada, and that was just because I really wanted to support her, since then I buy everything from iTunes.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']I think you missed my point.

What's the difference when most people rip the CD to MP3 (usually at a lower bit rate than 256) and shelve the CD permanently? I guess it's cool if you have room for FLAC files or bust out the CD every time you want to listen but most people don't so the advantages are lost (unless you love artwork) and it's a waste of space.

256 is fine with me since I usually rip at V0 anyways (and my music folder is already 300GBs)[/QUOTE]

I think you missed mine. Just because most people do something doesn't mean it makes any sense. The reason why I buy cds instead of lossy digital is because of the reasons I mentioned, and it's also the same reason a lot of others have. Hard drive space has been dirt cheap for years anyway so there really isn't any reason to not rip to flac, whether you can hear the difference or not. You could just archive it if you wanted, but it's also convenient since you can transcode it to however many formats you want. I obviously don't have any issues with the sound of v0 mp3s, but it's still not the actual full sound of the album so I have no desire to pay for it.

Anyway, I too have a large library of digital music, but a large portion was actually ripped from my own collection rather than being pirated so whatever.
 
[quote name='its phillip']I think you missed mine. Just because most people do something doesn't mean it makes any sense. The reason why I buy cds instead of lossy digital is because of the reasons I mentioned, and it's also the same reason a lot of others have. Hard drive space has been dirt cheap for years anyway so there really isn't any reason to not rip to flac, whether you can hear the difference or not. You could just archive it if you wanted, but it's also convenient since you can transcode it to however many formats you want. I obviously don't have any issues with the sound of v0 mp3s, but it's still not the actual full sound of the album so I have no desire to pay for it.

Anyway, I too have a large library of digital music, but a large portion was actually ripped from my own collection rather than being pirated so whatever.[/QUOTE]

No, I got it. Just that you are the first person to bring that up (over the whole I like artwork/physical items/listening to the album the whole way through) and are really in the minority since most people either don't care or don't have the equipment to take real advantage of lossless music.

I can understand buying CDs for lossless if you really have a hard on for it but really...no reason not to encode in FLAC? FLAC is three times the size for no real noticeable improvement unless you have really good equipment. My collection would be nearing 1TB, which is insane. Hard drive space is cheap but I don't want to start an arms race with hard drive size and my music collection. Also what would you reconvert the FLAC files to? MP3 again? Encoders are pretty much at their peak now and there is no real reason to rerip.

You can pirate FLAC too :whistle2:$
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='georox']Most people here with thousands of albums likely didn't pay for them.[/QUOTE]

True, I was thinking of some people I've known that had over 1000+ CDs and having a room pretty much lined with CD shelving, records etc. rather than anyone on here.

If I had that kind of interest in music, I'd be more receptive to buying digital albums, as space would be a problem for me then. But I buy very few albums a year now, so I doubt my collection will ever get over 500 (from the 350 or whatever it's at now) as I just don't have the interest/time to seek out new music these days so my purchases are largely limited to new albums from bands I've been listening to for years.
 
your one complaint is that digitally people just listen to singles? nobody i know does what you describe, OP.. listening to just a few songs like that.. yeah, it's nice to listen to full albums, and that's exactly what me and everybody else i know does. digital distribution kicks ass. there are releases today that wouldn't have existed 10 yr ago, releases that only exist because digital distribution is so cheap, music that only gets made because the band was able to make enough cash from digital distribution to support their passion instead of working some boring job full-time or conforming to a record exec's "suggestions" because it's so hard to sign a deal and execs only want mainstream.

i definitely dont think there's anything wrong with digital distribution... it just sounds like you're doing it wrong. embrace digital distribution. the musicians get more, you get more, the retarded record industry execs get less. you want a full album, great, download a full album and listen to a full album, i dont understand where the problem is. 99% of the time it's cheaper than the disc and the sound quality is better than just about any
 
[quote name='camoor']Albums are overrated, it's still canned music.

There's really nothing like seeing a band live - that's what really makes a difference.[/QUOTE]

i totally agree that live music sounds incredible, but recordings can get ridiculously close. imo what makes the biggest difference with a live show is thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of high quality equipment and accoustically optimized rooms/stadiums... go to an audio boutique and listen to one of their high end rooms, you'd be floored by how awesome a recording can sound. go to a house show with only 1k - 2k worth of gear and it wont sound that great even though you're 5ft from them. imo it's not loss in the canning it's mostly the kickass equipment of the venue.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']No, I got it. Just that you are the first person to bring that up (over the whole I like artwork/physical items/listening to the album the whole way through) and are really in the minority since most people either don't care or don't have the equipment to take real advantage of lossless music.

I can understand buying CDs for lossless if you really have a hard on for it but really...no reason not to encode in FLAC? FLAC is three times the size for no real noticeable improvement unless you have really good equipment. My collection would be nearing 1TB, which is insane. Hard drive space is cheap but I don't want to start an arms race with hard drive size and my music collection. Also what would you reconvert the FLAC files to? MP3 again? Encoders are pretty much at their peak now and there is no real reason to rerip.

You can pirate FLAC too :whistle2:$[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I know that people with my reasons would definitely fall in the minority. I mean that's not my only reason to buy cds. I also like having the physical object, I like supporting the artists and labels (I mostly buy from smaller labels), plus the cases look nice :D

And I definitely can't hear the difference between a v0 and a flac, but the difference exists and flac is only 4x the size, so it's not a big deal for me to get the flac when available. About transcoding flacs, you can transcode it to v0 or 320 or v2 or whatever the hell you wanted to (multiformat seeding purposes, for example), or for a portable device that only supports certain formats or mp3cd players or whatever. The fact is that you can transcode a flac to whatever you wanted, but if you wanted to transcode an already lossy file it would come out worse. Anyway, I know you can pirate flac too. My library is like 1.09TB, and it's actually like 87% mp3 :O
 
[quote name='Koggit'] embrace digital distribution. the musicians get more, you get more, the retarded record industry execs get less. [/QUOTE]

Generally, no. The mainstream filth most people online listen to, the record labels still take a large chunk.

Most shit I listen to I can find on CD, and that's about it, and generally I'm stuck buying it from the artist only. Digital Distribution is for people who enjoy renting product and being told what to do.
 
[quote name='georox']Generally, no. The mainstream filth most people online listen to, the record labels still take a large chunk.

Most shit I listen to I can find on CD, and that's about it, and generally I'm stuck buying it from the artist only. Digital Distribution is for people who enjoy renting product and being told what to do.[/QUOTE]
well, all depends who's offering the download. i mean, if Warner puts a song on itunes, of course Warner's taking a huge cut... but if you're signed to a big label then chances are you're not at all hurting for $$. i guess it depends on what kinda music you're into, i mostly listen to indie electro and folk, most bands i'm into are unsigned and offer some sort of digital distribution on their website. a couple other bands i've purchased from have used distro services like SnoCap http://www.snocap.com/ that take a relatively small cut... my friend Garrett was in a now-defunct band The Divorce that split up before releasing their last album, he was able to release the pre-production tracks via SnoCap, just 5 yrs earlier and only a handful of people wouldve ever been able to hear those songs, digital distribution kicks ass
 
I Usually go to the concerts of the people who's CD's I buy. So I go and buy their merchandise as well at concerts usually. They have more then enough of my money...
 
I'm a strong advocate of supporting the music industry, whether it be digital downloads, buying CDs, or buying vinyl, as long as you aren't stealing the music.

I like to have a physical copy of my music, but I'm becoming more on the fence about it. I have at least 300, probably more CDs and they are beginning to take up so much space. I listen to the same 30 or 40 CDs in my car, and make disposable mix CDs that I listen to for a week then lose amongst all my garbage :p

As I use the Zune pass now for most of my music, and occasionally grab a song or cheap album off of Amazon MP3, I have been thinking about selling off some of my more valuable CDs, donating a ton of them to a library or something, and keeping 20-30 real gems amonst them. Every time I think about doing it though, I wuss out and get attached to them. I'd like to have an awesome collection of CDs to show my kid or something some day.

I figure about another 10 more years and there will be a considerable number of bands that are only doing digital releases. I dunno.





P.S. Mew's No More Stories (+more really long title) is hands down my #1 album of the year so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top