CDs are in every way better than vinyl records. They are smaller, much higher quality audio, lower noise floor and don’t wear out by being played. The fact that CD sales are behind vinyl is a sign that the world has gone mad. The fact you can rip and stream your own CD media is fantastic because generally remasters are not good and streaming services typically only have remastered versions, not originals. You have no control on streaming services about what version of an album you’re served or whether it’ll still be there tomorrow. Not an issue with physical media.
The vast majority of people listen to music using equipment that produces audio of poor quality, especially those that stream using ear buds. It makes me very sad when people don’t care that what they’re listening to could sound so much better, especially if played through a hifi from a CD player, or using half decent (not beats) headphones.
There’s plenty of good sounding and well produced music out there, but it’s typically played back through the equivalent of two cans and some string. I’m not sure people remember how good good music can sound when played back through good kit.
I can easily get equal or higher quality than CDs online.
I’d rather support artists by buying a nice vinyl so I can appreciate the artwork.
Higher quality than CD is a pretty dubious claim. CD quality is so good, the industry had nothing better to throw into the market. As video went from VHS, to DVD, to Blu-ray, CD simply couldn’t be topped.
https://www.33rdsquare.com/do-cds-sound-better-than-spotify-yes-cds-still-provide-superior-fidelity/
CD is PCM audio of 16-bit samples at 44.1khz
I have many FLACs that came as downloadable versions with vinyl records funnily enough. Some stick to CD quality, many to go to 24-bit audio at 96khz, and I think I’ve got a couple of 24-bit/192khz albums knocking about.
Higher quality than CD has been around for a while, it’s just apart from that brief couple of years with SACD, it never made it onto physical media.
Edit: correct sample rate
44.1
Ah yeah, you’re right! I should double check before posting technical specs before my morning coffee
Qobuz offers higher than CD quality, I think Tidal does too.
The difference isn’t as noticeable as video though, so I expect CDs were just good enough and not worth it to upgrade for a niche market.
The main advantage of Blu-ray audio is supporting 7.1 surround, while a CD is limited to 2 channels. Unless you have the equipment to take advantage of that, though, it’s a moot point.
Playing the devil’s advocate, why would you need 7 channels when you only have two ears?
While this is obviously a silly question on some scenarios, it’s quite valid for the headphone use case.
Your ears can tell if something is coming from:
In front
Behind
Front right
Back left
etc
We don’t just percieve audio from left right so with 7.1 support an artist can take advantage of it and make different sounds come from different areas for a more full listening experience (though i doubt many actually do that)
Even some headphones can emulate 3d audio pretty well so it’s not an exclusive use for surround sound speakers
If course it can, and it can do better for certain frequencies than for others I think.
However, the point is that this is not because you have more than two “sensors” for sound, but rather because of some clever processing of the signals in the brain. The information that the brain uses however can be coded into the stereo signal, under the assumption that it will be listened to with a controlled setup like headphones.
That’s not related to quality though. Perfectly possible to have 7.1 audio sound like a tin can. Surround CDs exist, just not common.
I was talking about visual quality for video media as compared to audio quality for CD medium.