Do CDs offer the best audio quality?

In my limited experience, they DO tend to be screamers.

They do for me, but I have an excellent DAC and CD transport.

Better than digital files or streams? Yes, most likely (there are variables). As good as vinyl if played on a high end turntable and sound system? No. Experts say the sound is "flattened" in CDs.

I chose several decades ago (early 90s?) to stay with the format... for a non-audio reason. I like/need the physical experience of the 3-D object. The colors of graphics. The kinesthetic experience of taking the CD in the player, putting it in, taking it out when finished. Early on I intuited that the digital world was delivering ease at much too high a cost. The science since that decision has only strengthened my views. The screens, the algorithms, the streaming of music I have not made a physical effort to choose... eat into us, change themselves to change us to obey them. Our synapses atrophy. Our attention is thinned. A.I. has only further destroyed our humanness. A good percentage of music now on Spotify/YouTub channels is not even real...

Had I been smarter though, I would have "stayed" with vinyl... because of the sound quality.

I agree with R3. Most true audiophiles prefer vinyl and have a good quality turntable and and excellent stereo system. I have a sizeable music collection, and while I play both CDs and records, the sound you get from a quality pressed vinyl is noticeably better than CDs, especially if you are listening to jazz or classical.

Best audio quality is LIVE. No matter what the format, there is no substitute for sitting in the hall listening

How about reel to reel tape, R3? Better, best?

CD is more accurate than vinyl. Great sound quality is all in the mastering. Humans can’t really detect higher frequencies in SACD and high-resolution digital formats.

Today’s vinyl is made from digital sources, hence the advantage of vinyl does not exist anymore.

When CDs were initially introduced in the 1980s, the sound initially seemed superior to vinyl records because at that time many record companies were pressing releases on inferior quality vinyl in order to to maximize profits. Also CDs are not subject to the hiss or the little cracks or pops you get sometimes with records. However I have numerous releases on CDs that I later purchased years again either on remastered pressings or 180G vinyl reissues, and they are obviously better audio than the CDs.

We know they do.

Some late 20th C high-end CD players and a few, very, (very!) expensive modern players have electronics that smooth out the harshness of CDs and produce sound - on good equipment - that is reminiscent of the best quality vinyl recordings played on high-end systems of the past.

Otherwise, the answer is no.

Any other opinions?

r12 No, that's probably enough, dear. We've had sufficient. What else are you hoping for?

I find CDs very cold. Singers, however, claim that the sound they hear when they sing is closest with CDs

R14, which singers?

8-Tracks rule bitches!

Vinyl produces analog sound and CD's are digital. It depends on your preference, they're both good.

However, ear drums are analog

[quote]which singers?

I've heard a number of opera singers say so.

Barbra loved CDs

R20 Because vinyl couldn’t handle the sonics of Somewhere being the last track on one side of the LP. The last tracks always sound the worst due to smaller grooves.

As someone who started collecting music right at the transition to CD, I ding miss vinyl’s surface noise, scratches, dust, etc.

Some of the initial transfers to CD were poorly executed, so the myth persists that CD/digital sound is harsh. Vinyl isn’t as accurate on the bass, so some people interpret that as a warmer sound. Some prefer the nostalgia and physical connection of vinyl, but digital sound is simply more accurate. That said, I doubt many of us can really hear the finer distinctions.

I still buy physical CDs, then rip them to my own media server. Sometimes, I’ll buy lossless digital versions, but it’s a last resort.

For my money, you get no better audio quality than with a pair of healthy, pointy ears.

My brother has been slowly rebuilding his music collection with CDs that he buys for a buck or two apiece. He likes that he can play him in his 2nd car (a reburbished VW Bug). I used to keep a collection of CDs, but now I stick to streaming or Youtube.

I'm R24, and realize I didn't answer OP's question: I prefer the quality of CDs over other formats.

CDS are digital music. 1s and 0s. Meaning you can store it as rip on a HDD and it will sound just as good RIps, aka MP3s,,ogg files et all were created to compress that digital music because space was a premium with early digital music players. Now you can stream lossless audio. CDs are dead.

Vinyl has a texture of sound that cd does not

cd a clarity that vinyl does not

My preference is vinyl

I still use an iPod Touch that I plug into an old Sony Dolby 5.0 surround system. It's the best of both (old) worlds that I still have access to

My collection is vast, I don't want to give it up. They will soon stop updating my iPod Touch.

Lately, I’ve been listening to Dolby Atmos remasterings of many favorite albums in my home theater which has ten excellent speakers and it’s amazing. Artists like Peter Gabriel and Laurie Anderson are doing some really interesting things these days.

Quite some time ago, listened through headphones LP and CD versions of Abbey Road. The LP stereo "picture" was blurry, the CD was rock-solid. Also LPs generate a lot of heat when they're pressed. This planet is hot enough.

Between the late 1980s through 2000 I knew many people who abandoned their vinyl record collection by selling them or even giving them away. A few of them regret that today. I liked CDs but I preferred records so I kept mine and even kept growing my collection, and was very pleased when vinyl began a resurgence in the late 2000s.

R29 Streaming and server-farms, the huge complexes of computers running the infinite algorithms, use ,much, much more energy. Want to save the planet? Turn off your online devices.

CD is the best

First, I thought you meant - CD (certified deposits), then CD (cross dressers). Need to be a slower reader.

FLAC files at 24-bit 192khz played with a good DAC are likely closest to what the tracks sounded like when they were being recorded -- but only if the tracks were recorded digitally. Most music now is recorded with a digital audio workstation (DAW) in WAV format, which is uncompressed.

If the tracks were recorded pre-digital, then vinyl is likely the best sound quality.

I like CDs better than vinyl because I tire of having to turn the record over.

R35. Agreed

Tidal offers CD quality music. Why? CD has the highest quality, something no other streaming service can offer. You cannot get clearer than CD. Dolby Atmos looks promising though.

Sure, if you ask us to warble you a tune…! 🎵

I wish that Madonna's debut album was recorded digitally.

Who agrees?

How did 8-track tapes work? I was looking at a picture of an old 8-track and they are divided up into 4 sections with 2-3 songs per section.

Did you have to listen to each section in full, or could you play specific songs? How was the sound quality?

You can choose one of the 4 sections to click on. Most times the tape will switch from one section to the next in the middle of the track. You will hear a click and then silence for about 2-3 seconds and then the song would continue. 8-tracks were mostly convenient for playing in the car stereo. I had a friend who owned a stereo system with just radio and a 8-track deck. When I would visited him he had perhaps 40 8-track tapes and I would listen to sub-par sound quality and those clicking changes in the middle of songs. He liked the convenience and thought the sound was just fine, and wouldn't think of adding a record player or cassette player. He eventually added on a CD player in the late 1980s. For some people convenience is more important than sound quality. MY uncle who was a audiophile back in the 1960-1970s had a reel-to-reel player and a good collection of popular music and classical. The sound quality of reel-to-reel was the best for that period.

All of that “dings,” “hiss,” “skipping” shit they say about records - I have never had any of that. Could be because I take care of them and don’t throw them across the room.

The mostly lip synch no?

Cds are better than everything

Not at today’s interest rates . . .

R45, I don't know what you mean

Vinyl had a great sound but damn, they scratched easily.

They really tried pushing those MiniDiscs for a hot minute, but I think they had mediocre quality.

for 30 years the CD format reissued a ton of music from the past that never would have seen the light of day otherwise.

they cleaned it up, put it on a variety of anthologies, box sets, etc.

that's why I listen to CDz, there is so much more out there on the CD format that appeals to me

It would be almost impossible for me to convert all of my CDs to digital since 70% are not things like Elton John’s Greatest Hits with the song titles instantly downloadable. They’re more like Sarah Vaughan live from blah blah blah, rare performances. I’d have to type in every song, all 5000 of them. I’ll stick with CDs.

PS: contrary to the alarmists, ALL my CDs and records, which I’ve taken care of, sound as the same as the day I bought them.

R50 Your CDs are already digital.

the compression of streaming is a very high level. I honestly don't like it

Must write “digital file” so R51 will understand it.

I prefer wax cylinder recordings

My friend says cassettes

It depends on a lot of things. I bought an expensive (for me) pair of Stereophile-rated A or B class speakers around 30 years ago. Played through these speakers, a lot of my favorite CDs sounded horrible, shrill, metallic, glassy. I bought a turntable and some records, and the same albums that had sounded shrill sounded fine as LPs. I enjoyed buying records for a while, but eventually I grew tired of hissy, clicky, static-y sound coming from brand new pop albums and brand new looking classical LPs. Someone offered me a lot of money for my record collection and I took it.

I sold the speakers too, bought new ones, and went back to listening over a CD-based system that was far less revealing. I'm much happier with it. I'm listening to the music, not the equipment. Some people just aren't made to be audiophiles.

Granny says 78s

I imagine this thread is for a small percentage of music listeners.... I get the impression that most of the streaming generation listen to music on their laptops or phones.

If you're of the streaming crowd, and you have a high end stereo system

do you use a

phone

laptop

or TV remote

to select your music and "turn on" the stereo?

Mostly phone, sometimes laptop, never TV remote. NAS is wirelessly connected to receiver, even though I know it would be better wired.

R58 I think you're missing the delivery system for most Millennials and Gen Z - headphones/ear buds.

Just fucking stream music like everyone else

As long as I don't have to hear it from the apt below, R60, I'm all for it.

Since CDs are basically WAV files, I think they offer the most accurate sound quality and tend to be about as perfect as physical media can get. Vinyl offers a "warmer" sound but it really depends on the turntable, stylus, cartridge and sound system. To an extent, CDs also require a good sound system and player, but there is less chance of variable sound quality as there can be with vinyl. Listening to a CD on a 90s deck vs. a modern day "transport" is about the same experience for me. Generally speaking, I buy albums I definitely want to own on CD and take good care of them, but typically rip them to a Sony digital Walkman for normal listening. I don't want to rent music via a streaming service subscription, so I don't bother with those at all.

CDs can be ripped to FLAC or ALAC files, which are considered to be lossless compared with the original WAV files on a CD. MP3 downloads or streams have already lost quality due to compression by the MP3 codec.

I’m a musician, and I can hear the difference between an MP3 and FLAC/ALAC file of the same music, even when listening with earbuds from a phone. It’s mostly about an increase in the “presence” and clarity of the sound, such that I can hear the details of orchestration better. The audio components that contribute to that effect seem to be removed from MP3 files, perhaps because many listeners won’t notice that loss.

You can always find lossless formats for music, but not for love.

R65 Is that a Deep Thought by Jack Handey?

Most steaming sites now have lossless music

I got rid of my CDs. I didnt have jewel cases for them anymore so there was no way to sell them, not that i would do that anyway.

Everything i have is on digital format. People say they offer a superior audio quality but this isn't apparent to me. Maybe im going deaf. Moreover, I dont even have a CD player anymore and changing discs is tedious and inefficient.

I may regret that decision, but I haven't listened to them in over a decade so off they went.

I still do have a massive iTunes library on an external hard drive. Over 10,000 songs. But even with that, I mainly stream now.

CD is the correct, definitive, final, and only answer!

Way More Than Most Will Want To Know:

The question is really meaningless, as the audio source can't sound any better than the speakers or headphones being used, and the listening environment. Oh, and the quality of the original recording. Back when iPods were huge I decided to do as scientific a listening test as possible. I purchased the LP, CD, and audiocassette of the same recording. It was the Broadway cast album of Sunday In the Park With George. It had been digitally recorded and mastered, and when listening with professional headphones you could hear the exact placement of singers and instruments (and a couple of chair squeaks and a page turn). Next I had three friends do a blind listen to the same passage using the same headphones. The cassette was an instant loser for everyone. Two out of three preferred the CD, while one said the LP just sounded more "live." I then had them listen to the same material ripped from the CD as AAC or .mp3 files at 160, 192, or 320. Everyone preferred the AAC over the .mp3 at the same bitrate, and everyone preferred the higher bitrate. But then we took it to where most of us listen to our music these days: the car. Once we were driving, pretty much no one could distinguish between the sources -cassette vs. CD, and ripped audio. The only real noticeable drop was with 160 bitrate files. Everyone felt they just didn't sound as good. But while everyone heard a difference between 192 and 320 in a quiet room with good headphones, those distinctions were pretty much lost in the car.

Nowadays, new cars don't have CD or cassette players, so it's a case of flash drives or streaming off your phone. I still use AAC files at 192 or higher. I have upped the bitrate on some playlists since switching to an electric vehicle -It's so quiet that you can now hear the differences that used to be hidden by engine noise. The moral of the story: test out your equipment using the music you like to listen to. Don't assume that more expensive equipment automatically means better sound, or that one format is automatically superior to another. If you can't hear the difference, why spend the money?

Most SACDs are transferred directly from the masters. Mp3s are lossy and compressed. There is data loss when ripping from a CD in mp3 format. Even at a 320 bitrate. For the best quality CD rip you'd have to rip in either a FLAC or an uncompressed .WAV format.

Another to watch out for with remastered reissued albums on CD is brickwalling. Where the volume of the entire track is turned up to max. Rather than a proper manual remaster where the volume on each individual part of the track are approximately adjusted and improved.

Another step further than remastering is to reconstruct the track from the original stems in addition to improving the sound. I think they did that for the 50th anniversary box set of The Beach Boys Pet Sounds albums and the David Bowie era boxsets among many others.