/mu/ — Have you taken the CD pill yet?

>>130596704 (OP)
>more affordable than vinyl
And that's how I know there's no good flea markets in your area.

I stream in FLAC

without the loudness wars, the CD would've annihilated the vinyl. Vinyl would not have existed today.

There's a reason classical fans listen to CDs. Because classical CDs are properly mastered, and when properly mastered, it blows Vinyl out of the water

I'm contemplating selling off my vinyl collection and exchanging them for CDs. It's a no brainer. Cds are more compact, they sound better, last longer, can be played on the go (CD player either in your car or a portable one), no need to rip it beforehand, etc.
Vinyl is more for the novelty, there are some albums/singles out there that were never converted to CD so that's another reason to have them, but apart from that, there's really no need for them.

>>130596767
it is cheaper overall

File: IMG_1254.jpg (1.60 MB, 3024x2990)

>>130596704 (OP)
I see CDs getting a little out of control in the near future. Kids are catching on. Message to anyone getting into CDs. Start buying now or get left behind.

>>130597094
If you get it at the right places you get great deals.

>>130597139
you could say this about most things, using retail as a baseline, new CDs on average are under $20 while new Vinyl is over $20, I'm not opposed to vinyl but with variants and new releases being super frequent it's not as cheap to be a vinyl collector if you're starting from 0 compared to buying CDs

>>130597228
>using retail as a baseline
That's on you, buddy! A lot of the vinyl market is thrifting and second hand. If you go for the fresh of the presses stuff for anything (music or otherwise) it's always gonna be pricier. Most of the gold is in the oldschool forgotten stuff anyway.
Though to be fair I will agree with you on the variant shit. I do hate the fact that every album needs to be 10 different colors and the subset of vinyl communities where their sole purpose is to collect the exact same album just to never play them.

>>130596704 (OP)
why did they keep using CD's when DVD came out? You could fit way more songs, no?

>>130597600
because there is no perceivable difference between 16/44.1 and higher resolutions. and DVD-Audio was a failure

>>130596767
yeah used vinyl can be dirt cheap if you buy from flea markets/thrift stores but you have to go in with nothing in mind. If you're actually looking for something specific then used CDs are the way. You could get an entire like 8 album discography from an artist for like 20 bucks off discogs in one stop when you want it + it's better quality. As far as physical media for music goes it's clearly the best option overall

>>130597600
thats a disadvantage to the record companies. you could put, what, six times more music on a DVD than a CD or something? but whos going to pay 6 times the price for one disc?
>>130597621
they could still have successfully marketed """higher quality sound""" whether it was perceptible by humans or not, and did exactly that with formats like SACD. the downfall there was pricing the hardware too high, but also it all came too close to the end of the lifespan of the format when everything was made obsolete by computers and digital storage

>>130598402
Newer vinyl costs like $40, wtf is that. Who is paying that much for a single album???

>>130598661
for real. People are just paying for the packaging + maybe they fell for the meme that vinyl sounds better. Splatter colorways and big artwork and shit. They're nice objects I get it, but totally impractical

File: images.jpg (36 KB, 490x267)

>>130597600
what others said but also for the most part there's not much of a point to putting more songs on a commercial CD. People were still wanting to release ~LP length albums, plus iirc most CD players didn't play DVDs. Would have been cool for artists to release like, an entire discography on DVD audio though. Dunno if you're too young to know but some car stereo deck CD players used to be able to read data off CDs and people would burn like 100 mp3s onto a CD and play it that way. Felt crazy back then

>>130597132
>Kids are catching on.
doubt it. kids want todays music not many start out buying decades old stuff

>>130599696
>kids want todays music
rym zoomers are "wrong generation"-ing over pink floyd

Buy the CD at launch, buy the vinyl on sale. It's that easy.

On CD I just got Paul McCartneys' The Boys of Dungeon Lane and me mum a Willie Nelson CD and a Loretta Lynn CD.

>>130598402
>you have to go in with nothing in mind.
I do.
90% of why I collect is looking for new discoveries and juicy albums I'd have never heard of otherwise. If that's the kind of thing you're looking for, the selection on vinyl is much more interesting.

CDs are an online-only thing while vinyl records can be bought at any music store. So with shipping, wait times, Discogs inflation, etc. included, it’s not really that much cheaper. Plus the whole point of physical media is to be offline, but CDs are very online-dependent since they’re not sold in many stores unlike vinyl.

>>130601809
>CDs are an online-only thing
Where do you live? They sell CDs at Walmart, not to mention literally every record store, plus local markets.

>>130601836
I live in a major city in the United States. The vast majority of record stores (we have many) do not sell CDs. Many outright refuse to stock them, or at best, only have a small section in the back with garbage. And you can forget about any new releases. Walmart is pretty much the only store and they only have bargain bin reissues from boomer bands.

>>130596704 (OP)
>>more affordable than vinyl
If you're a 16 year old starting a physical music collection in 2026, sure. If you're a based unc, you had 20 years to buy everything you want on vinyl for nothing

>>130601997
Pretty odd, I am not in a major metro and I can find plenty of places that aren't big box stores that stock CDs. Or I can drive to the two cities near me and go to the numerous record stores that carry all forms of physical music.

>>130596704 (OP)
Because it is a digital medium and by definition it must become obsolete because there is an intermediary between source and signal.

Also by virtue of simply being older, records (in good condition) are closer to the sounds of the original master tapes than now. Even if taken directly from the same source 50 years later, they still degrade. Whereas the physical grooves may not have.
Nothing to do with the actual sound quality of vinyl though. Im not some nostalgia blinded millennial.

>>130597327
vinyl isn't cheaper than CDs even on the second hand market faggot but keep living in a dream world, you don't wanna hear an argument you just want to justify the fact that you have invested too much into your inferior format to go back now, enjoy

>>130602888
I buy about $30 worth of records somewhere between $1 and $5 each at the flea market every weekend all summer. Imagine being such a newfag you've never heard of cratedigging despite inserting yourself into physical media threads

>>130596704 (OP)
On 420 Chan CD was the tranny board -not that I went

>>130597327
Vinyl is more expensive than CDs on average across all markets.

>>130603370
>You don't like music, you like objects
So if music is pressed to vinyl instead of CDs it doesn't count as music anymore? Or CDs are not objects even though they literally are?
What's your logic here, dude?

>>130603299
Noice, CDgang eternal

>>130603401
just playing you game buddy, irrational arguments and anecdotes dude, enjoy your obscureslop vinyl, I'm sure it was mega cheap for a reason

>>130603435
Dis nigga only likes top 40

>>130603435
>i was only PRETENDING to be stupid
Neat.
>obscureslop
Slop has become such a meaningless buzzword. It used to mean mass produced factory pop and now it's just the new 'thing I don't like' word of the month.
If you're gonna use cringy slang use it properly.
Or is this another "bad argument" that you're using to "prove a point" and you don't actually mean it?
When's the threshold that something's not obscure? How many owners does it have to have so it's not 'obscureslop' anymore?

>>130596704 (OP)
>Have you taken the CD pill yet?
No. CDs were always annoying and I don't believe in nostalgia.
>sounds better than streaming audio
I don't stream music.
>more affordable than vinyl
Digital files are even more affordable.

>>130603529
Free on soulseek even

>>130601059
i'm the one you were replying to, don't listen to that other guy he's a retard. Sifting through old dusty vinyls and picking based off the cover is a classic and fun way to interact with recorded music. I vouch for CDs but I'm not anti-vinyl, I'm just anti new vinyl

>>130603735
>I'm not anti-vinyl, I'm just anti new vinyl
That's a solid stance to have. 98% of my collection is thrifted. There were only three times I bought new:
>Giftcard to Wal Mart, vinyl selection was mostly dogshit but they had Pet Sounds
>Visa giftcard, bought my two favorite Radiohead albums since I rarely buy new music.
>buying Talking Heads discography with birthday money.
So that's about 12/2500
Everything else I've ever got was either second hand thrifting or birthday gifts.
The thrifting is where you usually find the juicy stuff anyway.

>>130596704 (OP)
Prisma you were so right

>>130596767
Hell yeah we all need a copy of Andy Williams Christmas in Niggaland

>>130602888
The usual UK charity shop price is 3 CDs for £1. Most are crap but if you check enough you'll find good ones.

File: 1713759570557206.gif (1.63 MB, 298x224)

>>130601836
>They sell CDs at Walmart

>>130603322
I'm not the kind of person who gets really invested in console wars. I buy records, tapes, CDs, everything I can get. Being a formatlet who only has one thing would be pretty pointless when 90% of the joy of this hobby is fixing up broken old equipment from thrift stores and you might find gear for different formats week to week