Vinyl, CD or Digital

Definitely CDs for me. As said, the quality is better although there is some special, more emotional aura that comes along with the vinyl, but because I wasn't born in that era, I'm probably not going to be as sentimental with it as those who were are. I also like how with CDs you have a sort of mixture with the physical and more personal effect of the vinyl, but like digital and cassettes, you aren't as restricted to sit in a dark room - you can go for walks with much more beautiful sceneries as you listen. If you want to though you can still really concentrate (maybe on your first couple of listens) in a darkened room. I could go on but I won't bore you  CDs take my vote!

Michael678 wrote: CDs because i feel like when i get that particular CD, it makes feel like i actually OWN it, ya know?

Is that maybe because you can play it numerous times and the thing doesn't warp or groove?
I think yes.

CDs because i feel like when i get that particular CD, it makes feel like i actually OWN it, ya know?

CD's.

Yeah, I've bought quite a few used vinyls over the past year or so. The only bummer was Van Damme Generator's Pawn Hearts, which I actually bought on the premise of it being an original pressing and in pristine condition. It turned out sounding like the album was recorded over Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music Oh well... I shot the vendor in his toe the day after.

iamathousandapples wrote: progbethyname wrote: iamathousandapples wrote: CDs, a lot easier to play and stack on a wall. Vinyls are cool because they're cheap and have great artwork. Digital is only good when it's free  Vinyl is cheap? Not today it isn't, especially if you want 180gram quality brand new. Just saying. Buy used, it won't sound as good but you can get albums for as cheap as 2 dollars. New vinyl has such a ridiculous markup that it's not even worth it

I hate 'used' products. Also, if I were a vinyl man I'd never buy used. Far more risk involved as opposed to buying used Cd's. Vinyl warps and groves with any extended play. Risky.

progbethyname wrote: iamathousandapples wrote: CDs, a lot easier to play and stack on a wall. Vinyls are cool because they're cheap and have great artwork. Digital is only good when it's free  Vinyl is cheap? Not today it isn't, especially if you want 180gram quality brand new. Just saying.

CDs, a lot easier to play and stack on a wall. Vinyls are cool because they're cheap and have great artwork. Digital is only good when it's free 

CD is killing in the poll...big surprise.

CD is digtal, I assume the context here are lossy mp3s. 320 kBps is a fifth that of 16 bit (CD). Then you can go all the way down to 96kBps. These cost money? Lossless audio compression formats should be compulsory (plus mp3s for those that like the kindergarten of audio).

How about 24 bit (DVD) releases - also digital? I've the SACD of PF's WYWH and the detail available made the 16 bit CD sound like a boot (sligt exaggeration). I assume the DVD and 5.1 versions on the Immersion set are at least as good.

The debate over Vinyl versus CD has to be based on the original source (if remastered from a tape, transferred to a hard drive and remastered for the greater space afforded by digital and not suffering from the compression forced on listeners - also a result of direct to disc recordings. I've some vinyl but for the most part it sounds dull compared to a good 16 or 24 bit master.

The subjective view of needles in a groove and crackles and some idea of authenticity I'll leave to others. Records wear out and CDs and DVDs can be backed up on hard drives. Of course you could always tape 'em... Hey how about storing material on video tape? 8)

One thing that should be noted by those trusting their ears is that, for men at least (not sure about how women are affected here. Hear? ;) Anyway, in time our perceptions of bass and treble extremes get blunted and this deterioration in hearing is not used in assessing a recording quality.