Maybe. However streaming services are dominant now and audiophiles prefer vinyl over CDs.
Exactly. I prefer a good audio player with a lossless library over streaming, though. Would like to get into vinyl, but don't need another expensive hobby.
Maybe. However streaming services are dominant now and audiophiles prefer vinyl over CDs.
Exactly. I prefer a good audio player with a lossless library over streaming, though. Would like to get into vinyl, but don't need another expensive hobby.
Here I thought I was being retarded about how I played my CDs...
CD-Text, which was part of the Red Book standard for CD specifications, has offered this feature for decades (since 1996). The feature was not used by most music labels and the hardware needed to support the standard so it is rare to find a CD that has track, album and lyric data encoded on them. We could have had better CDs if the labels weren't so fucking jewed.
As for those saying streaming/lossless files are better, well what does it matter when the audio engineering of music from the last 30 years is fucked. The Loudness War where audio engineering uses compression/expansion and other audio processing techniques to make music sound "louder" has destroyed the quality of music. There are no longer any subtle variances in the soft and loud parts of a song so who cares if it's "better quality" or higher bit-rate or lossless if the music itself has already been degraded in mastering.
I still prefer CDs though since they can't be disabled remotely and I don't have to keep paying some company to keep listening to them. I still love compact cassette tapes too for this same reason.
Sound quality from a cd is better than a file. I still buy them but your right most don’t tell you what song is playing.
Not necessarily true. Sound quality from a CD can range from lossless, near-analogue quality to absolute lossy rubbish, depending on format and compression algorithms. Longer albums tend to suffer in quality. Files are just data; the format dictates what, if any compression algorithms are used. For example, a 32bit MP3 encoded compression will sound almost perfect without diving deep and scrutinizing with audiophile gear or wavelength viewers, while keeping file size relatively small for the quality. Adaptive compression like v0-v2 MP3s encode less silence and noise to further shrink the file size while maintaining audio quality almost on par with 320. MP3 is a lossy format (it always utilizes compression), but can range from dogshit to really quite fantastic. MP3 is my preferred minimum quality.
Straight internet releases of masters in lossless formats like FLAC are as perfect as you can digitally get, but to fit on a CD it needs to be transcoded to WAV files (can be a lossless format, but compression is often needed to fit tracks on a Redbook CD).
In short, CDs are just a storage medium and the data on them is identical no matter what it is stored on. What really makes the biggest difference, aside from file type, are the quality of software and hardware DACs.
Final Edit: As for OP, try using Foobar2000 for your ripping needs; it matches your disc against its database and will correctly rip and name your files. You may need plugins to get the right encoding tools of choice, though. LAME is good for MP3, and I think Foobar can do FLAC by default. Also, most modern discs cranked out by a reputable record label do store that info.
Been my experience, your mileage may vary
That's probably because of the DACs (digital audio converters). Dedicated CD players tend to have quite good ones, as it's playing music well is the one task the hardware is designed to do.
With multimedia players or PCs you tend to need to buy a boutique model or premium motherboard that has a good DAC, since that part is often a target of penny-pinching manufacturers.
As for streaming services, many of them have highly compressed audio, with only a few allowing selectable quality. Streaming is gay.
(post is archived)