# The CD has gone the way of the LP....bye bye



## ThePass (Aug 10, 2007)

WTF????

I hate iTunes and all "downloaded" music. I like to 'hold' in my hands my CD's and records, read the liners and such. 

What's this world coming to? I hope everybody's computers crash and they loose all their "CD's" (LOL) and they all learn a lesson.

kkjuw


http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=46980_0_2_0_C


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

I like the tactile sensation of spinning a vinyl record, but CDs are garbarge. Not nearly portable enough to be useful, but the format is too small to make liner notes very entertaining. I'd just as soon see them go away. I don't mind keeping a HD full of high bitrate mp3s or FLAC to play in my house. Much easier, plus I can access my library from different rooms and don't have to go looking for the CD case, which invariably will be empty, or containing the wrong CD.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

ThePass said:


> WTF????
> 
> I hate iTunes and all "downloaded" music. I like to 'hold' in my hands my CD's and records, read the liners and such.
> 
> ...


I hate CD's. Always have. There is no benefit to me owning a CD over having a Flac file of it on my computer. 

I do love vinyl LP's and the artwork, but CD's are not a substitute for that IMO. I get none of the excitement looking at a CD that I do with an LP.

Also, there is great potential for the digital format for bands who try to innovate. EG when you set up an album on Bandcamp, you can include 500 MB of extra data. That can be videos, PDF files, ebooks, whatever you want. The format has some potential, and I can't wait for CD's to die out so people have to push that potential to be competitive.


----------



## Jeff B. (Feb 20, 2010)

Good riddance. I'm glad to see it go. They're too fragile and easy to scratch. The few "physical" CD's that I have bought just end up copied to the computer anyway.
Buying the album digitally directly off an artist's website puts more cash in the artist's hands as it removes the many middle men who would end up with a sizable cut.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Technological progress is all that matters. Good riddence to old technology............


----------



## fretboard (May 31, 2006)

As long as I can still buy blank CD's to burn freely traded Grateful Dead shows, I'm golden.

If we're being totally honest here - I've still got 2 different tape decks in the house to play my 450+ hours of Dead shows on tapes, but my kids give me grief over that. I get CD's for my kids to listen to from the library - but that's mainly for them to listen to different things for free so they can figure out what they like. 

I will add, it would be nice if I could actually find some pre-Freeze Frame J. Geils Band on CD somewhere besides the one import disc I've got.

We still haven't moved into the Itunes world here - probably won't until the kids start needing music that wasn't around when I was a kid (Beatles, Queen, etc...)


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i could care less. i had albums, they said buy cassettes. i had cassettes, and i hated them. then they said "cds last forever, but these" so i bought a crap load of cds that were way over priced. they originally came from these places that justified their ridiculous price with a lifetime guarantee. those places were out of business in a few years. the cds i bought from them with a lifetime guarantee were no longer warranteed.
same thing with my vhs movies... now i dowload stuff off the internet and i don't feel guilty about it.
i've given them enough of my $$, and i've re-started my collection and bought new hardware all the times that i'm gonna. the format wasn't even better, the way they promised it would be.

maybe a fool and his money are soon parted. but sometimes the fool wakes up and [email protected] ya back.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I recently went through the stacks of cd's I had here and put most of them on my iPad and iPhone. It just makes it so much easier to dial up a song when I am on the mood for something. Now the cd's sit in a box stored away


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I recently went through the stacks of cd's I had here and put most of them on my iPad and iPhone. It just makes it so much easier to dial up a song when I am on the mood for something. Now the cd's sit in a box stored away


Ya I still have about 500 in storage. I bought a metal box that you can put just the discs and sleeves into. Any of the cd's that actually had interesting package or box sets etc are stored in another box. I never go into either box though. It's all ripped onto my computer and organized.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2011)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I recently went through the stacks of cd's I had here and put most of them on my iPad and iPhone. It just makes it so much easier to dial up a song when I am on the mood for something. Now the cd's sit in a box stored away


I was looking at my dresser full of CDs this week wondering what I'm going to do with them. A little over 1000 discs. They take up way too much space in my office and I *never* use them. I've ripped a few as I wanted to hear things but now that I subscribe to Rdio the bulk of them are on there. I was thinking about boxing them up some how.

No doubts in my mind: they've been obsolete for me for years now.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

iaresee said:


> I was looking at my dresser full of CDs this week wondering what I'm going to do with them. A little over 1000 discs. They take up way too much space in my office and I *never* use them. I've ripped a few as I wanted to hear things but now that I subscribe to Rdio the bulk of them are on there. I was thinking about boxing them up some how.
> 
> No doubts in my mind: they've been obsolete for me for years now.


Yeah, I started a thread on that very question a month or so ago. I am never going to use these I have again either. Just taking up space.


----------



## hummingway (Aug 4, 2011)

It's interesting that in musician's forum there has been no mention of the loss of sound quality people are accepting. With Blu-Ray we have the possibility of a huge leap in sound quality but people are happy with MP3 played through an earbud and 10000 songs they don't give a shit about. Makes you wonder why musicians bother.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

There are more people who have money invested in that technology than the major record labels. They haven't had manufacturing facilities for years, it's all done by a service company. Who, I'm thinking, will not sit idly by and let someone else make their business decisions. I think the majors only have a few years left anyways. With professional level software and either I-tunes or a band website any musician can put out their own tracks for download. I don't think this is going to be the taking back of control that they think it is.

CD's are a good revenue stream for bands. Make them for a few bucks and sell them at gigs. I think they'll be around for a while.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2011)

hummingway said:


> It's interesting that in musician's forum there has been no mention of the loss of sound quality people are accepting. With Blu-Ray we have the possibility of a huge leap in sound quality but people are happy with MP3 played through an earbud and 10000 songs they don't give a shit about. Makes you wonder why musicians bother.


Maybe 10 years so this was a valid criticism of downloads or streams but not anymore. The oppression techniques are stellar now. We all have ample bandwidth for high bit rate streams. AAC+ from iTunes is indistinguishable from CD audio.

I get more annoyed with super-compressed and limited modern recordings than I do with downloads or streams.

I'm listening to NG's High Flying Birds right now and this would be a way better disc if they hadn't compressed the living shit out of it. Having this on CD vs Rdio wouldn't help this problem.


----------



## hummingway (Aug 4, 2011)

iaresee said:


> Maybe 10 years so this was a valid criticism of downloads or streams but not anymore. The oppression techniques are stellar now. We all have ample bandwidth for high bit rate streams. AAC+ from iTunes is indistinguishable from CD audio.
> 
> I get more annoyed with super-compressed and limited modern recordings than I do with downloads or streams.
> 
> I'm listening to NG's High Flying Birds right now and this would be a way better disc if they hadn't compressed the living shit out of it. Having this on CD vs Rdio wouldn't help this problem.


Indistinguishable? Maybe thorough computer speakers or earbuds but it doesn't carry anything close to 42k of info, never mind the 96k we could be using with Blu-Ray. It's optimized for streaming not audio quality.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Maybe 10 years so this was a valid criticism of downloads or streams but not anymore. The oppression techniques are stellar now. We all have ample bandwidth for high bit rate streams. AAC+ from iTunes is indistinguishable from CD audio.
> 
> I get more annoyed with super-compressed and limited modern recordings than I do with downloads or streams.
> 
> I'm listening to NG's High Flying Birds right now and this would be a way better disc if they hadn't compressed the living shit out of it. Having this on CD vs Rdio wouldn't help this problem.


Oppression techniques? That's an interesting way of putting it. I happen to agree with the state of recording techniques that most modern recordings won't sound good on anything. It's a loudness war that the listener loses. But then again, most of that stuff is meant to be blared out of speakers at volumes so loud it's distorted anyways and aimed at stoned and drunk people on a dance floor. It's not really meant to be listened to for enjoyment.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2011)

J S Moore said:


> Oppression techniques?


Ha. Not intentional. Typo. Typing on an iPad is touch and go.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

hummingway said:


> Indistinguishable? Maybe thorough computer speakers or earbuds but it doesn't carry anything close to 42k of info, never mind the 96k we could be using with Blu-Ray. It's optimized for streaming not audio quality.


Download services will offer lossless audio soon. Some already offer WAV and Flac downloads.

I agree 1000% about the modern recording techniques as well. Everything is recorded so hot it gives me ear fatigue no matter what I am listening to it on.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

hummingway said:


> It's interesting that in musician's forum there has been no mention of the loss of sound quality people are accepting. With Blu-Ray we have the possibility of a huge leap in sound quality but people are happy with MP3 played through an earbud and 10000 songs they don't give a shit about. Makes you wonder why musicians bother.


I've got a high rez 2 channel system at home, I use very nice IEMs when I commute, use my HD280 or my YSM1ps at the computer. I'd say I'm definitely interested in sound quality. If I put in a CD or a FLAC copy of the same album, you'd have to be crazy to tell me there's a difference. You'd also be wrong.

Even the v0 standard of mp3 compares very well with the CD. Not the same, but damned close, which is fine for me for anything but critical listening.

Also, no matter how you slice it, digital formats aren't going to sound as good as a good analog system. The AD/DA conversion simply isn't perfect, because music isn't 1s and 0s. I don't care if you're mastering at 16/44.1, 24/96 or 24/192. I've heard music at all resolutions and a good analog recording trounces them all, so if I have to listen to digital, I'm already accepting a loss, one more step ain't gonna kill me.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

hummingway said:


> It's interesting that in musician's forum there has been no mention of the loss of sound quality people are accepting. With Blu-Ray we have the possibility of a huge leap in sound quality but people are happy with MP3 played through an earbud and 10000 songs they don't give a shit about. Makes you wonder why musicians bother.


My mother used to tape songs off the radio with a crappy Candle tape deck. The majority of people don't care about fidelity. 

Sadly I have heard sound guys play badly encoded tracks over the PA in between bands. All I can hear is the swooshy artifacts in the cymbals blasting through the club and no one but me seems to care.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2011)

hummingway said:


> Indistinguishable? Maybe thorough computer speakers or earbuds but it doesn't carry anything close to 42k of info, never mind the 96k we could be using with Blu-Ray. It's optimized for streaming not audio quality.


My stereo setup is fine. Aces really. Plenty of chance for anomalies to be heard Apogee converts. HD280s for phones. KRK Rokits for near field monitoring. Yes, indistinguishable (when talking CD vs Rdio vs iTunes AAC+). Especially modern material for the reasons I stated above: everything is compressed to death.

If you want to get technical, the modern streaming and download formats have the ability to deliver much higher bit rates and bit depths than any CD ever can (which is limited to 16-bits of depth and 44.1 kHz on the bit rate side. So you take your fancy 96 kHz/192 bits Pro-Tools setup, your record your tracks, and then you downsample to a CD's level of quality -- tons of loss there. But if you deliver it as a stream or a download you don't need to do nearly as much downsampling for the final delivery format.

As for Blu-Ray: what exactly are you trying to say? How is this salient to the demise of 16-bit, 44.1 kHz audio streams found on CDs?


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2011)

hollowbody said:


> Also, no matter how you slice it, digital formats aren't going to sound as good as a good analog system.


Saro man, I'm going to have to call bullshit here dude. This is the realm of myths.



> good analog recording trounces them all


And here's the non sequiter.

Good recordings trounce bad recordings. Period.

It does not that follow that a recording made on analog gear, mastered on analog and delivered on an analog medium is ipso facto better than if digital had been introduced along any point of the process there.

There are plenty of shite analog recordings out there. I'd say more crap that gold. Same for digital; plenty of crap, and also some brilliantly great all-digital recordings. The medium has very little to do with it. The problem is time, it's an awesome filter. Over time the crap gets lost. People throw it out, no one plays it any more. And the gold sticks around. So you look back and think all recordings from the era of X were brilliant when really what you're looking at is _all the recordings that survived the brutal filter of time_.


----------



## hummingway (Aug 4, 2011)

iaresee said:


> My stereo setup is fine. Aces really. Plenty of chance for anomalies to be heard Apogee converts. HD280s for phones. KRK Rokits for near field monitoring. Yes, indistinguishable (when talking CD vs Rdio vs iTunes AAC+). Especially modern material for the reasons I stated above: everything is compressed to death.
> 
> If you want to get technical, the modern streaming and download formats have the ability to deliver much higher bit rates and bit depths than any CD ever can (which is limited to 16-bits of depth and 44.1 kHz on the bit rate side. So you take your fancy 96 kHz/192 bits Pro-Tools setup, your record your tracks, and then you downsample to a CD's level of quality -- tons of loss there. But if you deliver it as a stream or a download you don't need to do nearly as much downsampling for the final delivery format.
> 
> As for Blu-Ray: what exactly are you trying to say? How is this salient to the demise of 16-bit, 44.1 kHz audio streams found on CDs?


What I'm saying is Blu-Ray provides sufficient space to give us 96k sampling but it won't happen because want the public wants is free music by the boatload in a format that makes it easy to carry it with them. There has always been reason given for the new formats. We left vinyl behind because of static, scratches and a lack of portability despite the fact the noise floor and high end of cassette was pathetic. CD gave us the high end and noise floor back with the loss of low frequency and resolution.

Does it need to be better? I guess that's something the consumer needs to decide much like they need to decide the value of live music and skilled musicians in the world. I'm not saying that lower standards don't have their place but it is a shame that they dominate.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2011)

hummingway said:


> What I'm saying is Blu-Ray provides sufficient space to give us 96k sampling


Let me ask you this: why do we need another disc format? Digital downloads and streams allow for 96 kHz sample rates, why would I need to buy this stuff on a physical disc? What does the disc add to it?

I'll argue: nothing.

There's little to no music being delivered on Blu-Ray because it's redundant.



> but it won't happen because want the public wants is free music by the boatload in a format that makes it easy to carry it with them.


I'll say there's plenty of proof that people will pay for music if you can package it in a way that they want. iTunes, Rdio, Spotify, Pandora -- all of them are excellent proof of this. And what's wrong with convenience? Isn't that what the vast majority of consumers want out of just about everything they purchase? Why would audio formats be any different? Few people want to have to climb to the top of the mountain, tweak the bamboo shoots just right, adjust the hammock so it's in the optimal position in the stereo field just to listen to Katy Perry's latest single. That's been true for...the entire history of recorded music I'd argue. 



> There has always been reason given for the new formats. We left vinyl behind because of static, scratches and a lack of portability despite the fact the noise floor and high end of cassette was pathetic. CD gave us the high end and noise floor back with the loss of low frequency and resolution.
> 
> Does it need to be better? I guess that's something the consumer needs to decide much like they need to decide the value of live music and skilled musicians in the world. I'm not saying that lower standards don't have their place but it is a shame that they dominate.


I think digital downloads and streams are there. They're better in terms of convenience than a CD and on par (and about to be better than) a CD for quality (at least in terms of bit depths and rates...there's still the problem that modern mastering techniques ruin so much great music, but that's not really the formats fault...kind of). The beauty of the digital download or stream is it can change over night. You can wake up tomorrow morning and suddenly your streams are a higher frequency and bit depth. You don't have to re-buy anything. No new gear for decoding (because it's all software based). No new hardware formats for storage.

Pretty awesome if you ask me.


----------



## hummingway (Aug 4, 2011)

iaresee said:


> Let me ask you this: why do we need another disc format? Digital downloads and streams allow for 96 kHz sample rates, why would I need to buy this stuff on a physical disc? What does the disc add to it?
> 
> I'll argue: nothing.
> 
> ...


IT is true that downloads could contain the information the question is will they? The reason for compression is network capacity. Yes, it is possible they will or that people will be patient enough to download large audio files but we're not there now. 

The existence of iTunes doesn't mean people are paying for most of their music. There's a reason the music business has cratered and it isn't the crisis in Greece.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2011)

hummingway said:


> IT is true that downloads could contain the information the question is will they? The reason for compression is network capacity. Yes, it is possible they will or that people will be patient enough to download large audio files but we're not there now.
> 
> The existence of iTunes doesn't mean people are paying for most of their music. There's a reason the music business has cratered and it isn't the crisis in Greece.


Yup. And it has nothing to do with copyright infringement: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-02-18/tech/30052663_1_riaa-music-industry-cd-era


----------



## dodgechargerfan (Mar 22, 2006)

Check out hdtracks.com for a pretty good example of what is available.

You can even get a sampler of songs for free.

I was skeptical about whether I'd notice the difference on my PC. I did. In a big way, and I don't have the most optimal setup for it. I have a pretty good sound card and half decent speakers. 

A lot of the albums include digital files of artwork and stuff like that. So, there's still a chance to get that added experience in the package. It's just in a different form.

I've always leaned more towards the more tangible experience of opening an LP or CD, but this is getting to the point where the lines are more blurry for me.


----------



## Ti-Ron (Mar 21, 2007)

Same thing here, I hate CDs too! Too fragile, useless.
I prefer the combo MP3/LP!


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

If the CD has gone the way of the LP it will return in twenty years and be retro cool.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2011)

hardasmum said:


> If the CD has gone the way of the LP it will return in twenty years and be retro cool.


I'm not so sure about that. The LP offers something different: you can't limit the hell out of music being pressed to vinyl. The medium imposes physical limitations that require a mixing and mastering approach that encourages actual dynamics in the final product. CDs don't offer anything you can't get from a download or a stream when it comes to sonic fidelity.

LPs also have that monstrously large package that acts as a great canvas for visual arts.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

iaresee said:


> Saro man, I'm going to have to call bullshit here dude. This is the realm of myths.
> 
> And here's the non sequiter.
> 
> ...


I was thinking more along the lines of an apples-to-apples comparison. Take a well recorded album in a digital format or vinyl, I would generally prefer the vinyl. I wouldn't compare a poorly recorded album to a well recorded one, and neither was I thinking of a specific period in time. There's plenty of new music on vinyl that sounds fantastic and (to my ears) preferable to the digital versions.

Even if a record is recorded in the digital realm, I find the vinyl offerings have a different feel to them. I meant more specifically the end format that you are listening to. It doesn't have to be all analog. I've heard plenty of classical albums that are recorded and mastered digitally in both CD and vinyl and the vinyl has a bigger and deeper stereo image, more resolution/bandwidth and the dynamics can't be beat. You just don't get that with CDs or MP3s. But anyway, it's a personal preference thing.

Having said that, I don't own a vinyl rig anymore. It got too cumbersome to acquire and maintain a vinyl collection as well as the equipment. Plus it just took up too much damned space. I got rid of it all and now I'm all digital all the time and not too unhappy with it. I still miss that rig, but not to the point where I'm going to rebuild one. I don't get the chance to really sit and just LISTEN to music much anymore, so there really isn't a point to fussing about playback quality. But in my time, I've experienced some very nice stereo rigs and while there have been some awesome digital-based rigs that blew my mind, my faves have always been vinyl-based.

I also don't see the need for another disc format. No one cares. HD space and internet speeds are big and fast enough today that uncompressed music isn't an issue. Yes, 10 years ago, downloading a 700mb CD of .wavs was pretty killer considering you only had 60GB of HD space, but my PC has 3TB of HD space and more is readily and cheaply available.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I still use CDs, I still use cassettes, and I use an ipod--depends where I am, and how I'm listening.

I have no problem with multiple formats.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

I still prefer Cds. When I come home from work the last thing I want to do is boot my computer or search through files on a player. I can grab a cd, hit play, and have the music I want to hear quickly and easily. I have three old laptops sitting around, all with music on them that didn't get moved from one computer to the next; there are tunes I haven't listeded to simply because they are on the wrong/old computer. OTOH, I have cds that are 20 years old that are sitting in their proper spot, ready to go when called upon.

I use mp3 for working out and biking, but at home I rarely connect my player to my stereo.

Long live the CD!


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

traynor_garnet said:


> I still prefer Cds. When I come home from work the last thing I want to do is boot my computer or search through files on a player. I can grab a cd, hit play, and have the music I want to hear quickly and easily. I have three old laptops sitting around, all with music on them that didn't get moved from one computer to the next; there are tunes I haven't listeded to simply because they are on the wrong/old computer. OTOH, I have cds that are 20 years old that are sitting in their proper spot, ready to go when called upon.
> 
> I use mp3 for working out and biking, but at home I rarely connect my player to my stereo.
> 
> Long live the CD!


I guess it depends on your listening habits. I listen to music all day at work. Having the option of an mp3 player is heaven in that scenario. I don't want to have to have 10-15 cd's to get a days worth of music.

My MP3 player or Phone both dock with a speaker system at home, or my car. So using them is no slower than using a CD. But, I have the benefit of having all my playlists, and way way more content than a CD can hold. And the other great thing is I can put audio books and podcasts on the same mp3 player.

Organizing a digital music collection does take some work, but no more than organizing a CD collection of 100's of CD's (I was up to 700 at one point). And way less work than when I used to burn mix CD's. You can also back that audio collection up to a huge hard drive for dirt cheap, and use it on whatever computer you want. 

There is just not a single thing I would miss about CD's.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I recently went through the stacks of cd's I had here and put most of them on my iPad and iPhone. It just makes it so much easier to dial up a song when I am on the mood for something. Now the cd's sit in a box stored away


Yeah, what Scott sez here.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I've notice a few comments about Vinyl here. I got rid of my vinyl collection 11 years ago. Took up too much space. Too high maintenance for me. I have also come to hate accumulating stuff. My parents were pack rats - highly organized though, especially my Dad. 

For today's high fidelity (another thread completely) a high quality digital system with FLAC or similar standard is the way to go for me. Management of song collection and playlists is so much less of a pain in the ass.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i think you guys who're calling for the death of big music are deluding yourselves. you think those guys are just gonna walk away from all that $$? you can be sure they will find a way to continue forcing you to deal with them, and their over priced wares. they will continue to force feed you the garbage as they have always done. and most of you happy little sheeple will blissfully continue marching along to the beat. if you end big music, the music industry itself will change. 
people like justin bieber will disappear. people like lady gaga will no longer need to rely on flamboyant personalities to get their music out there. the old mechanisms have to completely go before you rid yourself of big music. that, and the idea of the rich rock and roll star really needs to end as well.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

My ears don't do what they did 30 years ago. Heck they didn't really do what others did then either.

I grew up with dime store radios. Many AA5's and many clock radios too. I enjoyed listening to a LOT of music out of 2 or 3 or 4 inch speakers set in small boxes. MP3 may not be a tenth as good at LIVE, for me they are 10 times better than those old radios and simply good enough anyways.

Though I do applaud people with superlative hearing. Often wish I could 'hear' what they hear. Other times I am happy I don't. One sorta-kinda band I like is disliked by some people with really good hearing. Apparently the lady singer has a high pitched overtone to her voice that is like nails on a chalk board for them. At least that is how it comes across in reading the negative comments on her singing. Me, I simply do not hear it and so can enjoy her singing as is.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

I still buy most of my music on CDs - most often at concerts and festivals. Like most of North America I buy about 30% of my music online, and when I do, I always back it up to CD anyways. Once you cross a certain threshold, fidelity doesn't mean a lot to me - it's more about the song.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

So......I have to buy DSOTM AGAIN????

I hate CDs. The Jewel cases are a pain in the ass to open and often end up damaged. The disks themselves are fragile and prone to damage.

My iPod (iPhone) is the best thing that ever happened for me in terms of making the music accessable and portable.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> So......I have to buy DSOTM AGAIN????
> 
> I hate CDs. The Jewel cases are a pain in the ass to open and often end up damaged. The disks themselves are fragile and prone to damage.
> 
> My iPod (iPhone) is the best thing that ever happened for me in terms of making the music accessable and portable.


LOL! I can't belive you said that. I just DID buy DSOTM on SACD. I have to say that listening to this album in 5.1 audio is AMAZING! I've heard things that I didn't know were there. I love my iPod, still have records at the cottage. What I really love the most are HD Concerts on Blu Ray. I'm also looking now for more tunes on SACD.


----------



## ThePass (Aug 10, 2007)

I've never had an issue with my CD's being fragile or what not. Like LP's, just keep them in their case. Same goes with the jewel cases, don't step on them, lol.

Please don't misunderstand me....I enjoy listening to music on my laptop too but I just prefer to own 'hardcopies' so to say. What I'm really NOT enjoying is the format of cases today's CD's come in....the paper covers. Like Derek Truck's new disc and warren Hayne's new one too....they just tear and rip and how am i to store them?


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

:C I bought that RUSH album of their influence covers. It came in that paper case. The disk rolled out of it when I turned a corner, it went under my feet, and as I came to a stop pressing the break pedal it ended up snapped in half.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> I do love vinyl LP's and the artwork, but CD's are not a substitute for that IMO. I get none of the excitement looking at a CD that I do with an LP.


That's the way that I feel. I love vinyl. There are many things to like about it AND *it does sound better* - anyone who doesn't think so just hasn't been exposed to it against the 'other' mediums in a setting which would expose that.


----------



## ThePass (Aug 10, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> :C I bought that RUSH album of their influence covers. It came in that paper case. The disk rolled out of it when I turned a corner, it went under my feet, and as I came to a stop pressing the break pedal it ended up snapped in half.



That Sucks! I have that CD too....in one piece, lol. But that is exactly what I mean. Those paper cases are terrible. I can't see the cost savings in manufacturing those instead of generic plastic jewel cases.




smorgdonkey said:


> That's the way that I feel. I love vinyl. There are many things to like about it AND *it does sound better* - anyone who doesn't think so just hasn't been exposed to it against the 'other' mediums in a setting which would expose that.


I agree 100%. Gimmie vinyl anytime.


----------

