Most people CAN tell the difference between a CD and compressed digital media. The issue is that most people don't care. The convenience of streaming outweighs the drop in audio quality.

In other words, compressed digital media sounds "good enough". If modern day compressed digital media sounded like MIDI files from the 1980's and early 90's then consumers would have more incentive to buy CD's.

Some people claim that CDs suck, that analog LP is the only way to go.

In any case, CD *is* digital and has to be compromised somehow, noticeable by the perfect hearing 20Hz to 20kHz audiophile with a super hi-fi (assuming proper dedicated tube amp included).

There's a wide range of compression, though. Unless you have perfect hearing (maybe an 18 year old who hasn't listened to much loud music), I bet the higher compression rates won't make much of a difference.

I also believe recording makes a *huge* difference. A CD is not going to make up for bad production, so common today (compare early Rush produced by Terry Brown vs. later albums).

Agreed, but the CD is the best compromise yet. Relatively small, portable and keeps a sizeable majority of the LPs fidelity. You cannot play an LP in a car, boombox or personal listening device, same for reel to reel. I think laziness has some to do with it also. People just want to push a button and get what they want in all facets of life. Also people don't appreciate what they own. I see people trash their CDs, use them as coasters and wonder why they skip or won't play or why they have to buy a new one. I have never scratched or ruined a CD that I purchased ever and they all play as good as the day I bought them. I would rather listen to a bad recording (early Rush) from a CD than a bad recording from today's digital. It just sounds flat to me, tired, no pop, the highs and lows are just chopped off and all you get is the mid range. Anyway, all this from an old man. What do I know? I digress back into the shadows lurking.

S!Blade<><

I'm quite proud to say that I still have my "Abbey Road" CD that I bought in 1990 and it still works perfectly fine.

I cherish my CD collection (also have none that have gone bad) and my next home improvement project will be a giant hand-built home entertainment wall to display them (currently stored in plastic containers, but not in a closet with no climate control).

Here's something to consider...

Burn your CDs to a lossless format for archiving (I forget the formats). Then from lossless you can burn to MP3 if you want compact file sizes as an *option*. For CD quality sound, only play the lossless files as you would an MP3 with no loss of 1's and 0's from the CD.

Just to clarify, most early Rush (Terry Brown) sounds great, it's their post 80's production that sometimes sucks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Brown_%28record_producer%29

Hmm... Terry produced 1975 "Fly by Night" to 1982 "Signals", and everything in-between except "All the World's a Stage" (concert 1976). I wonder why that one wasn't his?

One more thing to consider before completely writing off MP3 (and don't trust everything Neil Young says because the man is practically deaf )...

I read somewhere that when iTunes first came about, they were compressing at 128 kbps. Then as bandwidth became more available to the masses, they bumped it up to 192 kbps (I think) and allowed you to re-download your library. People were happy because apparently you can really tell the difference between these to bitrates. Then they bumped it up again (320 kbps?) and probably yet again. I don't know, I've never purchased iTunes music.

My point is that you have many variables which determine MP3 quality like how it was created (straight from lossless will sound better than from any previous compression), which bitrate was used, the original production quality, quality of stereo equipment, and lastly your own personal hearing capability. My guess is that if you experiment with creating your own MP3s from a lossless source, you can find a compression rate that sounds as good to your ears as the CD. But all you're saving is file size so it might not even be worth it to you.

I rip all of my CD's at 320 kbps in iTunes. The sound quality is quite good at that bit rate. I believe 320 is the max available in iTunes.

Nooooooo!

Archive your CDs using something else! Even Windows Media Player (at least in Windows 7) has lossless formats, and one format (WMA) uses compression without losing data (if you set it up that way), like how Zip works. The files are still going to be kind of big though (~30MB song) but much smaller than their size on the CD which are playable and 'unzipped'. Again, you're storing lossless (no loss of data) files but compressed like a zipped file.

You can then use iTunes to batch convert those lossless files (as a copy) into compressed MP3 (or Apple format) at the bitrate of your choosing (320 kbps).

What i want to know is what happened to love songs ? every romantic song is about a woman biching about man, about break ups etc......this generation is depressing

On my midrange stereo, the quality of the audio I play and the type of connection I use has a lot to say. For example, an MP3 file played over Bluetooth sound quite muddled with little distinction in bass, midrange and treble when compared to the same song played through Tidal HiFi over Chromecast.

All MP3 files? We're talking at least 192 kbps, correct (with 320 preferred)?

In any case, I predict the MP3 or similar compact portable audio files are going to become what PNG is to BMP (vs. JPG), compact enough but very little or no loss of data. Or does this already exist (I'm very behind)?

For me personally, my age-51 hearing deficiencies (both from childhood issues and decades of Rocking out) makes [good quality] MP3 a moot point, I think.

One of many interesting discussions on the subject...
320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality

One more thing...

Not only does MP3 allow lots of songs on a flash drive, but saves battery juice on your portable devices. If I'm at home and I want to get the best sound possible ("Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds" [1978]), I'll usually pop in the CD. I keep only a few CDs out of storage because with those I want the best sound possible, whether I can really discern the difference or not.

But on my iPod Shuffle/MP3 players and cheap headphones (how I listen to music 95% of the time when I'm not in my car)...



...or on a road trip with rental car audio...





...MP3 does just fine.

Yeah, I'm super-jazzed right now with going back...apologies for the pic re-use.

mp3 sucks, too much compression, for the majority of people it well enough, but these are the same people satisfied in seeing a movie at 720p on their phones......im an audiophile, so i can spot the difference to a lossless file.

Top down in the car with the sounds of the road around me. , MP3 is good enough for me

I still use 128 MP3 for portable listening. The sound can be pretty rough, but is good enough for walking and driving, for me.

I actually did a comparison quite a few years ago between 128 MP3, and 320 MP3, plus a few of the Apple codecs (lossless?). My playback system was (still is) Grado SR80s and Audio Technica AD700s, driven by a Headroom amp. I had to create a few custom very short samples to compare specific sections of songs to tell a difference above 256kbps. At 320kbps, for most all of the samples I tested, I was unable to tell whether I had just heard a 44.1k WAV sample, or the 320kbps file.

On my speaker Hi-Fi setup, I use Boston A26 and my Denon will play files (MP3 and WMA). Again, above 256 to 320kbps... same result. But I don't have most of my files accessible on disc for this system. Almost all my playback on the Hi-Fi system is real CDs and Vinyl (via Shure M97xE cartridge), plus some Spotify (free). IIRC, Spotify is doing 160kpbs or so, which does OK for me on the Classical and Jazz albums. I can tell it's not the CD or Vinyl, but for whatever reason, I'm not that picky in the last few years. More than good enough to preview albums before deciding on a purchase.

It's also good enough for some of the audiophiles on the thread link I posted above and a couple of others I've read today.

But then, they provide details on how the MP3 was created (including bitrate) and listened to, while acknowledging both pros and cons.

Combine that with the circumstances (like riding with the top down) and MP3 makes a whole lotta sense to me. Whereas hauling my CDs around (especially in the heat of summer day) does not.

++++++++++

On a side note, in the early-to-mid 80's, I *loved* 8-track tape! Not for the sound quality (lol), but because as a poor teenager who had nothing handed to him, I was able to quickly acquire a sizeable music collection by purchasing other people's discarded junk at yard sales (often with a little haggling). A few selected albums I saved for and bought on LP, but the vast majority of my music at the time was on 8-track (EDIT: including family 8-track donations...so I guess I had *some* handouts).

adlabs6, wasn't it you who had the beautiful Sansui receiver? Oh, the lighted look of vintage audio!