Why Do ~You~ Still Play CDs?

Agree with all three of your points and I'll add a couple more: the artist gets more money and streaming is too doggone expensive to get high-quality sound.

I recently purchased a Moon 280 D streamer. Bottom of the line for Moon's line, but I couldn't hear much of an improvement in more expensive streamers. I stream music much more than playing CDs on my McMormack universal disc player. When I do drop a CD into the McCormack I use the Moon streamer's D/A converter which is a bit livlier than the McCormack.

I listen to vinyl, however, far more than I listen to digital. I have a VPI Prime Signature turntable and EMT HD 006 cartridge, which I run through an Audio Research PH-7. I mention these pieces of hardware because they are good solid equipment which lift the level of my vinyl albums far above digital. Analogue on my system is more immediate and detailed. I've had friends who are not audiophiles notice the difference even though they haven't developed a discerning ear.

I listen to my Moon streamer to hear new artists or new albums. To discover what's going on in the musical world. Also to hear different classical artists playing pieces I own on vinyl and CDs. I often stream music I already have on CDs because streaming has higher digital samplings, up to 192 vs. 44.1 on CDs. 

The reason I still have CDs is because I literally can't give them away. I own about 1200 CDs and it's not worth selling them piecemeal. Too much time and effort for too little money. But almost all of my CDs can also be streamed. So, if somebody wants to take all my CDs plus the spinning rack they sit on, and lives in L.A., give me a holler.

I mention these pieces of hardware because they are good solid equipment which lift the level of my vinyl albums far above digital. Analogue on my system is more immediate and detailed.
 

audio-b-dog  What streamer were you using before the 280D?  How much total do you have invested in your vinyl rig versus your streaming setup?  Fair comparison?

itanibro

CD(s) sound better than any server/streamer.

 

Happy Listening!

@itanibro

 

i’m a mastering engineer with 11 Grammy winning projects in my résumé and I work on every style for 25 years… Here’s the reality

16 bit 44.1 Audio (CD) is not in any practical way inferior to 24 bit 44.1 Audio or 24 96 or 192 for 99% of modern recordings and only 1% of us could tell 24 from 16 bit

 

The industries surrounding higher bit rates and higher sample rates, those are all bullshit… The best quality master is the one that was done in the mastering room, someone like Daniel Lenois did many amazing records using 16 bit DAT tape, for example

streaming audio is very much inferior to 16 bit audio

 

 

i’m a mastering engineer with 11 Grammy winning projects in my résumé

Would you please list the Grammy-winning projects? I’d love to give them a listen. Thanks.

@brianlucey  Thank you for sharing your thoughts/experience here.  Are you saying the original master, if it’s in 16/44.1, sounds better than an upsampled version?  Just wanted to clarify as that’s interesting.  Also, on Qobuz I have no problem hearing the difference between 16/44.1 and hi res versions of the same songs and the differences are not subtle (at least in audiophile terms), and I suspect many others here would say the same.  Would you then say we are the 1%.  Thanks again for your thoughts. 

CDs are much better if you want to play an album... The artists decided on the songs and their particular order; and sometimes that is what I want to hear.  I also find the quality better than streaming much of the time; particularly on blu-ray audio discs.

I don't. I am still playing records.

Since I obtained a magnificent sounding streamer (Aurender N200) I rarely listen to CDs anymore.

+1@upstateaudiophile

 

Not sure why, but IME there's a sense of realism to physical media that appears to be lacking when streaming music.  Perhaps I am used to hearing more distortion in the music,  which is why I prefer analogue sources such as vinyl on a good turtable and  tape via reel to reel tape deck.  

I have also found that live studio broadcasts through a first rate FM tuner can sound superb. 

 

“streaming audio is very much inferior to 16 bit audio”

@brianlucey 

The claim that streaming audio is inferior to 16-bit audio is an oversimplification. Whether streaming sounds inferior depends on several factors, 

1. A well-optimized streaming setup can rival or surpass CD playback. This includes:

• High-quality DACs.

• Proper network infrastructure (e.g., fiber or galvanic isolation).

• Effective noise reduction in the streaming chain.

2. Source Material - Streaming platforms may sometimes use different masters than physical media, which can affect perceived quality. A poorly mastered track will sound bad regardless of the format.

3.  Many people compare streaming to CDs without considering the effort required to optimize streaming systems. Without attention to detail, streaming can indeed sound inferior due to noise, jitter, or poor network configurations.

Given your industry experience and perspective, it appears you have yet to experience a good streaming setup or have no desire to explore potential of streaming. Streaming services like Qobuz and Tidal offer lossless and high-resolution formats, often exceeding the 16-bit/44.1kHz standard of CD’s. And Streaming services like Pandora and Spotify offers mediocre quality, far less than CD’s resolution.  

I have a very good system.  I like the way they sound when I get a good recording. 

CDs coupled with a decent transport and DAC will sound infinitely better than any streaming version. This is a fact, not a subjective response. And yes, to all the above regarding a physical tactile experience, with vinyl the same plus the aesthetic experience.

@humbertorami

From what source do you get your facts?  Or is this just your personal experience?

CDs coupled with a decent transport and DAC will sound infinitely better than any streaming version. This is a fact, not a subjective response. And yes, to all the above regarding a physical tactile experience, with vinyl the same plus the aesthetic experience.

I'd love to hear the basis for these "facts".  There's no reason streaming can't, and doesn't, sound great with a decent streamer and DAC.  Most of the magic happens in the DAC.  Are you feeding it a compressed CD signal or DSD or high res versions of the same recording?  Are they mastered the same?  All things being equal and if your system is up to it, they should sound equally good.

That would be an alternative fact. 

Lalitk let’s say your previous pricey 26 k streaming vs an esoteric 25ks sacd/cd player or DAc/ transport worth 25k  Of course without hooking them up it’s hard to compare. What will be your guess?

@lalitk I have downloaded files I mastered from QOBUZ etc. I have done the work. It’s my job

"high resolution" is a marketing myth

 

@soix There is nothing superior to the sample and bit rate from the mastering session. When we don’t know the source higher sample and bit rates trick us

It’s all about commerce Big dick syndrome lol

 

 

When I asked one of the owners of the company that makes my cables why he's getting into streaming he said he'd settle for 85% of what he can get out of his CDP and TT for casual listening. They have four completely different systems that they test their cables on before settling on a final version. Not as engaging but great for background music. It was for convenience.

By the way, I think Tony Manasian would agree with brianlucey about 16 bit done right sounds great. Though Tony's music taste is very eclectic, I've yet to hear any CD sound as realistic and 'in the room' as his works. 16 bit, straight in, no mixing, no tampering, and on one CD using a cheap mike that cut off at around 16Khz. It's almost funny.

All the best,
Nonoise

There was a test carried out last year by  Alan Shaw and the folks at Harbeth, you can look in the forums there. What they found was not a subtle difference.

There you have it! All the proof you could ever want.

"high resolution" is a marketing myth
@brianlucey 

It appears you enjoy making provocative statements. May be that’s your thing! 

The thing that most people miss is the importance of the transport vs a regular CD player with DAC included. Even a budget CD transport like the Audiolab 6000 + a tube based DAC like the LAB12 DAC1 (non oversampling) should be an eye opener to anyone that can actually hear these changes. 

@lalitk maybe you’re someone who buys the sales pitch that you’re sold instead of someone who knows what they’re doing, but I’m willing to give you a chance

Go ahead and define what is "high definition" audio

Then please explain why music mastered at 96K is superior to music mastered at 44.1

And then explain how up sampling improves a master file

Extra Credit: why is MQA more of what the artists intends vs the mastered file

 

go ahead and be the expert, I’m here for it.

Ok I'm 72 grew up with 45s and 33s...Vinyl lps were my big source of music ,With a stack in the 70s was over $1,000 bucks...I also used R to R with a nice recorder.When cds came out I thought these suck...but then grew to love them...that in 2014 I Soul all my lps 1,100 I got 1,400...but there were in great condition, I always took care of my stuff and always up greater my equipment, the first cd player was,$500 and that was in 1989.I should of known I had good stuff bec6the guy ,who worked for the place ,I sold them to said hey can I come over and buy some Lps for 5 bucks each.He bought 20,lol. Then I buy cds .anx then I wany lps again...Now I have 1,200 and in excellent condition and bought lots and Audio 45s and lps...Now I buy cds used and new for a buck or two each ,I now have like over 3,000 cds.lol...I've never streamed and never will...I'm a nut job buyer...My daughter is mad ,and said dad what I'm I going to do with this stuff when you died...I tell her Get a good price....I'm also an equipment  nut with like 20 pairs of speakers, classic and new  never used....God help meeeeeee.....

“maybe you’re someone who buys the sales pitch that you’re sold instead of someone who knows what they’re doing”

@brianlucey

That’s quite presumptuous on your part…LOL! Since you asked and folks with an aptitude to learn may benefit from this information,

What is High Definition (Hi-Def) Audio ~ High-definition audio refers to audio recordings with higher resolution than the standard CD quality of 16-bit/44.1kHz. It typically involves:

• Higher Bit Depth: Increases dynamic range and reduces quantization noise. Common values are 24-bit or higher.

• Higher Sampling Rate: Captures more detail in the frequency domain. Typical rates include 96kHz or 192kHz.

Why is Music Mastered at 96kHz Superior to 44.1kHz?

• Frequency Range - While 44.1kHz can theoretically capture frequencies up to 22.05kHz (Nyquist theorem), 96kHz extends this to 48kHz, reducing the risk of aliasing artifacts and better preserving high-frequency overtones, even if they’re outside human hearing.

• Phase Accuracy - Higher sampling rates improve phase coherence, particularly for complex waveforms, which contributes to more natural sound reproduction.

• Anti-Aliasing Filters: 96kHz allows for gentler filters in the ADC/DAC process, reducing pre-ringing and phase distortion.

However, the perceived superiority also depends on:

• Mastering Quality: A well-mastered 44.1kHz file can sound better than a poorly mastered 96kHz file.

• Playback Chain: Many systems don’t fully exploit the benefits of higher sampling rates.

How Does Upsampling Improve a Master File?

Upsampling doesn’t add new information but can improve playback by:

• Gentler Reconstruction Filters: By upsampling, DACs can use less aggressive filters, reducing artifacts like ringing or phase shifts.

• Noise Shaping: Moving quantization noise to inaudible frequencies improves perceived clarity.

• Interpolation: Smooths transitions between digital samples, potentially reducing harshness in the sound.

I do not believe in upsampling cause upsampling can’t recreate lost detail from a lower-resolution source. That’s why I always gravitated towards files in its native resolution and focused on optimizing playback system. This has served me well over the years as I am able to experience recordings as intended by artist or recording engineer.

Why is MQA More of What the Artist Intends vs. the Mastered File?

MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) claims to deliver “studio sound” through,

• End-to-End Authentication: Ensures the file you hear is identical to the studio master.

• Time Domain Accuracy: MQA emphasizes reducing temporal blur, which it claims improves the spatial and timing cues in music.

• File Compression: MQA uses a folding technique to deliver high-resolution audio in smaller file sizes, making it more accessible for streaming.

Artist Intent vs. MQA Mastered File

While MQA markets itself as aligning with the artist’s intent, this is subjective. The “intent” could already be achieved in the master file, and MQA’s processing may alter that….I could go on but I see no sense in debating a defunct medium.

IMHO, Artist intent is more about the quality of the original recording and mastering than any specific format or technology.

I don’t claim to be an expert, just a person with little bit of understanding on how technology works and deep admiration for musicians and engineers responsible for the music we have been enjoying in our personal space.

@lalitk 

 

you made a couple of reasonable comments and then a whole lot of sales pitch that any AI could have generated  

upsampling a master is always damaging, always

MQA always adds distortion. Always. Bulk processing was common and that technology was always just respondent with lies, starting with the lossless patent 

sample rate for 99.9% of music has absolutely nothing to do with sound quality in a mastering context.  For a recording engineer or a mixing engineer, a higher sample rate can mask the deficiencies of the conversion and make it seem subjectively better  
 

my AD converter was $24,000 in 2002 and at 44.1 or 96k it is massively superior to a cheap AD converter at 96 or even a good AD converter made today

surface mount components don't sound as good as discrete circuits given equal design skill. 

BrianLucey very interesting post you have.

I own thousands of CD, seems a little ridiculous to get rid of them and spend a boat load of money on the same material. 

@roadwhorerecords ridiculous and redundant both :)

Mine align 100%.

Also, my own 150 to 200 live recordings of orchestral, chamber and especially choral recordings often at major venues cannot be duplicated (but they can be digitized).  Of my 16,300 CDs, I have about 20% which are not streamed and will probably never be publicaly available again.  Third-current streaming quality is 85% of the time inferior to my CD playback using a Lampizator Poseidon DAC/Pre-Amp and Jay's Audio CDt3 Mk3 transport.  So, that's six reasons, just like my reasons to listen to my 31,100+ LPs (30% will never be digitized-especially my 2,500+ ethnic music collection and 1,000 comedy albums).  

If I ever I go to streaming it will be for convenience, like others I have maybe 1500. Cd  ,200 sacd, 100 xrcd, 25 reference recording, FIM and LIM recording most of them. I do love their sound and many more collectors items cd. I think the comparison of streaming and cds is avery complicated because we all have different listening skillls and systems.

I own thousands of CD, seems a little ridiculous to get rid of them and spend a boat load of money on the same material.

@roadwhorerecords You’re not streaming for the music you already have, but more for the access to millions of songs, and a lot in hi res you can’t get with CD, that you don’t already have. New music discovery through streaming Qobuz has expanded my enjoyment of audio far more than anything else in my 40+ years as an audiophile. Playing all familiar stuff now seems antiquated and boring by comparison, so deny streaming if you must but you’re really missing out on an amazing musical experience.

@soix 

Your perspective highlights one of the most compelling advantages of streaming—limitless access to world of music. The convenience of discovering new artists and genres has also transformed my listening habits after so many years of enjoying music through my private collection.
 

Streaming is great for the several reasons mentioned above. I continue to play CDs because I like too. 

Now, that I have finally upgraded the digital side of my audio system to a Jay's Audio dedicated cd transport and a Mojo Audio Mystique X-24AM R2R dac, I am really enjoying my cd collection and hearing what it is capable of.

At some point, I may get into streaming, but currently not in a rush to do so.  If I do get into streaming, it will be for the sole purpose of discovering more music.

Oftentimes, when I witness people listening to music via streaming, they just bounce from one song to another.

I really enjoy listening to an entire recording, in the manner in which the artist had envisioned and wished for it to be listened to.  Maybe I am this way as I have been dedicated to listening to vinyl records for over 50 years and with vinyl I always listen to the entire album.

Best wishes,

Don

Oftentimes, when I witness people listening to music via streaming, they just bounce from one song to another.

@no_regrets On the contrary, when I find a song I like I tend to not only explore the rest of the songs on that album but also other albums from that artist because they’re all right there. In addition, similar artists in the genre also pop up, which gives me even more music to explore. You might not be in a rush to try streaming, but I will tell you my only regret about streaming is that I didn’t start sooner. By all means be in a rush to start streaming — you have no idea what you’re missing until you start, and it’s nothing short of a reawakening.

Having rare and/or cd recordings not available on streaming services is not a valid reason for failure to stream. One can rip that music to storage and/or continue to maintain a cd transport while at the same time streaming.

 

One doesn't have to listen differently to streams vs cd, a good streaming setup can deliver as good or better sound quality than cd playback.

 

With over 3K cd's I found myself getting bored with such a limited choice, as others have mentioned streaming has given me a much wider perspective on music from all genres and so many more artists than even 20K or whatever number of cd's would allow. And then  you can put on shuffle play from your entire streaming library, such amazing diversity in one listening session! As far as I'm concerned streaming is the golden age of audio, never considered cd's the golden age, IMO vinyl was the true golden age prior to streaming. Still maintain my vinyl setup, cd transports long gone, never to return.

@soix  When I said "Oftentimes, when I witness people listening to music via streaming, they just bounce from one song to another."  I didn't mean it to sound as if ALL people steam that way.  Hence the reason I put "oftentimes".

I just didn't want to fall into that "camp" if I were to start streaming at some point.  I admit, I have a lot to learn about streaming.  All of the in's and out's of it, etc.  I would like to think that I would utilize the streaming services as you do, if I ever get up the gumption to start down that road.

Best wishes,

Don

Soix how many songs you can play in one day be realistic . Thru it’s nice to have millions of choices but you can even play 10% of those millions in your life time. Is this like Imelda Marcos having thousands of shoes? That she did not wear?I respect your opinion don’t get me wrong.

Soix how many songs you can play in one day be realistic . Thru it’s nice to have millions of choices but you can even play 10% of those millions in your life time. Is this like Imelda Marcos having thousands of shoes? That she did not wear?I respect your opinion don’t get me wrong.

@jayctoy Well that’s just silly reasoning by someone who is obviously streaming ignorant and is just making up silly reasons why it’s not good. I just explore music I either hear about or am interested in and continually find awesome new songs/albums — no need to hear all of it. Ok don’t stream — it’s your sad loss and you’ve no idea what you’re missing. You can lead a horse to water…

This is a great time of year for streaming, with all the " best of "' lists coming out. I'll  probably buy a few of my favorites on CD.  I agree the benefits of access to music on streaming cannot be denied. I again enjoy,  CD - probably my favorite, LP in binges, and have streaming in every room. Most here seem to do both to some degree, with a few totally against streaming and a very vocal few stating only streaming, avoid and sell your CD collection...I think the latter is where these "discussions" seem to go off the rails...like the OP was asking why do people who play CD enjoy that...

@latik

Congratulations on an excellent reply to a dubious challenge!

The earliest Philips CD players used 4 times oversampling (obviously, on playback) and sounded better than other early players as a result.  Oversampling allows much more gentle filters to be used in the analogue domain because the digital hash is at four times higher frequency.  Philips, who invented the format, also did not bother to implement the last two bits in their early players.

You did not include Direct Stream Digital as a high-res format.  Maybe 1-bit at 64 times oversampling is a stretch too far for some, but Philips and Sony introduced it as a far better alternative to CD format.  Apart from anything else, it is so much simpler in principle for playback

@no_regrets I agree.  When I drive I listen to local KUSC which often has new music and most of the music played are newer recordings from the last decade or so.  Thereby, I am being exposed (as much as I want) to new music and new performances.  Sometimes I get excited by a performance and purchase the CD.  So, streaming has a place after I get through about 10,000+ LPs and CDs that I haven't heard in my collection.   I just purchased a collection of about 700 Japanese pressed Jazz LPs (50/50 mono/stereo) and 200 45 rpm Jazz remasters (Kevin Grey).  So, I have much to hear in the next several years that I never encountered (although my Jazz listening best friends have heard them).  

@richardbrand 

Thank you for the kind words! I intentionally left out DSD as I did not want to over-complicate my response. I am a huge supporter of DSD and it certainly deserves a mention as a high-resolution format for its unique approach to audio reproduction. As you know, it is currently only available as downloads.

DSD’s ability to capture micro-dynamics and its “analog-like” character made it a worthwhile endeavor for me. While not without challenges (e.g., noise shaping at higher frequencies), DSD’s purity and simplicity remain compelling for me to keep buying …800 plus albums so far.

@lalitk You mentioned that DSD "is currently only available as downloads".

I guess that was a reference to streaming!  There are over 6,000 SACDs listed at Presto Music if you like classical and jazz.

I find it interesting that PCM bit-depths are multiples of 8, as in 16, 24 and 32-bits. This is more to do with computing than audio.  Around about 1970, computer designs started to coalesce on 8-bit bytes.  An eight bit byte can take 256 values, sufficient to hold a character from upper- and lower-case Latin alphabets, numbers and many other symbols.  

Fast forward 20 years and the need to incorporate Asian and other language symbols forced an expansion from 8-bits - amazingly it was lifted to 16-bits!  This immediately doubled the storage, processing and bandwidth required for text, but meant 256 times as many symbols could be represented. 

Similarly, each eight bits added to the PCM bit depth in theory gives 256 times the number of distinct sound pressure levels that can be encoded, and conversely need to be decoded.  In my opinion, many DACs struggle with 16-bits, in particular ensuring that each recorded increase in sound level results in a monotonic increase on playback.  This is particularly difficult when several bits switch off and a higher bit switches on.

One solution is the delta-sigma approach which in effect locally converts PCM into DSD.

“I guess that was a reference to streaming!”
@richardbrand 

Yes! Correction to my previous post…DSD is available as downloads or physical media (SACD). My go to reference for downloads is NativeDSD and there are few others that are very transparent on provenance of file. If I am paying for music, I don’t buy until I am able to verify the file source. 

I do agree, delta-sigma conversion combines the strengths of both PCM and DSD, offering a practical solution to the limitations of traditional PCM DACs. However, to my ears, their sound is not as natural as DAC’s that uses Sabre ESS Pro Chips. 

@lalitk

"as natural as DAC’s that uses Sabre ESS Pro Chips"

I would add that some AKM DACs also handle 32-bit PCM and DSD natively.  To my ears, Marantz uses these chips beautifully.

I always suggest looking at the data sheet for any embedded DAC to see what it is designed to do, If it doesn’t mention DSD, it is London to a brick that DSD is not natively supported!

DSD can be converted to PCM, and only loses high frequency timing,  Going the other way requires interpolation (guesswork).

The only noise shaping required for DSD output is a gentle low-pass filter in the MHz range, unless you particularly want to fiddle with what the sound engineers recorded! Contrast this with the many filters on offer for PCM.

Happy listening ...