Comments on: Do you still buy CDs?

Sales of music downloads won't surpass silver discs for a while--a report projects the year 2012. So fess up: a lot of you are still buying discs, and I want to know who you are.

[pubmat]

Of course I still buy cds. They're mostly used, along with SACDs and DVD-A discs. Even though I have an i-pod (only lossless audio) I would never download anything from i-tunes or elsewhere for obvious reasons: it sounds like crap. I'm quite happy with this arrangement, plus I would NEVER buy vinyl, regardless of this latest fad. Its a waste of your sanity.

[ducttape36]

vinyl sounds better than any of the other formats you just listed though, you jsut need decent equipment, which you can buy for the same price of your ipod. sure its not portable, but a lot of records come with free digital downloads as well to make up for that fact.

[alegr]

ducttape36,
Do the following experiment:

Record your favorite best sounding vinyl LP as 44100/16 bit, using a $80 soundcard, put it on a CD, and run a double blind comparison test. Find out if you can tell live LP playback from its recorded CD copy. You may be surprised.

[BirdDog01]

Look into HDtracks.com. Choice of AIFF, FLAC, or 320kbps MP3, cover art and liner noes included, and an interesting catalog.

[soundman45]

Unfortunately CD and that includes SACD and DVD are probably, still the best delivery fomats we have for high fidelity reproduction. I include vinyl to and extent. The probem with vinyl is that there are inherent limitations in dynamic range and there is always some amount of surface noise with Lp's. I know vinyl junkies will disagree with me and on a thousand dollar turntable with really high end equipment vinyl sounds pretty damn good but the truth is that most vinyl records are not cut from the original master tape. An equlaized and compressed master is usually prepared first. I also know that recently released records that are produced today almost always originate from a digital source. In other words the original master tape is 24/96k and then a platter is cut from that. Kind of defeats the purpose. For instance if you compare an SACD to an original analog master tape that it was taken from, it probably comes closer to the original than any format out there. I know cause I've done it. Simply because DSD recording effectivly samples in mega hertz not kilo hertz. The problem with conventional CD's is the amount of information they can capture, and of course the problem only gets worse with mp3s. Unfortunately you need alot of digital information to reproduce.realism.

[mbeoletto]

The great thing about iTunes, Amazon, etc. is that if you only like a couple of songs from an album you don't have to buy the whole thing. Gone are the days when you'd buy a CD only to listen to 2 or 3 songs. Also, the prices of CDs have come down drastically in order to compete with the download services. If I want the whole album and I can get the CD for the same price of the downloadable content than why not go with the physical media in which you have more playback options. Again, gone are the days of Sam Goody ripping you off charging 15.99 a CD.

[anthony f wood]

Contrary to soundman45 the dynamic range of vinyl is actually greater by far than digital media. CD's, MP3's etc literally clip the top and bottom off the sound range achievable with the analog LP which has playback ability from sub to ultrasonic ranges. This has long been a bone of contention amongst long time audiophiles(and some old time ones)

[alegr]

Antony f wood,

I'm afraid you're confusing frequency range and dynamic range. And you're wrong anyway.

While there is no hard design limit to the highest frequency that can be reproduced from LP, in practice it's limited by the smallest radius on the needle, which is itself limited by the vinyl rigidity and wear resistance. Then there is a limit on the output level across the frequency range. The frequency compensation curve goes 6 dB/octava, keeping the groove sweep about the same for the given output level across the wide frequency range. Except for the lowest frequencies. On the lowest frequencies there is no compensation; thus the max output level goes down.
But remember that the needle acceleration is proportional to velocity times frequency, or, amplitude times frequency squared. This limits the maximum level for the higher frequencies. If you go over that, the needle won't follow the groove.

All these limitations just don't exist for a CD. There is only Nyquist frequency limit (22050). Real life antialiasing filters don't reach it though, but they're close enough.

[ducttape36]

alegr,
I have done that experiment before, because i wanted to listen to my music in my car and on the road. i have a mini home recording studio that i used to transfer the audio over too. I have a creative x-fi sound card that i use with yamaha mixers. And yeah, i can tell the difference if im in a quiet room. obviously outside and in my car isnt an optimal listening enviorment, but thats my point, when im in my home and want to listen to music, i put a record on. when im on the go, an mp3 player is adequate. Thats the sacrifice you make for portability. I guess it just depends on where you do the majority of your listening.
Plus, im just a sucker for having something physical like a record in my hands. I love reading the liner notes without a magnifying glass like i need for cd sheets. Its just my own opinion and i understand others dont share my view, but i really do prefer vinyl more than any other format.

[dtchayes]

Oh yes. Since secondhand CD stores became secondhand vinyl stores, you can barely give CDs away. That means used silver discs are bargains. And used vinyl, wonderful as it can be, has become way too expensive.

[slopduck]

Even new CDs can be bought for nothing these days, I regularly buy new CDs for $3-$8 (mostly through BMG's soon-to-be-folded music club, they're pretty much just giving away CDs now (you can get CDs just for the cost of shipping if you use the right coupon codes)). I never play the actual CD, I just rip them (I'm not an audiophile, 192 vbr AAC is good enough to my ears) and file away the CD as a physical backup. It ends up much cheaper than downloads.

[minimalist]

I have bought maybe 1 or 2 CD?s in the last 3 years and that?s simply because it was more convenient at the time or the release was not available in an un-DRM?d high bit-rate version. I already have hundreds of CD?s in boxes and I am not interested in having to store more. Yet I still buy lots of 320kbps and 256 kbps VBR mp3?s (and I generally buy full albums). I may not have 12,000 dollar speakers but I find these files streamed to decent quality equipment around my house from a music server sound pretty darn good. Of course decent speakers make a world of difference.

I suspect the main reason that CD?s still have a significant market is that people 40 and above are not as comfortable with technology and just like the simplicity of buying a disc and popping it in. But these people buy less and less music as they get older so I doubt CD?s will still be with us in 15 years except as a niche product. But I wouldn?t turn down the profits from them either. It?s certainly no growth market but it?s still quite lucrative.

In the long term though, the future of music seems to be a mainly digital world where the physical product is a specialty item. That doesn?t mean that there is no way for artists to prosper in this environment though. The smart, forward thinking bands are already figuring out how to make money and please fans by offering different tiers for their record sales: Give away some songs for free, offer more complete better quality versions of the album for a small amount of money, offer special packaging, physical media for CD prices, and high priced deluxe limited-editions for the hard core fans.

[digi_art]

While that may be true, I am 18 years old, and I always prefer buying the disc to a digital download. The main reason is that its nice to have a hard copy when you need it. I just don't feel safe having hundreds ore even thousands of downloaded music without having it backed up. Sure, you can accomplish this with an external hard drive, but I find that having a CD within reach is juts as good, and feels much more "official". I don't think that age has as big of an impact as you think on this.

[Loli1995]

Digi_art, they are going to start selling music on USB's. People who buy CD's just so that they can have backup will then stop.

[treblekicker]

Absolutely. But I try before I buy by checking the mp3 blogs and P2P for about half the album. I've not bought a bad album in years by following this method.

The audio CD is like the CD-ROM with software - the backup just in case there's hard drive failure etc.

[zizzybaloobah]

No! I seldom listen to music at home - while in transit, my choices are XM, MP3 CD, or digital music player, so why bother with the physical media - digital files are fine for my needs. Never again will I buy an entire album of carp to get the few tracks that are less carpy than the rest.

[freemarket--2008]

That's enough carp abuse! :-)

[bxwatso]

Among my friends who buy online, it is quite common for them to lose their collection because of a hardware problem or trouble with DRM when they move machines. People who buy DRM music are putting a lot of faith in the continued support from their music vendor.

I pay extra for a CD vs. online, then I rip the CD and put it in mycloset. I get a better sound quality vs. lossy compression, and I have a durable backup in a format that will still be playable for a very long time to come.

[minimalist]

But is there any DRM music being sold anymore? With Apple's recent anouncment I am glad to see it finally go. But I've been getting DRM-free stuff from Other Music, eMusic for a year and a half now and from Amazon for over a year.

CD's are indeed good backup but then again hard drives are really cheap and its super easy to keep several copies all over the place. And most of the music places around where I live have horrible selections and even more horrible prices. Why would I buy a CD for 14 or 15 bucks when I can get ther whole thing from eMusic for 2 bucks or Amazon for 8 or 9?

[ducttape36]

i dont buy cds. but i do buy LPs. look at data for those, they are coming back from the dead. probably cause they sound better than both cds and mp3s and you get supersized artwork with them.

[BK216]

No. I dont pay for music period. However, I'll still pay for concerts. I also still pay for movies. And I openly embrace Open Source software and freeware

[Tom33--2008]

I agree with all previous comments about sound quality, liner notes, etc. For me one of the biggest factors is complete control. With a CD, I have the ultimate form in my hand (sorry vinyl fans). I've lived through mini-disc and now we have MP3's and AAC. What if something way better comes along 5 years from now, then what? This way I can convert all my CD's to the new format should that day ever come. I have control of the bit rate, and I control to put it on as many computers as I want, etc. I have complete control and flexibility, now and in the future.

[Loli1995]

When they start selling boombox's, cd players, and car's that play CD players..... they won't be that awesome.

Now, yes. But in the future, probably not.

[Mr. Bloggerific Himself]

I buy mostly Amazon/iTunes downloads these days. Artists tend to say that the exposure those sites give them, works out better for them than if I buy a CD ....even directly from the artist. I still rip purchased CDs though and listen to the copies, and keep archived copies in MP3 formats on DVDs. My thing is, who cares how you get yer tunez, just do what werks best for you. It's about the vibe, not the format.

[longklaw]

I still buy CDs for bands that I like and I just have to have the entire album. I'll buy mp3s if I get a song stuck in my head and want to download.

[arbearce]

I buy CDs when I go and see bands play, got to support them for rolling though town. Otherwise I just buy from Amazon MP3, I can't hear a noticble difference between CD and the downloaded MP3s I buy.

[f0r0ne]

I only buy CDs, after some DRM surprises and nuisance re-registrations when I experimented with downloaded music, and since I tend to buy and listen to whole albums in sequence (classical, jazz) and not track mixes. The price differential is negligible for the convenience of having a permanent backup ready made, and I agree about the value added of album art and often very interesting multi-page commentary on the kind of music I buy.

[john55440]

Yes, I buy CDs, for superior sound quality, and other reasons.

[oce.net]

My purchasing of CDs has nothing to do with quality at this point- thats just a nicety. Due to wack job corruption- I lost all my local music library. Luckily- I had just uploaded most of my library to lala.com.

But not all of it. Losing music for forever due to hard drive failures and software issues is not something I enjoy at all. And with digital music services (iTunes, Amazon, etc.) having hit and miss re-download options- I can't really trust them to do the job. lala.com is nice- but they only allow re-downloads of stuff that they've sold you- and streaming isn't quite the same as owning either. At this point- I'm pondering burning any of the digital stuff I have to disk- as economic oddities and the like are constantly looming over services like lala. I know CDs aren't a full-fledge longterm solution- but they will work long enough for someone to develop a better one.

Also- I really get a kick out of things like bonus tracks and bonus DVDs that come with the hard copies of some albums- meaning you get more for your buck- which also applies to the greater profit margins for the artists. You can also rip and convert those tracks off the CD whenever to whatever you want- at least I think thats how things are at the moment if the RIAA didn't have its way with ripping.

Its also rather nice to just flip through the album artwork and wander through your collection in non-Date Modified list form.

Also, also also.

[MaggieRed]

Nope strictly digital files now a days. If I want a CD for the car, I rip it from iTunes.

[Slick1of2]

I just recently bought a CD. It is by the artist Putumayo and the album is Brazilian Groove. If you haven't listened to this guy?s music then you really should. He does world music combinations. And actually, I plan on going out to the music store in my downtown to get a Stray Cats album. Usually after buying my CD's (weather it is a movie or music disk) I will rip it onto my server then export a copy to on of my three terabyte hard drives connected to my entertainment center.

[jeem8]

lol at ... "the artist is Putumayo.."

[gandialf]

My brother gave me one for xmas this year. Ripped it and tossed it. Guess I'm just not enough of a purist/fanatic to care about some supposed audio loss. Did the blind experiment years ago, and just couldn't hear any difference!

[imotionsrt4]

I really don't buy CD's that much anymore, and unfortunately I'm not really in the habbit of paying for them if I download them. I've had $5 in zune points for over a year. But I also don't download that much at all either. I drive a whole 1.5 miles to work, so I really don't get to hear that much new music anyways, I'm lucky if I get to hear any music at all.

I will buy CD's for a few bands only because I own all their other CD's and I enjoy their music, even if there is a track or two I'm not in love with. But I only buy them the week they come out as they are usually like $10. But the recording industry can go to hell if they think I'm paying $18 for a CD.

[friscoG]

I still buy CD's. I would rather own the CD than download the album at a lower quality. Downloading may be a little more convenient, but CD's are usually 9.99 or so when they come out, and are on sale, so for the same price, I would rather have a better sounding physical copy.

[joshdeboer]

friscoG is right on the money!

[Loli1995]

I am not a fan of downloading albums either. I have only downloaded 3 albums and that is because they are not sold in the U.S. and shipping and handling was 50 dollars.