Music sounds so much better on cd, why??

Submitted by puk3x t3_zu3a3a in Music

This is a genuine question lol, my brother got me a few cds (first time having em) and I've listened to all these albums digitally already, but just wanted to see how the sounded on CD. Damn, they hit fuckin different! He got me Korn- Follow the leader, Deftones- Adrenaline, and Nirvana- Nevermind. Even though these aren't my favorite albums (especially not follow the leader, my favorite korn album is probably self titled or LIP),The music just feels so much more real. Anyone else feel the same or am I js trippin?

5

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_j1guy06 wrote

Because you told yourself that it does.

−13

BrynmawrMetal t1_j1gv23b wrote

If you’ve been raised hearing most music online then CD’s will sound richer as the process of compressing it to mp3 loses richness. Try lossless file formats too as these preserve that richness.

19

Caca_Spaniel t1_j1gvsf4 wrote

Does it sound noticably better than Spotify on very high quality? I've been meaning to get some CDs lately.

BTW I cannot really tell the difference between 144mbp 324? somethimg amd lossless FLAC. There is a difference but I cnat identify which is which

0

macaroni_3000 t1_j1gw4rn wrote

Dynamic range.

Digitally sold music has been compressed, unless you're buying FLAC or WAV files (and most people don't)

3

hesitant2 t1_j1gya9y wrote

You're hearing the difference in kbps (kilobytes per second). It's essentially file size. The cd bitrate is 1,411 kbps. but an MP3 is usually 96 to 320. Streaming services like Spotify range from around 96 to 160. The CD can play the larger files immediately, but they have to be made smaller (compressed) for the internet so they don't take too long to buffer or download. And if you used different headphones, that could make a huge difference as well.

0

death_by_chocolate t1_j1gyddt wrote

Better than what? Streaming? Those signals are squished. Which is the fancy-schmancy technical term for compressed. Those folks are not gonna make any effort to make a full-bandwidth data stream available when most people can't tell the difference or even care anymore. Shit costs money.

The signal chain all the way though is typically garbage these days anyway. Cheap headphones, choppy digitization, noisy devices. 75% of your customers are not even equipped to discern the difference.

And for the other 25% you can make 'em pay extra for a lossless signal.

It's a great business model. Take a medium, chop substantial portions of it away to make it simpler and cheaper to broadcast, and then charge a fee to have the deleted portion put back. "Oh, you want all of it? Well there's gonna be a charge for that. Pixels don't grow on trees, y'know."

2

the_steve_tell t1_j1h6da4 wrote

I own music on all formats, and I've always said CDs sound better. I'm 42, so maybe it has to do with growing up in the CD era. I've heard so much talk about vinyl in recent years, so a month and a half ago I caved in and bought a record player. It's alright. Still prefer CDs

4

cdmat76 t1_j1h8u77 wrote

Music on a lot (not all) digital streaming services is overcompressed compared to CD. Some people hear it some people less, some people don’t.

1

ThrowRAgeezus94 t1_j1hanx4 wrote

Song on CDs are 16bit uncompressed files. Songs on streaming services are compressed. Spotify premium files are AAC 256kbps - that’s the best they can offer. That is a huge jump.

Another factor you won’t hear people talk about is normalisation. Because streaming services are so playlist-focussed, they want the volume of the songs to be the same (so one song doesn’t sound super loud compared with the others). They do this by analysing each song and turning it up/down depending on how perceptibly loudly it was mixed.

The result? Your CD will likely sound louder and clearer than Spotify. You are right

6

JaymesGrl t1_j1hdbyb wrote

I'm gonna say it's all down to what you're playing it out of as well as the bitrate and compression involved of what you're playing.

I'm suprised Spotify has such a terrible bitrate in the age of unlimited data plans. Amazon Music has lossless as standard and a lot of releases are in 24 bit up to 192kHz compared to CDs at 16 bit 44.1kHz 1411kbs. So many releases on Amazon Music sound better then CD.

2

AdAlternative6892 t1_j1hgjex wrote

Replying to the_red_scimitar (#1,035,375)

I’m also not sure how Bluetooth is these days, but if you’re listening with hardwired headphones/speakers vs Bluetooth I don’t believe Bluetooth can handle lossless quite yet, but I believe there were advancements to make it better. I could be wrong, but yes, compression!

3

Omegawop t1_j1hlcy8 wrote

You can download songs and they'll sound about the same as a CD.

−3

hoagiemanfive t1_j1hnyeb wrote

First off…your brother has incredible taste so far. 100% agree on the sound, but also the tangible is better. Having the artwork and lyrics alongside the music makes such a better experience than digital. Also….you can now join the elite group of thrift store “pickers” that rifle through the cd shelves for those hidden gems. Happy hunting.

2

SirDigbyridesagain t1_j1hsw6b wrote

It's pretty noticeable, isn't it. I grew up listening to CDs, but for the past 15 years or so I've only been buying vinyl or streaming mp3s. I found a copy of big shiny tunes 2 (a Canadian compilation classic) and was blown away by how good it sounded in my truck.

I've been meaning to add a CD player to my system ever since.

2

death_by_chocolate t1_j1huylg wrote

Replying to Fluffy_Little_Fox (#1,036,628)

But this is pointless. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Again: "The signal chain all the way though is typically garbage these days anyway. Cheap headphones, choppy digitization, noisy devices. 75% of your customers are not even equipped to discern the difference." Nobody knows the quality of the source here so whatever appears at the other end is meaningless anyway.

Sure, you can make the argument that efforts to appease the 25% of folks who have invested the $3k-to-$5k (or more--sometimes much more) necessary to make a high level of source detail clearly audible at the other end are simply wasted. You're broadcasting color television signals to viewers who only have black-and-white sets.

But this is not the same as asserting that it's not even there to begin with, or that intentionally degrading your signal to make it cheaper to provide is not, at some level, disingenuous. Of course it is.

But lots of people are perfectly willing to make the trade-offs offered, of course: price against quality against convenience. Pick any two, as they say. But there are also plenty such as OP here who are not even fully aware of how much they are missing, or how much their expectations have been lowered. And it always saddens me when the good-faith efforts of talented musicians and meticulous recording engineers are essentially flushed away.

But, to be sure, the only one whose ox is really being gored is the last one on the chain --the consumer.

5

metalliska t1_j1huzjx wrote

Mastering and the decades car stereo and boombox manufacturers had to perfect their acoustic presentation.

When's the last time you felt your chest vibrate the bassline using earbuds?

1

metalliska t1_j1hvcey wrote

>you not rrrh rot dot n dot n dot per rot dot n not n dot per n dot chi cot n dot rrr ah dot dot ki o ma gri a dot dot ers a pa ta ko some play to we a dot think up a bite rah sometimes you might ooh ooh rrrh we thought we might dot be mer hot something what are you ma ah do bro what are mines is dot ooh ooh rot in dot n bite ooh na na er na he woo hoo rah ate no hoo dot er ha ya dot im wer rah

...Twist...twist

2

Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j1hw6b8 wrote

Replying to death_by_chocolate (#1,038,478)

Audiophiles hate me.

I like cheap gear, but it's gear that sounds good ~to me~

A cheap $11 set of Skullcandy Ink Plus earbuds.

A cheap $25 set of One Odio A71 Over Ear Cup Headphones.

My dumb little SD05 cheapie Chinese Mini-Amp.

My old as dirt $35 "Sony D-NE320" CD Player that can play burned ATRAC CDs

The only thing super fancy I have is my Hiby R3 Saber that I paid $150 for and while it's very small and convenient, the sound is .... TOO clean??? TOO analytical?

I like what the D-NE320 and the ATRAC conversion process does to the sound. Yes, I'm aware FLAC is better. Yes, I'm aware I am probably adding extra degradation by letting Sony Sonic Stage 4.3 make ATRAC files from my 320kbps MP3 files.

But the thing is ..... I don't care.

It sounds good ~to me~

It makes ~me~ happy.

1

No-Brilliant252 t1_j1hzxup wrote

Your used to lower bit rates mp3 at best 320 cd are usually wav or flac

0

ivoiiovi t1_j1i9t7s wrote

You know when you have a photo and you reduce the size in photoshop to about a quarter or less than the original, then you save, then you blow that reduced copy back up to the original dimensions and it looks all messed up? Or you watch a 1080p video stream and then reduce it to 360p and it just seems so blurry?

That is what we do to music when we listen to lossy compression, although we don’t perceive it the same way as we are more used to visual difference and also tend to always have pretty decent screens, while perhaps our audio gear is less-than-great.

We lose so much detail in the compression - not of melody and rhythm but the actual sonic texture and “air” - that no matter how people argue, it cannot be the same as a lossless format It is exactly what is is: a lot resolution copy.

It is true to say that the difference may not be noticeable without a certain quality of playback equipment, but I absolutely hate MP3s and the likes, and this is one (of many) reasons I won’t use Spotify or other streaming services. I don’t buy CDs, though, I keep a library of FLAC files and usually download music through Bandcamp - the quality is not a CD thing but is about whether or not audio has been compressed, so formats like those just mentioned, or lossless streaming through Tidal or Apple music, should sound just as good if the rest of the signal path is the same. You’ll probably find these same feelings any time you upgrade a part of your playback equipment - it all makes a difference!

2

TheBeatdigger t1_j1ic73a wrote

There are frequencies we cannot hear but still feel. Try a vinyl record on a good system. You’ll be blown away.

4

RadioFloydHead t1_j1ii7ov wrote

Replying to macaroni_3000 (#1,035,394)

It’s not necessarily the format of the digital files. Dynamic range is missing because modern music is mastered to be played on earbuds and phone speakers. Everything is just smashed together and has zero dynamics.

3

DeadEyeMetal t1_j1ju1ux wrote

Vinyl sounds better than CD or FLAC; CD and FLAC are about the same and both are better than MP3.

In practical settings, Bluetooth fucks them all up as do ear buds and crap EQ, headphones or speakers. The better your medium format, the more it has to lose from crappy phones/speakers.

Vinyl through quality speakers/phones is still the best I've heard. That said, personally I just use MP3, lol. It's convenient and I can't afford the gear I've heard that really impressed. Anyway, I listen to metal and punk, so it's all noise anyway...

1