Dammit bros. The normie zoomers are catching onto CDs, the objectively superior format.
>>131334053hi zoomer here. this isn't rly worth starting my own thread but i've got a college clubmate and I want to burn her a CD made up of songs I have downloaded with her name in the lyrics. I've only known her for less than a week though so would it still be OK or should I be scared that they'll think it's weird? she is qt3.14 if that matters at all
>>131334053Two words. CD rot.
>>131334053You don't need a super state of the art player for cds to sound good and that is big advantage vs vinyl. What you need is a good amp and speakers. That being said now is the perfect time to pull the trigger on SACDs, that will put vinyl to rest once and for all.
>>131334125lol, lmao. Disc rot mostly happens with cdrs because they aren't exactly top quality and even then they have to be exposed to heat and dust for it to happen. My cd collection will outlive me, i still have my og cd of Nirvana's nevermind in perfect condition. Fucking hate panchiko and their fake ass backstory spreading misinformation.
>>131334125only a few CDs manufactured decades ago are affected by disc rot.I have many CDs from the '80s that are still perfect
>>131334125>vinyl quality decreases with each play!>cassettes get worse with each play!>cd rot! It's all a meme. Your boogeyman shit won't work.
>>131334125That's actually three words.
>>131334070Don't do that. Just send 1 of the songs to her and jokingly say "its about you" The key here is don't demand too much of her time or attention, that's creepy and puts pressure on her. An entire CD of songs with her name on it is too much.
>>131334125Meme, lmao. I have a copy of Synchronicity on CD that's perfect. 43 years old.
>>131334274good idea
>>131334125Only CD I've ever known that rotted was a CDr from Yugoslavia
>>131334053I have some CDs that look like they were used as frizbies at a beach that play fine and can backup with verification.Truly a resilient format.>>131334125Hundreds of CDs from 80s and 90s in my collection say otherwise. Disc rot is due to manufacturing defect and also in some cases poor storage. If you live in a swamp maybe don't leave them in your car. Burned CDs have a much shorter life.
>>131334070go for it, man. if she doesn't like it she's a stuck up cunt you wouldn't want to waste your time on anyway.
>>131334125damn you really rustled the pseuds with this one
>>131334274why spoil the fun? next time say "great idea. let us know how it goes."
>>131334053then they get 200$ bookshelf speakers and a 10$ cd player and post on r/audiophileI fucking hate this world
>>131334070you better give her a cd player too
>>131334274this guy fucks
What I find funny is that evidently zoomers will play original CDs in cars sometimes? I saw a thread about someone on here doing that recentlyI feel like just about everyone switched to burned CDs only in cars about 25 years ago. Scratches & theft were big issues. Not to mention the fact that CD burners let you make CDs from downloaded mp3s.
>>131337455>CD burnersAren't many PCs and laptops assembled without optical disc drives these days? Or has that trend died down over the oast couple of years?
>>131337501Sure, but USB CD burners are stupidly cheap these days
>>131334125I own a CD from 1984 and a CDr from 2004, both still sound fine from start to end.
Just another form of consooming. I download one thousand albums to my hard drive for free.
>>131334336Might have been kept in bad conditions (or been created badly since it's a CDr), I have a few CDs from Yugoslavia and they all play fine
>>131334470>be you>retard>get utterly btfo>too stupid to come up with a clever reply>cope/seethe instead lol IQ test results not looking promising
>>131334053>superiorYou say? Bet you feel pretty insuperior now.
>>131338350Scratches on the plastic side don't matter. That CD will probably still play fine, and if it doesn't you can polish the scratches out.
>>131334125two words: doesn't exist
>>131338100rustled
>>131334053Ive been onto this shit for over a decade now>>131334125My parents have cds from the 80s that still sound perfect and we live in a moldy swamp house
>>131334053>>131338350>find old mp3 player>most songs are ripped from old cd's>anticipate the skips before they even happenman..
>>131338100Just look at the people seething because disc rot was mentioned. Vinyls degrade, cassettes degrade, and yes even CDs degrade. All physical formats degrade eventually. You know what doesn't degrade? Digital. Digital formats are the future. They should stop wasting time and effort producing dumb shit like vinyls and tell hipster losers to move on already
Removing cd players from new cars was a mistake and im tired of pretending otherwise
>>131339783And laptops too, should come with one by default instead of having to get a USB one
>>131339765Found the guy who dumped his cd collection during covid. Sorry for you man
>>131339765Until future computer manufacturers decide to retire all current audio formats. Notice how webp ruined images? Don't be surprised when mp3, wav, flac, and aiff suddenly are incompatible with future machines. Like all the cucks who just shrugged when Flash was retired
>>131334904>the “just use a cheap DVD player as a transport” meme is finally deadWhy did audiophools kill off their own trend so quickly? They don’t want to share a space with actual people?
>>131339765>You know what doesn't degrade? Digital.digital storage is not magically exempt from entropy.
>>131334904It's a fucking CD, it's not like vinyl. A $10 CD player will play it just as well as whatever expensive CD player you got ripped off buying
>>131334148SACDs are mostly out of print now and getting turbo expensive.
>>131341352>A $10 CD player will play it just as well as whatever expensive CD player you got ripped off buyingThast's bullshit and you're retarded. I could explain further but it'd be lost on you and you'd whine and screech about it.
>>131334470>dude all of your CDs are going to die LMAO>damn you showed those pseuds heh yeah man. just 2 more weeks before everyones CD collection gets obliterated
>>131341881>n-no that w-wrong>I can't say whyI accept your concession.
>>131342010Not everything that is digital sounds the same. It's all got to go through a DAC at some point. Some DACs are definitely better than others.Fortunately DAC tech has gotten to the point where competent ones can be had for pretty cheap
>>131342010>what are different DACs>what is analog signal chainYou're a clueless little thing, see? I told you you'd act like this, and you reacted just like I predicted.
Only one more year until all of my cds disintegrate trust me bro
Everyone here is saying that CDs don't rot. Ok then, tell me what this song ishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ss2ZMK_X-0And this onehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYEZZC90EhISince CDs can't rot you should be able to hear them clearly, right?
>>131342602we have already established that CDrs/burned CDs can rot (especially if stored in bad conditions) and have higher failure rates than regular CDs. moron.
>>131334053luv me vinylluv me 320kbps
>>131342676What are the two songs playing on those two normal CDs? Since they don't rot they must be playing perfectly fine.
>>131342602Is this from Raster-Noton
>>131342602>CD-R
>>131342704>heh, try and discern what's being played on this heavily misused and trashed cd
>>131342442>>131342452copeyou both fell for the placebo effect and got bilked into paying a lot of money for something that doesn't sound any better than the cheap stuff
>>131342452>buzzwords with no explanationI accept your concession.
>>131342776>>131342783You have dry earwax like all ASR chinks.
>>131342801>insult in lieu of any explanation of position whatsoeverI accept your concession.
>>131334125As long they are 10 bucks they can rot allright. And since the rot is only cought up to things pressed up tp 85 everything I get now has ~42 years... i think that's enough for me.
>>131342776>got bilked into paying a lot of moneyWhat retardation do you suffer from? I explicitly said that modern cheap DACs were fine
>>131343009there's no difference between the cheap ones and the expensive ones. you fell for the meme.
>>131343029If you don't think bad DACs exist then you're a moronhttps://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-good-is-bad-raspberry-pi-4b-headphone-output-dac-review.53090/
>>131343173>audiosciencereview.comsounds super legit and not at all like a grift site designed to prop up the "audiophile" con.
>>131343350NTA but I've got a lot of DACs be they in disc players, computers, outboard devices, etc. and with certain program material, some DACs fail completely. On DMX Krew's album You Exist, there's one track with a dot matrix printer instead of a snare drum, and this is plainly audible on the vinyl. With CDs, players can wildly vary in how they reconstruct that sound, with most having a hi-hat sound that doesn't preserve the actual dot matrix sound. This is just one of many examples I personally have heard.
>>131343434this is a word salad.
>>131343350Maybe read the site instead of just making assumptions based off the domain name?ASR routinely gives accolades to inexpensive gear
>>131343549Maybe if you're ESL.
>>131334053I only listen to my own covers of songs on the autoharp. I go to a concert and try and remember it best as I can, and when I want music I play my autoharp and sing it.
>>131343556>read my audiophile shill siteno, I don't think I will.
>>131343556Their whole schtick is based on random listening tests, which is dumb because normies have no clue. They use random music too, which might not present extreme conditions to the DAC.DACs can be measured, that's the neat thing, and characterized. There's no need to rely on random other people's ears, when you can hear the difference yourself. Many older and cheaper DACs multiplex stereo, just reproducing one channel's sample, then holding that until the other channel's sample gets a turn at the DAC. Many people can't hear a different, many others can.
Good thing I started collecting over a decade ago. It's funny to see what zoomers are willing to pay for 2000s mall screamo myspace warped tour emo CDs. I have a grip of those cause that was the music I listened to when I was younger and that shit was so easy to find. Nobody wanted CDs for fucking years and now I could cash in on some bs that these zoomers think is god's gift to music.
>>131343699Don't know how dumb you can be. It's not an audiophile shill site. Their raison d'être to debunk audiophile bullshit.
>>131334125Two things can cause CD rot. Manufacturing errors which are inevitable with manufacturing eventually, but is exceedingly rare. The other being taking terrible care of your CDs which would require leaving your collection out in the elements for extended periods of time or committing deep scratches and damage to the CD itself which is hard to do unintentionally. CD rot is just cope from Vinylfags who are re-mortgaging their house and spending $45+ on the newest RSD golden shit glitter variant of some obscure (bad) garage rock record from 1969.
>>131343840by feeding into dumb audiophile bullshit about cd readers being magically different somehowuh huh
>>131334125>rips files from CD to computer before rot happens (it won't)
Here's one DAC fucking up a signal. Some signals are handled poorly by some DACs due to bugs or other technical issues, with multibit DACs they can get a low glitch too when one of the 'bits' activates or deactivates. Even 1-bit DACs can glitch on some programs.
>>131343751>Their whole schtick is based on random listening tests, which is dumb because normies have no clue. They use random music too, which might not present extreme conditions to the DAC.No it fucking isn't. Their DAC / amp / preamp reviews are all based off measurements. No listening at all.Their speaker reviews are based off near-field measurements from a Klippel scanner, which is a great substitute for measuring in an anechoic chamber. These results are often computed into a listener preference score, which is based off research conducted on listening tests. But you're free to ignore these preference scores and just interpret the Klippel data yourself.
>>131338350my entire siouxsie and the banshees CD collection was sold to me at a major discount cause they were covered in superficial scratches, ripped them all to my PC and they sound just fine, takes a lot of work to make a CD unplayable and even more to make a CD unreadablethis on the other hand is unsalvageable, but keep coping
>>131343903They are, CDs don't have a clock so some players are more prone to jitter than others. Some higher end CD players will generate a clock signal. Other higher end ones rely more on sheer mass of the player and cutting vibration to reduce jitter. Some lasers are better than others at reading through scratches and damage and dust etc. Then the DAC itself, and the output stage of the player, also contribute to the quality or lack thereof. Finally the best CD players will present a balanced output so your cables don't reduce signal quality, if you're not using digital out and an outboard DAC.>>131343931It's a constant source of mal/mis/disinformation and bots frequently cite it too now.
>vinylfags are yet again seething about CDsEmbarrassing
>>131343955CD is great, they could have had a better on-disc format with clock information but there were two reasons why they didn't do it. First, it would have reduced the amount of data that can fit on the disc, and requiring DACs to all accept a word clock was considered limiting for low cost consumer devices. And second, the clock information could be used to make higher quality digital copies and for a consumer distribution format, this was considered not necessary anyway. It could have been better but it was good already.
>>131343922i'm not interested in your mspaint doodles anon.
>>131344072There are old time CD workout discs which seek to present difficult data to DACs which can cause issues broadly, a Denon one and a Sony/Philips one. They also test the ability of CD players to track discs with damage, defects, or even just obscure things that are in-spec but underutilized by manufacturers or ignored as edge and corner cases.Some people have noticed this with commonly available CDs, the Titanic soundtrack, track 7 at 30 seconds, some electronic music as mentioned already can cause DAC glitches (even when recorded!), Dvorak Cello Concerto in B minor on Polygram falls apart on some DACs completely, others it's fine, Parlophone CDP 7974662 causes clicking on some DACs, etc. There are probably shit tons more of these glitches out there on pre-recorded and home made program material that people simply don't hear or notice properly because they're normies.
>>131344129i'm not autistic enough to care about any of whatever you just said
>>131344215Well the point is, you think all CD players and DACs are the same but you're wrong. It's ignorant, and I'm not shocked that you don't want to read all about how you're wrong.You react like a bot, it's interesting, with the sourpuss setting turned up so as to try to blend in here lol. Ya got BTFO.
>>131344231I've been around too long to fall for audiophile bullshit. You're 20 years too late
>>131344321You're kind of an idiot.
>>131344345Digital audio is sold as a complete end to end magical solution and has been for decades, some people just assume digital audio is always better because it's digital so therefore any shitbox player attached to... anything will outperform a competent vinyl or *gasp* cassette setup. Where it's dramatically more complicated, obviously every playback system will be unique in its way and shitty digital can easily sound worse. There are still DACs which multiplex stereo with sample and hold, in cheap phones and TVs. That's audible and easily so with the right program material.
>>131344593I agree with you. Like even just something shitty and cheap like an apple dongle can and will sound better than other dacs. There is actual science to it.
>>131344635>Like even just something shitty and cheap like an apple dongle can and will sound better than other dacs.Wrong, it's not that musical and doesn't output line audio. It's kinda like an old sound card with the knob on the back that controlled the output, meant for dual-use.That sucks.
>YWN be as Audiophile as this.
>>131344682I guess I should say, it'll sound better than strictly going line out from your PC. The DACs in my CD Player will run circles around it though.
>>131344345insulting me isn't going to scare me into buying your bullshit, anon. I'm too secure in myself to let your opinion of me override my critical thinking.
>>131344635>There is actual science to itpost three (3) peer-reviewed studies that support your claims, published in reputable journals, minimum of 10 citations each.Alternatively, keep the word "science" out yo faggot mouth when discussing your snake oil bullshit.
>>131344708Sure that's true. I've been enjoying my Pioneer CLD-97 as a CD player.
>>131344759It's Audio Science Review, dot com. It's Science because it's in the name of the forum, duh.
Fine but have zoomer found out about boxsets yet?
What CDs are you spinning in your car, /mu/? Here's my current glove compartment stash.
>>131342771So you admit that you don't know? But you said CDs can never degrade
>>131334070She’s 14?!
>>131345071...OUT OF TEN!!!
>>131334053A CD is just a digital file. What's the damn point? At least Vinyl is analog.
>>131339765>digitalLooks like nobody told you about rotational velocidensity
>>131334125I have over 400 CDs. Some that are 20 years old at this point. You got worked into thinking this shit is real
