When was the last time you bought a CD?

A few months ago when a local store was going out of business. I got about 50 CDs for under 20 bucks, some were as cheap as 10 cents each. In fact the only reason I spent 20 bucks was that one of the CDs was 7 bucks.

I always buy the CD if I can, only ever buy the track digitally if I need it in that moment. If I want an album i can nearly always find on CD it with next-day delivery for less than the digital version. Then just rip it to Google Music (which is fantastic) and put it on the shelf.

It's just following the principals as I would with any other file I want to keep safe (documents, videos, photos etc) - physical backup and a version in the cloud for access anywhere.

Fddd wrote:

part time poster wrote:

Also, why do people still buy them?

My first 45 record was "beat it" by Michael Jackson. That was in the 1970s. There was another song on the back side. Can't remember what it was.

Can't remember when I last bought a CD though. I think they were blank ones for my CDRW.

How did you get Beat It in the 70s if it wasn't released until 1983??

rf wrote:

GIGO wrote:

This. Always funny to see kids using $200 headphones to listen to their iPhones. This is sort of the auditory equivalent of expecting your Honda Civic to be fast because you put racing tires on it.

This is a very common myth for some reason. Even musicians and sound engineers have trouble distinguishing 256kbps mp3s from flac on high quality equipment. In this (admittedly small sample), sound engineers even preferred the 320 MP3 to the lossless file more than 50% of the time.

There's no way the average kid can distinguish the 256 MP3 on their iPhone from flac while differences in sound quality between solid and super cheap headphones can actually be verified. Criticizing people for this just makes you look pretentious.

http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pdf

You literally pointed to results that say "Trained listeners can hear the difference between CD quality and MP3 compressions." AND "Trained listeners can not discriminate between CD quality and Mp3 compression (320kps) while expert listeners CAN."

EXACTLY. I am an expert listener. I have a high quality set up that includes preamps, amps, and HIGH end speakers and headphones. Audio quality is distinguishable easily on my setup, including to my wife who hasn't a clue.

I get them for cheap at flea markets and such. I will maybe order about four "rare" ones from online sources each year. I haven't bought a new one in man years. No place near where I live even sells them, with the exception of a Duane Reade which usually has just the top three current sellers.

Moby Dick wrote:

You literally pointed to results that say "Trained listeners can hear the difference between CD quality and MP3 compressions." AND "Trained listeners can not discriminate between CD quality and Mp3 compression (320kps) while expert listeners CAN."

EXACTLY. I am an expert listener. I have a high quality set up that includes preamps, amps, and HIGH end speakers and headphones. Audio quality is distinguishable easily on my setup, including to my wife who hasn't a clue.

You actually have it backwards. When comparing the very low end, speakers matter more than the audio quality.

ANY listener can tell the difference between $20 buds, $75 over-ear, and $200 beats, even with 128kps quality off an iphone. Your analogy of racing tires making a Honda faster is not quite accurate. $20 buds are like a square wheel, you'll notice the difference on anything.

nippery slipple wrote:

I haven't bought one in probably 10 years. They don't pay anything anymore. Mostly I go for dividend stocks now.

5 yr brokered CDs are offering 2.25% this morning which is just above the s&p 500's yield. FDIC insured and guaranteed not to lose value. There's a place in your portfolio for a CD.

1 2 3 green wrote:

Moby Dick wrote:

You literally pointed to results that say "Trained listeners can hear the difference between CD quality and MP3 compressions." AND "Trained listeners can not discriminate between CD quality and Mp3 compression (320kps) while expert listeners CAN."

EXACTLY. I am an expert listener. I have a high quality set up that includes preamps, amps, and HIGH end speakers and headphones. Audio quality is distinguishable easily on my setup, including to my wife who hasn't a clue.

You actually have it backwards. When comparing the very low end, speakers matter more than the audio quality.

ANY listener can tell the difference between $20 buds, $75 over-ear, and $200 beats, even with 128kps quality off an iphone. Your analogy of racing tires making a Honda faster is not quite accurate. $20 buds are like a square wheel, you'll notice the difference on anything.

I don't have anything backwards. I'm well aware of the low end difference, you're simply not keeping up with the conversation. Also, I didn't make an analogy about tires.

Moby Dick wrote:

You literally pointed to results that say "Trained listeners can hear the difference between CD quality and MP3 compressions." AND "Trained listeners can not discriminate between CD quality and Mp3 compression (320kps) while expert listeners CAN."

EXACTLY. I am an expert listener. I have a high quality set up that includes preamps, amps, and HIGH end speakers and headphones. Audio quality is distinguishable easily on my setup, including to my wife who hasn't a clue.

Actually look at the data. Trained listeners could not distinguish 256 vs lossless, sound engineers preferred 320 Kbps to lossless in both catagories (electronic and acoustic) slightly over 50% of the time, and musicians preferred lossless to 320 60% of the time in electronic music but under 50% of the time for acoustic. Only one subgroup of experts could tell the difference in one category category and even then success rate was only around 60%.

Fddd wrote:

part time poster wrote:

Also, why do people still buy them?

My first 45 record was "beat it" by Michael Jackson. That was in the 1970s. There was another song on the back side. Can't remember what it was.

Yes. There is always another song on the back side. That MJ single was released in '83, and the B side was titled: "Get on the Floor"

Physical media is a waste of space. The only thing vinyl is good for is artwork in your basement bar.

I ditched all of my CDs (about 300) to a friend in 2004. He gave me $4 each. I took that $1200 and bought my first real road bike, which eventually led me to running.

I buy a lot of tracks from amazon mp3, but usually just stick with Spotify. And I love not having a bunch of junk taking up space.

I purchased Tool's "10,000 Days" in 2006. MP3s after that. Spotify now.

The difference between uncompressed .wav files and even the best "lossless" format is like night and day with a decent system and enough listening. Vinyl is (subjectively) better than .wav in many ways as well.

Key'Vaughn wrote:

Fddd wrote:

My first 45 record was "beat it" by Michael Jackson. That was in the 1970s. There was another song on the back side. Can't remember what it was.

Can't remember when I last bought a CD though. I think they were blank ones for my CDRW.

How did you get Beat It in the 70s if it wasn't released until 1983??

He probably was thinking of ABC by the Jackson Five!

Slim wrote:

I purchased Tool's "10,000 Days" in 2006. MP3s after that. Spotify now.

but what if we get their next album before 2020!? might just have to buy a CD again!

I bought my girlfriend 2 sigur ros albums for xmas. Otherwise I usually buy one off amazon here and there, I like having a physical copy.

part time poster wrote:

Also, why do people still buy them?

I have recently bought an assortment of CDs. It's good to move to fixed income investments when nearing retirement. In the event of a down market, I don't have the investment timeline to makeup any losses!

Deeez Nuts wrote:

part time poster wrote:

Also, why do people still buy them?

Because they want to CDeez nuts

Came here to post this.

The rates on CD's have been very low. Maybe with Trump, once inflation sky rockets they may be worth buying.