Who Still Buys Physical Formats (CD, DVD-A, BD, SACD, vinyl)?Music

[Omnis]

Is sacd capable of extended dynamic range? Because this one had full range

 

[Turtle]

Couldn't tell you; I'm not even sure what you mean by "extended dynamic range", sorry. All I can do for you is confirm that there is a noticeable difference in sound quality that I'm pretty certain isn't my imagination.

That, and tell you that there are 6 channels rather than just 2.

I'm pretty sure that's not what you're looking for though.

 

[Sprite]

XRCD vs SACD isn't really a good comparison as XRCD has the same resolution in terms of audio at 16bit, 44.1kHz as a redbook CD. It's down to the way JVC developed the process of creating the disc from the master. This allows for a lot lower BLER (Block Error Rate) compared to CD. A CD is about 220 (that's a good CD) and XRCD is about 20.

I personally can't attest for the sound quality of XRCD as they aren't as common as SACD and I've never had the pleasure of hearing anything so I yield in this instance to those that have. I can however state that SACD is much better than a CD and sounds more open and has clearer placement of instruments etc.

People who have had the chance to compare XRCD with SACD say that it all depends on one thing. The master. Dependant on this factor if you have a XRCD from the original analogue tapes and a SACD created from an inferior digital master then the XRCD will sound better.

Also for those who feel higher bit rates like the new HD Audio formats are superior this article is an interesting one

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[Moglet]

I still buy CDs regularly and I never buy films on anything but Blu-Ray or DVD. The reason? A slow internet connection. Living in rural area it's impossible to download movies and I can only just about stream in low quality SD. It takes me a long time to download even a basic album. This is the issue I have with companies trying to do the always online thing; they forget that not everybody has a super fast fibre connection!

 

[BobK]

Soundwise, any digital format could be described as cold or clinical compared to analog, which is much fuller/richer and warmer.

I've heard claims like this before. I'd dearly love to see a double blind test to see if anyone at all really can distinguish between digital and analog recording.

Is this "much fuller/richer" a result of the inherent distortion in analog media?

Actually this reminds me of the vacuum tube/transistor debate from a while back, with some swearing they could distinguish between tube and transistor amps by the "richer and warmer" sound from the tube equipment.

 

[Turtle]

XRCD vs SACD isn't really a good comparison as XRCD has the same resolution in terms of audio at 16bit, 44.1kHz as a redbook CD. It's down to the way JVC developed the process of creating the disc from the master. This allows for a lot lower BLER (Block Error Rate) compared to CD. A CD is about 220 (that's a good CD) and XRCD is about 20.

I personally can't attest for the sound quality of XRCD as they aren't as common as SACD and I've never had the pleasure of hearing anything so I yield in this instance to those that have. I can however state that SACD is much better than a CD and sounds more open and has clearer placement of instruments etc.

People who have had the chance to compare XRCD with SACD say that it all depends on one thing. The master. Dependant on this factor if you have a XRCD from the original analogue tapes and a SACD created from an inferior digital master then the XRCD will sound better.

Also for those who feel higher bit rates like the new HD Audio formats are superior this article is an interesting one

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

You're blowing my mind with all this, I hardly understand any of it. I think I should try and find an XRCD copy of an album I like. Unless one needs some weird player for it to work, that is. Or if it's really pricey.

 

[Anomaly]

I've heard claims like this before. I'd dearly love to see a double blind test to see if anyone at all really can distinguish between digital and analog recording.

Is this "much fuller/richer" a result of the inherent distortion in analog media?

Actually this reminds me of the vacuum tube/transistor debate from a while back, with some swearing they could distinguish between tube and transistor amps by the "richer and warmer" sound from the tube equipment.

I've done blind comparisons with friends & family, syncing up CD & vinyl versions and putting the people in headphones, turned away from the equipment. Not only have the majority been able to tell the difference, but I have never had anyone prefer the CD. It's not due to distortion, it's due to gaps in the material on digital. The best way to visualize a digital recording is to think of it like the resolution on a TV screen. When one draws a diagonal line, it is not perfectly straight, but is jagged, with steps. Because the technology is what it is, there will always be pixels, so a diagonal line will always have these gaps/steps, no matter how small the steps or high the resolution. Digital sound is the same. It is recorded with steps. Each step, no matter how small represents missing information. This results in a thinner sound. So analog isn't artificially full, digital is thin due to it's nature. DVD-Audio and SACD have higher "resolutions" so they sound much better, but neither can match the smooth, continuously variable characteristic of analog.

 

[BobK]

I'm familiar with digital/analog conversion, the "staircase effect", etc, but I can't imagine what those gaps might be that you speak of. You're aware that the digital sampling rate is 41,000 KHz which is more than double the upper limit of human hearing, correct?

Might be interesting to compare the waveforms at the speakers/headset with a decent oscilloscope.

I should mention that your "blind" comparisons weren't double blind tests.

 

[Sprite]

What Anomaly is trying to say is the sample rate appears as a stair step but this is miss-interpretation of sample theory. This is explained in the link I provided.

This is a good article showing the problems with jitter and errors of CDs and how they affect the sound, or don't as the case may be.

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/590jitter/index.html

People feel you need higher and higher it rates to make the music sound closer to Analogue, this is not true. The human hearing range spans 20Hz to 20kHz so why bother with files that go way beyond what the human ear is capable off? There isn't any, plus in most instances the frequencies can be counter productive to sound reproduction introducing artefacts etc. This is again explained in the link.

Now in another thread I've sung the praises of HD audio and preached its vinyl like quality and after reading this previously linked article telling me I was wrong I wasn't sure what I was hearing was a placebo effect caused by my need to have it sound better. I can however say that to my ears HD audio does sound better to me than a CD and much closer to what I hear from a record, so close in fact I can't wait to get a new deck rigged to my new HiFi and play 4 different versions of the same album and see/hear what is going.

Blind tests will give you a good idea of what people think of a sound reproduction but regrettably there are too many variables to make it fair to both formats. I've heard records being played on some of the best turntables and into high money systems to some of the worlds best speakers, like Omnis at an audio show and local dealers. These records have such a low noise floor and are so clean in presentation you'd swear they were a digital source. The thing is, even though it had the benefits of what digital brings (low noise floor and no pops and clicks etc) it was still inherently analogue and sounded nice and smooth.

I believe there are people who listen to enough music and they can tell, this is then a burden because your analytical mind doesn't switch off and can just ruin a relaxing hour or two of music. This isn't down to having superior hearing but down to hours of studying sound and listening to music. My sound production tutor at uni had amazing ears from his years of experience and really was amazing at his job, but he couldn't enjoy music anymore. This was his first statement made to class when we started, to point out that unless you look for the mistakes and poor audio engineering in your work others will do it for you.

Back to topic.

I also buy physical copies of movies and TV shows, because like Moglet being in the UK sucks with internet quality and speeds, streaming isn't an option and downloading a movie from say iTunes isn't going to happen quickly so isn't a real option for a spear of the moment thing.

 

[LeMansAid]

If it's listening to music in the dark while drunk, I've been doing double blind tests for years.

 

[Blank_Redge]

I prefer physical media, because it's less volatile than digital.

Not to say that physical media is infallible, but I feel it's less susceptible to degradation / errors than digital.

 

[Azuremen]

I prefer physical media, because it's less volatile than digital.

Not to say that physical media is infallible, but I feel it's less susceptible to degradation / errors than digital.

Not to be rude, but that makes no sense. A digital, lossless file isn't going to just degrade over time. CD's, on the other hand, clearly degrade over time and vinyl can be damaged fairly easily.

Of course, this hasn't kept me from getting in vinyl recently as I love the artwork and the peculiar sound analog brings, whether or not it is "superior" in terms of quality.

 

[Blank_Redge]

Not to be rude, but that makes no sense. A digital, lossless file isn't going to just degrade over time.

No worries; no offense taken. I'm thinking more by way of your hard drive up and dying on you, or the file otherwise getting corrupted.

Again, not to say that physical media is bulletproof (as it clearly isn't,) but it's less likely that one day, out of the blue, your physical media won't play.

 

[BobK]

No worries; no offense taken. I'm thinking more by way of your hard drive up and dying on you, or the file otherwise getting corrupted.

Again, not to say that physical media is bulletproof (as it clearly isn't,) but it's less likely that one day, out of the blue, your physical media won't play.

Actually it's certain that one day my physical media won't play. On the other hand, my digital collection is about to make its third major migration to another hard drive, and I don't expect a single bit to change; this is not including the recent upgrade to my backup medium. With care I see no reason why my digital collection wouldn't last indefinitely.

 

[Blank_Redge]

Actually it's certain that one day my physical media won't play. On the other hand, my digital collection is about to make its third major migration to another hard drive, and I don't expect a single bit to change; this is not including the recent upgrade to my backup medium. With care I see no reason why my digital collection wouldn't last indefinitely.

...whaaaat?? People being prudent, and actually backing up their data? Inconceivable!

 

[Liquid]

Both.

There's nothing quite like sifting through a CD rack, a VHS rack, a DVD rack, a games rack or a book shelf and picking things up and evaluating them. A great afternoon is a trip to the high street with some like-minded friends and trying to find that obscure power metal album and such.

I'm quite proud of my 'disc' collection and my books / comic collection. Its tangibility makes my room look impressive and entertaining. The only difficulty I have is that I move house quite a bit, and having lots of these things sure is heavy. Plus, box rot does become an issue so a digital copy for backup is common sense.

 

[BKGlover]

After putting my CD collection on my computer and listening to the old ones and new ones I'd bought but not loaded, I can safely say that unless I like more than 3/4 of any album, greatest hits or not, I'll be buying digital almost exclusively from here on. I now have about $60 in new CDs I will probably not think about playing for a long time, and maybe half is worth it.

 

[Azuremen]

I'm quite proud of my 'disc' collection and my books / comic collection. Its tangibility makes my room look impressive and entertaining. The only difficulty I have is that I move house quite a bit, and having lots of these things sure is heavy. Plus, box rot does become an issue so a digital copy for backup is common sense.

People often comment on my books, and now vinyls as I slowly build that up. I scaled back on picking up physical copies of movies and my games are pretty much reserved to a handful of PS3 titles and then a collection of SNES games.

Also dreading the next move with the audio setup I've recently pieced together

 

[JockeP22]

I prefer physical formats. Something you can actually hold and look at.

I love going through my parents vinyl records and I have a medium-sized
collection of vinyls myself at this point.

My CD collection is up in triple digits and maybe even closing in on four digits.
A while back I took some of the CD booklets and made this for one of my walls;

 

[AlexDB9]

All entertainment in the near future will be in the cloud as well as in flash memory. See if you can overturn that, neo-luddites.

 

[TexRex]

I'm a fervent CDer. While my purchasing has slowed the past several years, I still have a vast collection of CDs that I regularly flip through, and I've got some oddities on vinyl (that I've digitized, mind you) that I still play on occasion. I've also still got the first CD I ever bought--and it's still playable.

 

[Samus]

I see the positives to both. I like to buy physical because I still enjoy holding the product, seeing the artwork and whatever nice packaging is on offer. On the other hand it's hard to ignore the benefits of digital. I can have all of my music, ready to listen to, in one place. All of my DVDs with TV shows and stuff, it's far easier to have them ripped on a HDD and play them easily. No need to choose which series to put on, switch discs for a different TV show, they are all there.Especially handy when you feel like going on a binge watch of something.

I will always buy physical as long as they exist but likewise I will reap the benefits of digital.

I don't BUY digital except for when no physical version exists.

 

[Frenzyhero]

edit

 

[Samus]

I don't keep a digital back-up of my movies because they aren't something you watch all the time and when you do, it's just one disc, so not really any hassle. For stuff like TV shows though, having them all on a hard drive that I can just plug into my TV directly and watch any episode, I can't deny how convenient that is.

Plus when you only have the one device for media and games like I do (PS3) it's convenient again not having to keep swapping game discs with DVDs, as I used to do if I watched some DVDs the night before and then want to play a game.

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

My CD collection is up in triple digits and maybe even closing in on four digits.
A while back I took some of the CD booklets and made this for one of my walls;

View attachment 460212
View attachment 460213

I'm going to steal this idea. This is great!

 

[Robin]

For movies, tv shows and games yes I still buy physical, for music not so much anymore but I do feel its much better when you get something tangible for your money.

 

[JerseyDriverSS]

Vinyl all day everyday.

 

[TexRex]

get something tangible for your money

That's the big thing for me. And, believe me, it's tough sometimes--space is an issue.

 

[Nothingface]

Everything in my collection is cd/vinyl bar a few out of print or rare albums that i simply couldn't find anywhere.
I always spend time with the artwork and liner notes when i purchase something new.
Used to be the same with computer games when they all had decent booklets.

 

[Northstar]

Here's my current vinyl collection, I haven't added much lately as I'm saving for my own place.