4 ms·

If it's a preference, then that's perfectly reasonable as I already noted. People prefer Subway to French Laundry but you can't argue that Subway is "better".

by steven2012 11y ago

If it's a preference, then that's perfectly reasonable as I already noted. People prefer Subway to French Laundry but you can't argue that Subway is "better". And I believe you are wrong, in that most people, > 90% I would wager, WOULD prefer mathematically perfect sound quality. Are you too young to have witnessed how quickly records and cassettes died once CD technology became available to the masses? We went from always having to hear a humming from the background noise of the cassettes and records to almost perfect silence when the music wasn't playing. I wager most people if they listened to every single one of their songs played over record would prefer the sound quality that a CD brings to the table.

korethr 11y ago
I don't think people so much prefer mathematically perfect sound quality; people want convenient music. MP3s are less than the "mathematically perfect" quality of CDs, but far more convenient. A few hundred bucks spent on quality speakers and the quality difference between an MP3 file and a CD/WAV/FLAC will start to become apparent. But quality speakers aren't anywhere nearly as convenient as earbuds. Don't get me wrong, I love the bright sparkling highs and powerful rich lows a CD through a quality set of speakers can bring, which vinyl can't. But I can't take all my CDs and a pair of 3-way drivers and a subwoofer with me in my car, on the bus, on my bike, at work, while grocery shopping, etc. But I can conveniently achieve a reasonably good listening experience in those environments with my phone, a collection of MP3s and an aux cable or a pair of earbuds.
ams6110 11y ago
90% of people are not audiophiles. They just don't care that much about sound quality, as long as it's decent. Digital music sounds good, but it's also more convenient than records or cassettes or even CDs (who buys CDs anymore, for that matter?). Digital took over for that reason, mostly. The people who claim that vinyl sounds better than digital are using systems that cost tens of thousands of dollars. They sound VERY good and even if digital is provably "better" it's not a degree of distinction that many people would care about. Nobody claims that a $175 "turntable in a briefcase" from Urban Outfitters sounds better than digital music. Or if they do, they are deluded, I agree.
rsync 11y ago
"Are you too young to have witnessed how quickly records and cassettes died once CD technology became available to the masses? We went from always having to hear a humming from the background noise of the cassettes and records to almost perfect silence when the music wasn't playing." I did live through that transition. While I agree - then and now - that the sound quality was superior, it was the ability to random access songs on the album that excited me. That was groundbreaking - it was incredible! Better sound quality was just a bonus ... any song on the album, right this second, without having to do anything!

korethr 11y ago

I don't think people so much prefer mathematically perfect sound quality; people want convenient music. MP3s are less than the "mathematically perfect" quality of CDs, but far more convenient. A few hundred bucks spent on quality speakers and the quality difference between an MP3 file and a CD/WAV/FLAC will start to become apparent. But quality speakers aren't anywhere nearly as convenient as earbuds. Don't get me wrong, I love the bright sparkling highs and powerful rich lows a CD through a quality set of speakers can bring, which vinyl can't. But I can't take all my CDs and a pair of 3-way drivers and a subwoofer with me in my car, on the bus, on my bike, at work, while grocery shopping, etc. But I can conveniently achieve a reasonably good listening experience in those environments with my phone, a collection of MP3s and an aux cable or a pair of earbuds.

ams6110 11y ago

90% of people are not audiophiles. They just don't care that much about sound quality, as long as it's decent. Digital music sounds good, but it's also more convenient than records or cassettes or even CDs (who buys CDs anymore, for that matter?). Digital took over for that reason, mostly. The people who claim that vinyl sounds better than digital are using systems that cost tens of thousands of dollars. They sound VERY good and even if digital is provably "better" it's not a degree of distinction that many people would care about. Nobody claims that a $175 "turntable in a briefcase" from Urban Outfitters sounds better than digital music. Or if they do, they are deluded, I agree.

rsync 11y ago

"Are you too young to have witnessed how quickly records and cassettes died once CD technology became available to the masses? We went from always having to hear a humming from the background noise of the cassettes and records to almost perfect silence when the music wasn't playing." I did live through that transition. While I agree - then and now - that the sound quality was superior, it was the ability to random access songs on the album that excited me. That was groundbreaking - it was incredible! Better sound quality was just a bonus ... any song on the album, right this second, without having to do anything!