> While agree with you, you haven't proved that this is due to a CD's objectively better sound quality. I hadn't intended to, as that would be impossible. My p

> While agree with you, you haven't proved that this is due to a CD's objectively better sound quality. I hadn't intended to, as that would be impossible. My point was more that "people preferred records and tapes for their flaws" is only clearly true of some early enthusiasts. And it was not my experience that tapes were much easier to damage. Tapes were relatively durable unless you pulled the actual tape out of the cassette — and even then you usually got away with just minor signal degradation. CDs were extremely vulnerable to scratching, any scratch could render them pretty much unlistenable, and they were fairly brittle with a wide, thin surface area.