bit_user Ogotai said: yet some prefer physical media… even record sales have been increasing… i have looked at records, and i cant justify the $10-20+ price gap between records and cds.. if given the option, id grab the cd, even though the record version does sound a little better… I bought a few CDs, over the past year. I have never owned a record player and don't expect that to change. Also, never owned anything tube-based. Vinyl is an inferior format, in just about every way. Distortion added by the EQ curve has been credited for any perceived difference in sound, which is an effect that a producer should be able to simulate on digital formats, if that's what they really want. I could also believe some vinyl albums are mixed a little differently than CDs or streaming. I find it hilarious that cassette tapes even had a minor revival! That's just pure nostalgia. Nothing particularly good about them. Reply
Ogotai bit_user said: Vinyl is an inferior format, in just about every way ive heard quite a few prefer vinyl, cause it sounds " warmer " than digital media.. like cds. i listed to shania's come on over on cd, and record, while similar.. i found the vinyl does sound a little different.. but needing 4 records for the one album, vs on cd.. a reason to stick with the cd 🙂 Reply
Findecanor bit_user said: Vinyl is an inferior format, in just about every way. IMHO the best things with vinyl have nothing to do with sound quality or ease of use. The discs came in large cardboard sleeves, that encouraged the artists to create elaborate cover art. The experience of looking at the sleeve, or even inside an album , was sometimes just as important as listening to the music. You got a feeling of what the artist/s looked like, and sometimes the lyrics were printed there. Also, some discs were picture discs, with art not just on the centre label but on the disc itself. When CD's came along, you got a small front and a small back of the case, and everything else was stuffed into a flimsy leaflet stuck in-between plastic tabs, and which often got ripped. And don't underestimate the user experience of having physical media. The human animal was made to live in a physical universe: whenever we think about things on the computer we do so by imagining physical objects. We enjoy touching things. Reply
bit_user Findecanor said: Also, some discs were picture discs, with art not just on the centre label but on the disc itself. CDs have an entire side that can be covered with paint. Findecanor said: When CD's came along, you got a small front and a small back of the case, and everything else was stuffed into a flimsy leaflet stuck in-between plastic tabs, and which often got ripped. Oh, I have plenty of CDs that had fancy packaging and not the ordinary jewel box! CDs originally came in big, cardboard boxes that were more than twice as tall as the actual jewel case. I guess this was to deter theft or maybe so they didn't sit low in bins designed to hold 12" records. When I was a kid, I'd cut out some of the graphics and logos from these and tape them on my binders. Here are some examples: https://www.reddit.com/r/nostalgia/comments/17vvqac/when_cds_came_in_long_boxes/ In case you're unfamiliar with them, they had the jewel box inside of the top half. So, they had the same width and thickness as the jewel box. The bottom half was usually just empty. Edit: here's a bunch more: https://longbox.tumblr.com/ Oh, and if you think CDs were bad for album art, have you seen cassette tape cases? CDs were definitely a step up from those! In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the "clear plastic case with printed artwork" format actually got its start with cassette tapes. Findecanor said: And don't underestimate the user experience of having physical media. The human animal was made to live in a physical universe: whenever we think about things on the computer we do so by imagining physical objects. We enjoy touching things. I think that's why some Millennials and Gen Z gravitated towards vinyl. I get it. I'm just saying it's not a great format. Reply
bit_user usertests said: And of course, there were 50 GB dual-layer discs, and later UHD Blu-ray as its own format with H.265 and up to 100 GB discs. UHD supports the same 25 GB and 50 GB media as the original blu-ray standard. It's mainly the codecs that changed with the UHD standard. Edit: the wikipedia article states that UHD blu-ray physical media is different in the 66 GB and 100 GB capacities than BDXL. So, I guess that part was new. Reply
Key considerations
- Investor positioning can change fast
- Volatility remains possible near catalysts
- Macro rates and liquidity can dominate flows
Reference reading
- https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/storage/SPONSORED_LINK_URL
- https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/storage/blu-ray-hits-20-optical-disc-format-was-introduced-to-the-public-at-ces-2006#main
- https://www.tomshardware.com
- Cheers to AI: ADAM Robot Bartender Makes Drinks at Vegas Golden Knights Game
- PC Fan Faceoff: Can Arctic's $7 P12 Pro compete with the $40 Noctua NF-A12x25 G2?
- Dev uses Claude AI to write a ‘functional NES emulator’ — you can test it now, playing Donkey Kong in your browser
- Corsair cancels $240 48GB DDR5 memory kit orders due to pricing error — company’s blunder ignites shopper uproar over botched RAM deal
- Microsoft silently kills Windows and Office phone activation and forces online activation with a Microsoft account — Windows users are now herded into an online
Informational only. No financial advice. Do your own research.