CD Noob Here: Are CD's anymore HQ than online files?

Since there seems to be a lot of misleading and erroneous information on this thread, and since you seem to not be too knowledgeable about the levels of sound quality, i'll put it in basic layman's terms:

If you have an SACD player, the SACD layer on such a disc will give you a sound that is comparable to a hi-rez file on HD Tracks, Pono, or some other place that sells them.

A CD will compare to a redbook download that you can get from Pono or 7-digital, or stream from Tidal.

Spotify streams lossy sound. That is comparable to the sound you can download from Amazon and 7-digital, or even iTunes.

There is no telling what Spotify streams in terms of mastering. One could assume that the record labels provide them with the latest and greatest mastering of any given title. Same with Tidal.

There are other streaming services like Napster or iTunes. The sound quality of whatever source they use will be compromised by the fact that that the stream is lossy. They usually don't stream lossless because of the bandwidth required, and most consumers don't know and don't care too much about sound quality issues like we do.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

 

Thank you. I understand that much. I've also done some more of my own technical research.

 

320kbps files on my system are enough to fool most people, and I actually play quite a bit of 320kbps stuff, but I don't like going any lower than that, unless it's all I have of a certain title (The difference starts becoming obvious when you dip below 320kbps, and I find I'm mostly-avoiding anything lower, unless it's the only one i have and I'm just itching to hear it). 128kbps or even 192kbps are just unacceptable on a good system or any headphone setup IMO. You're losing half your depth when you drop it to 160kbps (all other things being equal), so look at it that way, I guess.

You CAN buck the curve a fair amount with that variable format where the bitrate increases where needed and decreases where it can get away with it. In other words, it increases during more-complex passages and decreases during, say, a quiet acoustic guitar section where there isn't a whole lot going on in the song (or whatever's on the file in question). That's something to consider, I guess, if any of those online services use variable-rate streaming (Do they? ... I honestly don't have a clue... I think I've downloaded one, maybe two songs from Amazon in my life... As soon as I saw that it was mp3 stuff in the 200's range, I split and never looked back... You end up paying as much/nearly as much for a CD's worth of music at less than half the bitrate... Better off just buying the disc, online or elsewhere).

Whether on my home setup or listening to headphones and an mp3-type player, I prefer to keep it at 320kbps or higher whenever possible (I quite enjoy 320 files, as long as they're properly-ripped/streamed). These days, with the point I'm at with my hi fi gear as well as my ears, anything lower than 320kbps just becomes too obvious/noticeable. With my OCD, I'll just drive myself nuts trying to enjoy a 128kbps file. What's the standard bitrate for most of those online services these days? The non-premium feed, I mean.

This is why the mastering quality is so important. I would much rather listen to a 320kbps mp3 of a well-mastered CD than a lossless copy (same title/album, say, a different pressing) where the mastering quality was noticeably (to me) inferior, and that's the truth, although I probably obsess over that part of it more than a lot of people. Maybe not. Who knows. Yeah, I guess I probably do.

 

Regarding hi-res, as far as I'm concerned, it's all about the mastering quality. I love blu-ray stuff, and SACD as well as hi res downloads are both great, but there are so many other factors to consider. IMO, even the mastering gear itself puts it's own fingerprints on the resulting CD, SACD, blu-ray, or whatever. If it's an analog recording, the tape machine used during the mastering process, along with a whole bunch of other gear that plays a part, and then of course you have the mastering engineer and the moves he makes. They all have an effect. You might notice how certain CD's, say, the old Warner CD's from the '80's and early '90's, have a kind of signature sound to them. There are more factors involved than I can even keep track. And that's BEFORE we even start talking about bitrate. But it's all important.

 

It's not entirely accurate to say it all comes down to mastering.

If you took the same master, it would be far superior as (well cut) vinyl or 24bit 192kHz digital than other format. A CD (16/44100) would be no match.

 

So true.

 

As far as what I can hear is concerned, 128, 160, 192, and 256 kbps is unacceptable on any type of player, including in the car.