>There are people on this board who still buy CDs.
>Able to be played in your car
>Much cheaper
>Much more widely available
>Still get the collectibility factor and support the artist
>Paying fifty US dollars for a plastic disk with objectively poorer sound quality, requiring expensive manual setup just to play, and degrades physically every time you use it
For physical ownership, the compact disc is a patrician's choice.
They're cheaper than vinyl and can be easily ripped to my PC.
When you have financial priorities, you'll understand, OP.
CD plebeians are the worst. You can't hang a cd on your wall like you can a vinyl sleeve.
>>72569253
excellent satire on the modern day vinyl "user"
>>72569168
ITT poorfags with no in-car bluetooth
Vinyl if it really means something. Digital if otherwise. But CDs? Never.
>>72569098
Some of the albums that I've discovered in the last few years had no uploads and were not available to purchase on iTunes or anything. So I bought the CD.
Only Japanese CDs complete with obi strips and extended liner notes are worth having.
>>72569168
You know if you buy vinyl you normally get the files too right? Still you can buy digital and then burn copies for cheap if you have an old stereo in your car.
>>72569168
I also personally prefer CD copies for personal ownership, but you're a god-damn idiot if you think that CDs do not slightly deteriorate with regular use.
[insert stinging rebuke of the medium as visible in the CD release of Big Black's The Rich Man's Eight Track Tape, which I don't actually personally agree with but which is on-topic for this bread]
>>72569509
agreed. If I want superior sound quality I'll get digital. If I want something collectible I'll get vinyl.
>>72569098
CDs are the patrician choice. Rip to FLAC and then have a hard copy back up. There are a lot of material that is not available in digital.
Vinyl is for pretentious cunts.
>>72570565
>HDD dies
>>72569098
le condescending man