Not to be contrarian or anything (I considered myself an audiophile when I was in my twenties and thrities and still own much of the fruits of that conviction), but a CD is specified to create a linear response from 0 to 22500 Hz - 16bit 44.1kHz format, to be exact. Don't get me wrong: I love the analogue signal chain - but compression is usually the fault of the producer, not the medium in this case. I own quite a few very well produced CDs that fully exploit what the specification demands. What *is* true is that a lot of productions have purposefully - and digitally - been compressed and lost much of their potential in order to become what is considered more "pleasing" to the ear (i.e. usually just louder and blanter overall). Very annoying! However, to get at the true potential from a high-end analogue setup, you need to invest some serious money - up to a low five-digit price range, good digitally based equipment is usually competitive in my experience; always assuming high quality sources, of course. But again, I'm not looking for a fight here - enjoy what you love!View attachment 318826
The physical end of so many hours of bliss (Grado, on a Thorens TD 2001). With the Raynox 250.
Whoever thinks what comes over mp3-players is music ought to have an ear-check. When you listen to music that is neither limited in frequency (CDs e. g. at 10.000 Herz) nor in dynamics (on CDs and radio usually limited down to 40% of the total dynamic range) you come close to real live music with all its overtones and dynamics that make up the soul of music ... pure bliss.
Of course I also listen to music on an iPod when travelling and it's good to have one's favourites in such a handy format, but most of it in CD quality or Apple lossless.