People are crazy for vinyl, but CDs are just _so_ convenient.
The CD was so clean and clear but not in a robotic way. (I don't think this album had fallen victim to the loudness war either, fwiw.) Whereas the record sounded "warm" but also a little muddy and quiet (not in a good way) in comparison. I know there could be any number of reasons for this but that's also part of the problem. Was my setup dialed in and this is how it was supposed to sound? Or, was the table not flat? Was the needle dirty? Was the tracking force off? Yes, it's fun to tweak these variables but ... it's also fun to just listen to music that sounds excellent with zero effort.
I've started buying CDs again (to my spouse's chagrin) and have no regrets. I do need to start ripping them before discrot comes for them. For anyone in the market, library sales are an excellent option to, essentially, buy CDs by the pound. They also often have rare compilations and anthologies that you won't find in thrift stores.
Sure, I'll buy that: Aluminum and oxygen are great friends that love eachothers' company, and on a long-enough timeline here in Earth's atmosphere they'll always be reunited.
But how does that timeline compare to that of a human? Or even of the compact disc itself (a bit over 42 years old now)?
I mean: At least anecdotally, I have never discovered rot on any of my CDs that did not also have other contributing condition issues. I haven't even experienced the once-reported issues of air-dried, solvent-based (instead of UV-cured) inks. (And although my sample set is not infinite, it is also not particularly small.)
cds are both younger and built better, so they will not only last to a later absolute date, they will last longer relative to their manufacturing date, but cds have a few other things that mask rot even when it starts, which is both that they are digital and the player has buffering and interpolation, and also that the data format includes redundant data for error correction. (ld is analog and has neither, later better players do add some digital processing but it can't do the kind of good job with a 6mhz analog fm ntsc video signal that a cd player can with a simple audio bitstream)
A cd with the same rot that is visible on a ld (visible in the output not visible to the eye on the physical disc) will appear to play perfectly even in the cheapest junk player.
So, it will take longer, but I see no reason to treat "longer" as "indefinite".
There is no specific time, but it is inevitable and I don't think it's in the 100's of years but in the 10's of years, and the 10's of years, especially when many are already 30 years old, is not very many more 10's of years left.
And if that turns out to be pessimistic and they last another 50 or more? That's just a bonus. Lucky future rippers who get a chance to rip with even better tech later.
Tangentially I do also assume that some day long before the polycarbonate disintigrates, there will be a practical way to read even fully oxidized discs with a different frequency laser or even a camera or microscope-based head, or even a bulk scanner that just rasterizes the whole surface without even bothering to read the track in a spiral until after the fact purely in software.
As time goes on, tools get both better and more accessible, so in 1995 it would not be possible for a person to make their own laser head, but today it probably is, and in only a few more years will just get easier and easier, and probably at a rate that outruns the rate at which the discs fully degrade.
These were stored in the case in my home, mostly coastal California, no severe environmental conditions.
Disc rot of pressed CDs seems rare, I don't think I've seen it on other discs, but if it happened to me, it's definitely a thing.
Also discrot is only a problem if you don't keep your CDs in a case, or if the case is made entirely of transparent acrylic and you lost the labels and teh little booklet. They're very reliable when properly protected from scratches and radiation.
I feel like I might be punished for stepping out of line here but CDs sound better than vinyl too.
Vinyl does theoretically have a better s/n ratio, but you can only see this in perfect setups, including a new needle in your player. Even then after just a handful of plays and vinyl is worn enough to be worse (I've heard of laser based vinyl plays which don't wear the media - I have no idea if they are real or how they compare to CDs, but I need to acknowledge them because they might be different enough to matter)
It will likely sound at least just as good as a similarly treated CD, but I doubt that it will approach the S/N ratio of a properly mastered CD.
CD has by default a perfect 0 noise floor, whereas vinyl will never have that, and typically has a pretty high noise floor, meaning that even a good vinyl press will never have the same noise floor as the same recording placed on CD.
I said all of that to say, to me vinyl is appreciable for its flaws compared to CD. Vinyl is mastered to a different spec than CDs are (when its done properly), and it can sometimes add to the experience because the mastering and pressing process focuses on different frequencies.
Aside from that, the fact that each time you listen to a vinyl record it changes in subtle ways, bits of dust get moved around, atomic scratches get worn into the surface, meaning that every listen is completely unique, ever so slightly different than any other time that album or any other similar pressing has been played.
That is one of the thoughts I enjoy when listening to vinyl that makes it likeable, a little more special to me when it crosses my mind.
Digital is almost always the same. Analog is always different.