[TONEPUB]

Im with you Scott...

So far my oldest CD's play fine.  No probs yet!  Keeping fingers crossed!

[FullRangeMan]

CD rot is a slow process, seems there is plenty of time to be made a copy of a rotted CD to CD-R, which cost is very low.

[Delta Wave]

I've had quite a few CDs that succumbed to aging. People seem to forget the signal area is on top of the CD, protected only by a thin layer of lacquer and an even thinner layer of ink.   

[FullRangeMan]

I've had quite a few CDs that succumbed to aging. People seem to forget the signal area is on top of the CD, protected only by a thin layer of lacquer and an even thinner layer of ink.

Seems you live underwater. My city is humid all the autumn and winter and I never lost any cd to mould or cd rotten, since my first cd in 1985(J.J.Cale/Troubadour).
CDs has 4 layers, but vinyl data area is protected by nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CD_layers.svg&page=1

[Guy 13]

Seems you live underwater. My city is humid all the autumn and winter and I never lost any cd to mould or cd rotten, since my first cd in 1985(J.J.Cale/Troubadour).
CDs has 4 layers, but vinyl data area is protected by nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CD_layers.svg&page=1

Hi FULLRANGEMAN and all Audio Circle members.

I agree with you 100% especially after reading the info on Wikipedia.

I have CDs from the early beginning of the digital era
and now they have spent 17 years in Vietnam
with a humidity between 50 to 75% all year round,
they are still (Almost) perfect.

I think you can damage more the CD by scratching them
with bad handling and storage.

Guy 13

[neobop]

Ever hear a CD skip or pop?  What about tracks that won't play?  More common than you might think.

http://www.ibechris.com/music/growing-defective-cd-epidemic-fontana-distribution-sony-legacy-music-bun-b/

http://forums.slimdevices.com/archive/index.php/t-22115.html

http://www.amazon.com/Defective-CD-in-box-set/forum/Fx127162WVMPJO3/Tx31EYUNIKOAWZS/1?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B005DKLPQ0

http://forums.bestbuy.com/t5/Best-Buy-Geek-Squad-Policies/defective-music-cd/td-p/89641

http://speakeasy.jazzcorner.com/speakeasy/showthread.php?31012-3-Defective-ECM-cds-in-1-month!!!!

[FullRangeMan]

A nice extensive reseach, mispressed discs is common to all formats.
As a laser reading made no noise itself, any noise came from the master, usually in analogue tape.

[neobop]

A nice extensive reseach, mispressed discs is common to all formats.
As a laser reading made no noise itself, any noise came from the master, usually in analogue tape.

Sure, blame it on analog, LOL.  The problem is the digital transfer.  Analog master tapes don't have pops that nearly blow your speakers. If they have a defect it should have been dealt with in digital mastering.  Some of the problem is newer multi-format players not being able to read the CD properly.  The CD is a seriously flawed medium.  The disc spins at 200 to 500rpm.  That's an accident waiting to happen.  Jitter bug anyone? 

The CD is going extinct anyway.  Sales keep dropping and sales of records are increasing.  That's because records and record players are fun.  You can actually read the liner notes and have something tangible.  The effort it takes to clean a record and set it up has a direct reward in natural, continuous sound, not a sliced and diced unreasonable imitation.  Part of this hobby is pursuit. Newbies and old heads alike, enjoy the upgrade process, learning and having the satisfaction of listening to a magnificent machine, making natural sounding music and hearing it get better.  If you think all records are hissy and full of clicks and pops and skips, you don't have a clue.

Some people spend big bucks on record players because they get a direct return on their investment.  Some people also feel that no digital media has the sound potential of analog, not at this point in time.  If you disagree, fine, but I'll remind you that this is the vinyl circle. 
neo

[FullRangeMan]

Sure, blame it on analog, LOL.  The problem is the digital transfer.  Analog master tapes don't have pops that nearly blow your speakers. If they have a defect it should have been dealt with in digital mastering.  Some of the problem is newer multi-format players not being able to read the CD properly.  The CD is a seriously flawed medium.  The disc spins at 200 to 500rpm.  That's an accident waiting to happen.  Jitter bug anyone? 

The CD is going extinct anyway.  Sales keep dropping and sales of records are increasing.  That's because records and record players are fun.  You can actually read the liner notes and have something tangible.  The effort it takes to clean a record and set it up has a direct reward in natural, continuous sound, not a sliced and diced unreasonable imitation.  Part of this hobby is pursuit. Newbies and old heads alike, enjoy the upgrade process, learning and having the satisfaction of listening to a magnificent machine, making natural sounding music and hearing it get better.  If you think all records are hissy and full of clicks and pops and skips, you don't have a clue.

Some people spend big bucks on record players because they get a direct return on their investment.  Some people also feel that no digital media has the sound potential of analog, not at this point in time.  If you disagree, fine, but I'll remind you that this is the vinyl circle. 
neo

CD is a low def media by Philips fault, 16/44 is a low sampling rate, in reality it barelly works, and that brick wall filter at 22kHz made the treble bad.

If one wish a hi def digital format that use analogue wave form, there is only one choice: SACD or DSD files, unfortunately SACDs recorded in low def analogue or digital also sound bad by the huge res capability of the SACD format.
SACDs discs spin at over 1000rpm.  I see both CD and vinyl in a dead way in the future, just after the current fans died.
Thanks for the patience anyway.

[Bob2]

Myself I like vinyl and digital. Have been playing records for 55 years or so. Digital is pretty good now so no reason not to enjoy it.
There is just something about "Playing a record".
It's nice to kick back and have a cocktail while enjoying those familiar pops and occasional skips.
(should never have let my kids use my lp's).

[Delta Wave]

Seems you live underwater. My city is humid all the autumn and winter and I never lost any cd to mould or cd rotten, since my first cd in 1985(J.J.Cale/Troubadour).
CDs has 4 layers, but vinyl data area is protected by nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CD_layers.svg&page=1

Yes, but layers B & D are barely a 5th of layer C. Layer B is essentially non-existent as it's only a layer of aluminum plasma for reflectivity. And in production, the aluminum "targets" are used way past their life expectancy. The more light you can see through a CD while holding it up to a source, the more errors you're going to experience during playback.

I wouldn't put too much stock in in Wikipedia as a finite source of reference, it's always very vague and tends to omit pertinent information. If you really want to learn about optical media, here's the industry bible.

http://www.amazon.com/Compact-Handbook-Computer-Digital-Series/dp/0895793008

It was our #1 reference source even back in the early 1990s, when I worked in the industry.

[kevin360]

The effort it takes to clean a record and set it up has a direct reward in natural, continuous sound, not a sliced and diced unreasonable imitation.

I've long wondered why some folks make such a big deal about digital sampling.
Would it trouble you to learn that your perceptual sampling rate is even lower than redbook CD?
Even worse, the various features (amplitude, pitch, etc) of sound are processed separately (works the same way for vision).

IMO, it's not so much a matter of format as how well it's engineered. I have plenty of examples of both mediums which sound superb, as well as lots of crappy sounding examples of both.

Personally, I prefer to play neither. I've never enjoyed listening to music quite as much as I do with my Bryston BDP-1. That, I imagine is the future (the near future, anyway) of music playback and I embrace it gleefully.

[bummrush]

It's all in the recording.the source which everybody refers to isn't  a amp ,preamp its the recording

[neobop]

I've long wondered why some folks make such a big deal about digital sampling.
Would it trouble you to learn that your perceptual sampling rate is even lower than redbook CD?
Even worse, the various features (amplitude, pitch, etc) of sound are processed separately (works the same way for vision).

IMO, it's not so much a matter of format as how well it's engineered. I have plenty of examples of both mediums which sound superb, as well as lots of crappy sounding examples of both.

Personally, I prefer to play neither. I've never enjoyed listening to music quite as much as I do with my Bryston BDP-1. That, I imagine is the future (the near future, anyway) of music playback and I embrace it gleefully.

Good for you. I hope you enjoy your BDP-1.

You can toss that bit-rate info based on perception, out the window.  Doctors have measured physiological responses to signals well beyond 20KHz.  Adequate redbook bandwidth is always limited 20 to 22K for digital coding/decoding.  There are receptors in the human ear that correspond to 100KHz.  Just because we don't consciously hear it, doesn't mean we don't perceive it. 

http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full

neo

[twitch54]

There are receptors in the human ear that correspond to 100KHz.  Just because we don't consciously hear it, doesn't mean we don't perceive it. 

Cool...........I'll be on the lookout for 'Dog whistles - Greates Hits' LP !!!

[TONEPUB]

 So why do you guys always argue about this?

[kevin360]

So why do you guys always argue about this?

Who is arguing? I merely made a point and asked a question. The reply had little or nothing to do with either, but I still don't read it as an argument. Hell, if anything, that article makes a case for digital. The text of the article suggests making a case for SACD was the reason the study was conducted. The BDP-1 that I mentioned supports up to 24/192, which yields that kind of bandwidth – and vinyl mastering shelves at 25KHz, no? Hey, what kind of source was used in the study? Yep, it was digital.

Please don't take any of the forgoing as an ugly argument either - not my intention. I love vinyl - been listening to records for over 40 years. I did, however, relocate my turntable to my secondary system. I'm using it right now - listening to Crack the Sky's 'Safety in Numbers'. Until we have the means for direct cortical delivery, I don't think we'll ever be fooled into thinking it's the real thing, but both analog and digital are close enough for enjoying great music.

Well, that's my two cents worth, anyway.

[neobop]

Kevin,
Your mistake is in equating digital bit rate with the speed of neurons firing.  One has nothing to do with the other.  Your brain is not digitizing the audio, then reconstructing it.

It has long been known by medical researchers that there is physiological response to both ultrasonic and subsonic sounds.  That Japanese study conveniently appeared with a quick search.  Regardless of intent, it is definitive in showing response to ultrasonic content.  There are quite a few studies with deaf people that show response to sound impacting on various parts of the body, even the cornea of the eye. 
If you've been into it for over 40 years, you might be pleased to know that people with age related hearing loss and a history of music listening, can often consciously perceive musical content beyond the frequency range of their loss.  This has been documented also and happens with both familiar and unfamiliar musical content.  Some of these people become even more sensitive to high frequencies anomalies, than people w/o significant hearing loss.

You know how you walk into a house and hear music coming from another room, and you can always tell if it's live or not?  I have heard a system that might fool you, if you didn't already know.  With a good recording it was uncanny.  IMO, stereo systems themselves, especially speakers, are the limiting factor.  At that time CD wasn't an option for that quality sound.  Maybe hi-res would be, I don't know. I do know that you don't need that system to enjoy music at home.  We listen within a context, but become used to a certain level of fidelity. 
neo

[kevin360]

Neo,

You are correct that it would be a mistake to equate the two, but that wasn't my intention. Perhaps, I chose my words poorly, but the only point I was attempting to make with my initial comment/question was that your brain slices and dices what you hear nine ways to Sunday, then reassembles it all for your awareness to sample. I can get far more technical if that is desired, but all I was actually relating was the fact that the brain slices, dices and samples. Yes, it is a far different thing, but the continuous nature of your conscious experience is an illusion. 

It's a fascinating subject, that three pound enigma in our heads.

The closest to real that I've ever heard was awfully convincing, but my pockets aren't deep enough for Radialstrahlers. My lowly Magnepan 3.7s are close enough.

---

See, TONEPUB, there's no argument happening here - just a friendly discussion. Even if we disagree on a point or two (not sure that we do), I don't see why we can't discuss the facts without degrading into an argument.

All mediums are flawed. One's medium of choice is a personal decision and is, therefore, beyond reproach. All that matters is that each of us finds happiness with one method or other of music reproduction. I have no doubt that Neo has done just that, and so have I. My objective was not to try to disavow him of his preference for vinyl (that would make me an ass), and it certainly wasn't to start an argument. 

[rbbert]

When my letter to Stereophile was published (a year or two ago), about the slicing and dicing nature of human perception, specifically hearing, the amount of hate email I got was rather astonishing.