[orthobiz]

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/140223-compact-disc/

Paul

[neobop]

Why o why did you link to that stupid, moronic, idiotic article, obviously written by an imbecile?  Did you invest in a pharmaceutical company selling blood pressure medication?

I thought it appropriate that a McDonald's pop-up jumped me as soon as I hit the site. It only took a couple of paragraphs to know that the author was being serious about his opening paragraph, so I didn't subject myself to the rest of the clueless drivel.

"In between becoming ascendant and outmoded, compact discs had a complicated integration into the mainstream. Still, it’s almost impossible to explain to the uninitiated how unbelievably great compact discs sounded in the mid-’80s."

In the mid '80s the CD had only been around a few years. There weren't many discs and what there was, was horrible. Recording engineers hadn't adapted to the different demands of digital recording and routinely went over 0 dB. This led to horrendous distortion and caused ear-bleeds. Even transfers from analogue masters were terrible. I was working in high end in the mid '80s. It was nearly impossible to find anything listenable on a decent system. The players were terrible too. It wasn't until the late '80s that companies like California Audio Lab came out with tube players and Wadia came out with their mega buck players. Mass market players started to use 8X oversampling which usually made them more listenable. Most of the discs themselves sounded bad

We have Sony and Philips to blame for the fatally flawed medium of CDs. The disc spins at 200 to 500 RPM. Timing errors and jitter are literally built into the system. Now, 30 years after the its introduction, some CDs are decent sounding if your DA converter is up to the task. Many early discs are still unlistenable (mid '80s). Maybe if they weren't in such a rush to get this out, the medium wouldn't be as compromised.

When people heard what CDs sound like with the best players available, we had no trouble selling record players. Some customers bought CD players anyway. They figured records were on the way out and they wanted to get started with their collections and hardware etc. Others, never liked the hands-on aspect of records and cleaning them. The promise was "perfect sound forever" and most people just didn't know. It was the hype that sold the CD medium, not the reality.
neo

[Wayner]

We have Sony and Philips to blame for the fatally flawed medium of CDs. The disc spins at 200 to 500 RPM. Timing errors and jitter are literally built into the system. Now, 30 years after the its introduction, some CDs are decent sounding if your DA converter is up to the task. Many early discs are still unlistenable (mid '80s). Maybe if they weren't in such a rush to get this out, the medium wouldn't be as compromised.
 
neo

So then if the CD speed was the problem, and now after 30 years they sound better, did they change the speed? I think not. The fact is that the CD format has many excellent qualities. If you want to talk about a disaster format, that would be the SACD, not living up to many expectations.

The real fact is that improvements to DACs and DAC chipsets, and the correct filtering that is improving CD playback.

I have examples of high quality, musically involving music from both mediums.

Wayner 

[neobop]

So then if the CD speed was the problem, and now after 30 years they sound better, did they change the speed? I think not. The fact is that the CD format has many excellent qualities. If you want to talk about a disaster format, that would be the SACD, not living up to many expectations.

The real fact is that improvements to DACs and DAC chipsets, and the correct filtering that is improving CD playback.

I have examples of high quality, musically involving music from both mediums.

Wayner 

Obviously they didn't change the speed. They have better correction. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem in the first place.

You say, "I have examples of high quality, musically involving music from both mediums." I doubt if these involving discs are from the mid '80s as the author was writing about. If they are, they were probably re-mastered.
neo

[kingdeezie]

Why o why did you link to that stupid, moronic, idiotic article, obviously written by an imbecile?  Did you invest in a pharmaceutical company selling blood pressure medication?

I thought it appropriate that a McDonald's pop-up jumped me as soon as I hit the site. It only took a couple of paragraphs to know that the author was being serious about his opening paragraph, so I didn't subject myself to the rest of the clueless drivel.

"In between becoming ascendant and outmoded, compact discs had a complicated integration into the mainstream. Still, it’s almost impossible to explain to the uninitiated how unbelievably great compact discs sounded in the mid-’80s."

In the mid '80s the CD had only been around a few years. There weren't many discs and what there was, was horrible. Recording engineers hadn't adapted to the different demands of digital recording and routinely went over 0 dB. This led to horrendous distortion and caused ear-bleeds. Even transfers from analogue masters were terrible. I was working in high end in the mid '80s. It was nearly impossible to find anything listenable on a decent system. The players were terrible too. It wasn't until the late '80s that companies like California Audio Lab came out with tube players and Wadia came out with their mega buck players. Mass market players started to use 8X oversampling which usually made them more listenable. Most of the discs themselves sounded bad

We have Sony and Philips to blame for the fatally flawed medium of CDs. The disc spins at 200 to 500 RPM. Timing errors and jitter are literally built into the system. Now, 30 years after the its introduction, some CDs are decent sounding if your DA converter is up to the task. Many early discs are still unlistenable (mid '80s). Maybe if they weren't in such a rush to get this out, the medium wouldn't be as compromised.

When people heard what CDs sound like with the best players available, we had no trouble selling record players. Some customers bought CD players anyway. They figured records were on the way out and they wanted to get started with their collections and hardware etc. Others, never liked the hands-on aspect of records and cleaning them. The promise was "perfect sound forever" and most people just didn't know. It was the hype that sold the CD medium, not the reality.
neo

Your reaction to this article, and your contempt for this man's opinion piece seems a little bit harsh don't you think?

I didn't read the article in depth, but from what I gathered it seems that he was remembering a moment in his life that was special to him, and that was when he experianced CDS for the first time.

Granted, the sound might not have been up to a lot of audiophile standards when it was released, and even still today, but there was a lot of things to like about CD in this man's opinion and he was expressing that.

In my brief read of the article, I noticed that he did note that VINYL has a certain special sound to it that CD can't replicate; but he was excited at the prospect of being able to listen to a song over and over again without degradation and without the pops and clicks that can accompany vinyl playback.

I don't know how its fair to relegate him to "imbecile" status because he prefers CD, and by extension digital playback to vinyl reproduction.

I had a turntable setup for a few years. Yes, it sounded awesome. After getting my digital rig upgraded a little bit, and discovering the joy of streaming, I decided to sell it.

Yes, in some sort of bizarre audiophile stupor, I decided to give up a little bit of that special vinyl sound for ease of use and convience.

Some of us don't have the option of spending 5 minutes to clean and prep a record for 25 minutes of music, rince and repeat. Some of us have static electricity issues which caused sound quality degradation. Some of us hated having to return records to online stores when new ones were "pre-scratched."

There are a lot of reasons why one might prefer CD and digital playback, especially in this day and age where the gap is closing a little more each year.

Reminiscing on a time when a new technology had you excited is not idiotic IMO.

 

[Elizabeth]

Why bother to read it. We all know either the dude(ette) is on one side or the other of the vinyl vs Cd debate.
Some folks never forgave Cd for ruining their fantasy world. Some folks were happy with the new medium.
Who cares?
At this point is is just old farts complaining about how it was better in the 'good ol' days' or not.
I own both formats, listen to both formats.
I have to laugh at the resurgence of Lp as that is clearly some nostalgia driven event, and not any real interest due to the format being 'better'.
CDs are OK, and so are LPs.
Get over it.
And i own twice as many LPs as CDs. My LP playback is four times the cost of my CD playback.
Oh, I listen to CDs twice as much as LPs, convenience rules.
And all in all, I like both formats.

[TheChairGuy]

Well, Dr. OrthobizPaul...see what a little shitstorm your innocent enough posting did to the normally placid environs here

Oh well, take it in stride lads and ladies and let's enjoy the increasingly better weather outside in most parts of the northern hemisphere.

John

[neobop]

Your reaction to this article, and your contempt for this man's opinion piece seems a little bit harsh don't you think?

I didn't read the article in depth, but from what I gathered it seems that he was remembering a moment in his life that was special to him, and that was when he experianced CDS for the first time.

Granted, the sound might not have been up to a lot of audiophile standards when it was released, and even still today, but there was a lot of things to like about CD in this man's opinion and he was expressing that.

In my brief read of the article, I noticed that he did note that VINYL has a certain special sound to it that CD can't replicate; but he was excited at the prospect of being able to listen to a song over and over again without degradation and without the pops and clicks that can accompany vinyl playback.

I don't know how its fair to relegate him to "imbecile" status because he prefers CD, and by extension digital playback to vinyl reproduction.

I had a turntable setup for a few years. Yes, it sounded awesome. After getting my digital rig upgraded a little bit, and discovering the joy of streaming, I decided to sell it.

Yes, in some sort of bizarre audiophile stupor, I decided to give up a little bit of that special vinyl sound for ease of use and convience.

Some of us don't have the option of spending 5 minutes to clean and prep a record for 25 minutes of music, rince and repeat. Some of us have static electricity issues which caused sound quality degradation. Some of us hated having to return records to online stores when new ones were "pre-scratched."

There are a lot of reasons why one might prefer CD and digital playback, especially in this day and age where the gap is closing a little more each year.

Reminiscing on a time when a new technology had you excited is not idiotic IMO.

You can think what you like, but I was there and heard what that new and exciting technology really sounded like. You didn't have to be an audiophile to realize the poor quality sound "reproduction". We had no CD players in with the high end equipment. After all, we were trying to sell equipment to those who appreciated it, not chase them away. The less expensive stuff had tone controls which were a necessity for CD. Things gradually changed in the ensuing years. Like I said, by the late '80s it started getting better, in baby steps.

Human memory tends to be selective. We usually forget the bad and remember the good. I have an outboard DA converter now that helps immensely. There's a lot of newer stuff that's not on records. But that DA converter didn't exist in the mid '80s. My CDs were relegated to the car or a lesser system that wasn't as revealing and where the sound could be manipulated. That's how it was, at least for me and many others. I'll make no apologies for my opinion.

BTW, once a record has been cleaned it only takes a few seconds to dust it with a carbon fiber brush and wipe off the needle. It doesn't have to be wet cleaned with every play. Too bad you didn't have time, or whatever it was, to keep up your records and player. As you said, "I had a turntable setup for a few years. Yes, it sounded awesome."
It's never too late.
neo

[Elizabeth]

I was there too. And the hatred for Cd in the pages of TAS was real.
Only gradually did they bring Cd playback up to the quality of being able to be listened to by the golden eared crowd. This is history. Easily read about in old issues of The Absolute Sound. And how the gradual change in attitude of the magazine about CD occurred.
Suitable for old fogies to sit around and bicker about, At least the ones who back then agreed with TAS. For the rest of the world, pretty obviously ,they were happy with CD sound.
Any discussion of it now is: 
Added: and tone controls, I really wish I still had them. Defeatable of course, but very, very handy. (I shall, be roasted alive by purists for stating that tone controls were GOOD, i do not care. "I" found them useful)

[Indiansprings]

 

[woodsyi]

Compact Disc beats the crap out of the antediluvian vinyl records.   

[BaMorin]

They make pretty wind-chimes for us hillbillies

[Elizabeth]

I guess woodsyi prefers CDs? 
So... why is he hanging around this forum?
Start trouble?
no.
He really seeks intervention!
He need assistance to  regain that peace of mind he had when he still listened to Lps.
The Cds have made him insane. Sad case.

[Quiet Earth]

The author of that article understands audio the same way American Idol represents music.

. . . dog . . .

 

[rollo]

  I guess it depends on what the playback gears ability is. For me until a class "A" player was in the system Vinyl always was a better reproducer of the sound in our home.
  We get emotional impact from either source. When the recording is well engineered in both formats it is hard to discern the difference.  In the end though we perfer theLP in direct comparison to its CD counterpart.
  But but not always. The program material of the source say an Organ recording  we perfer the CD. As well as the Linn Arkiv cart. is in the bass dept the CDP [ Lector ] prevails. For acoustic guitar, vocals, violin, piano its the LP.
 Today both formats have their credentials up to snuff. The only creveat IMO is the cost of the CDP vs the LP set up.
  The real question is bang for the buck. The cost of a vinyl set up vs a CDP set up. Will a $2500 TT set up vs a $2500 CDP set up. 
  Tone controls, bring them back.


charles

 

[woodsyi]

I was just kidding.  I was in the mood to use some rarely used (by me) emoticons. 

Do you like mushroom?  If you do what do you prefer:  fresh ones or rehydrated dried mushrooms?  As long as the original recording is done in analog, I prefer analog. 

[orthobiz]

15 replies already! Not quite as many as a "cable/power cord is there really a difference?" thread...

Paul

[vinyl_guy]

I was there too in the 80's and the early CDs sounded like crap. My guess is that among other things, the author has never heard a good vinyl playback system.

I have a pretty good set up for both vinyl and CDs. I enjoy listening to music from both mediums. I have done many back to back comparisons of vinyl v CD of the same album and I prefer the vinyl. To my ears, the vinyl sounds better in all respects. I have friends who have reached the same conclusion. I also understand ease and convenience and that some folks don'twant to take the time to properly care for records. When I'm running around the house, cooking, etc. or entertaining, I usually, but not always, throw a CD on, but when I want to listen to music for the appreciation of music I always listen to vinyl (unless it was never released on vinyl).

Also, in my experience there is no truth to the belief that all vinyl suffers from "snap, crackle & pop." I have lots of 30 and 40 year old albums that have been played many times and do not exhibit any hints of snap, crackle & pop. It's a matter of taking care of your records. For me, the 3-5 minutes it takes to wet/vac clean a record one time, using a carbon fiber brush before and after each play and cleaning the stylus is well worth the enjoyment of listening to vinyl.

I happen to prefer vinyl. Others, for various reasons, prefer CDs and still others prefer streaming from a hard drive. It's all good; but don't try to tell me that mid 80's CDs sounded better than vinyl. I was there, I know better.

Laura

[doug s.]

sorry, the guy is an imbecile.  or deaf.  what i posted to that forum; i wonder if it will get thru the "moderator"?

"It’s almost impossible to explain to the uninitiated how unbelievably good compact discs sounded in the mid-‘80s.  It wasn’t just that they sounded the same with each subsequent listen, they sounded better than the LPs....."

you're kidding right?!?  when cd's came out, they were completely UNLISTENABLE on any system offering even a modicum of resolution.  and, no, i am NOT an old fart, a pretentious Luddite, or Neil Young.  and, neither have i wasted money on ludicrously expensive gadgets and overpriced speaker cables that are actually worth the pocket change it costs to produce them.  i, simply, can HEAR!

i bought a few cd's in the mid/late 80's to play in my car, where the high ambient noise made them tolerable.  (the used car i bought came w/a cdp; i never would have spent the money to install one.)  when i compared any of those 80's cd recordings to their winyl counterparts on a decent home system, there was NEVER any comparison - the sound on winyl drew you in; the cd made you turn of the stereo, the sound was so etched and irritating.  it wasn't until the late 90's that cd's were even remotely listenable on a good system.  and even today, if you a-b the same recording of a cd to its winyl counterpart, the winyl wins EVERY TIME.

it's a pity the money-grubbing music industry couldn't have taken a little more time & money to introduce the format originally in 24bit/192khz instead of 16/44.1 - the technology was there.  it may have stood the comparison to good ol' winyl a bit better...

doug s.

[Wayner]

Doug, tell us what you really think, don't hold anything back.