[doug s.]

just to make it clear; i agree w/laura's post - i am also able to now listen to cd's and enjoy them.  but, i was not able to do so until around the turn of the century.  even today, the same recording on winyl still sounds better than on cd.  and, to say that early cd was better than winyl is simply ridiculous...

doug s.

[Wayner]

Everyone here knows I am a big vinyl head. That said, and considering Doug's comments about the CD medium, here are some considerations that my challenge your thinking about the format.

In particular, I have 2 very incredible CDs. One is Aaron Copland - The Music of America on Telarc, and the other is by a band called Camel - A Nod and a Wink.

There is no way that a record could produce the dynamics of these 2 recordings, period. I hate to admit it, but there it is. If these CDs don't blow you away, you need a new CD player or DAC.

That said, I think in my own mind, it proves that the 44.1 technology is not the culprit, but is the DAC and subsequent filtering. With these 2 recordings, I forget that I'm listening to CDs and simply enjoy the music. This is one of the reasons, or should I say 2 of the reasons that my vinyl head can't agree with anyone that thinks that the CD format is bad. There are plenty of bad examples, yes. But there are also some real bad vinyl as well.

If we consider the early days of vinyl, they had poor microphones, monophonic recordings, very limited dynamic range and lots of tape hiss. The equipment slowly got better as did the recordings. The same thing is happening with digital. Recording equipment is getting better, higher resolution master recording has been improved (which translate down to the 44.1 standard) and the CDs musical capabilities are improving, just like the vinyl world.

The idea of both mediums, genius, the execution, at least the correct execution, was a big slag in time.

Wayner 

[doug s.]

wayner, are those two recordings you mention also awailable on winyl?  if so, i'd love to get copies of each, and hear for myself, when i get back stateside.  i, too, have cd's that sound great.  but, any cd i have that i have been able to compare to its winyl counterpart sounds better on winyl. 

doug s.,
strictly cd & fm in latvia

[Wayner]

No they are not. And here is another problem. The master for a CD can't be used to master an LP without doctoring up the signal. There is too much dynamic range. I had a discussion about this with Kevin Gray (Grey?) a couple of years ago and it was very interesting.

In defense of the vinyl medium, it's dynamic range isn't too shabby either. The lesson for me is that there are no winners to look for here.

Wayner

[bastlnut]

hallo,

for me what really counts is what i listen to.
my CD source is really good, my vinyl source is also very good.
what i listen to is what moves me.
there is a lot of music on CD that i can not find on vinyl so i have it on CD.
my collection runs into the thousands for vinyl and is almost up to the 1k mark for CD too.
what i end up listening to, regardless of the music is all in vinyl.
it is more real to me and even when cooking i have no problem with flipping the record over or listening to the same side again because i can not be bothered.

there is so much music on CD that i wish was on vinyl because i want to listen to it but become bored and no longer listen to the recording.
why don't they press it on vinyl?
in my defence, i must admit that i work in theatre and am constantly exposed to live music and many of my friends are Orchestra Conductors and we talk about music a lot.
it is all about feeling to me and this is simply what happens in my abode.
give CD the  ability of analogue and i will be able to listen to some of my favorite music again.

in the mean time, my vinyl set up is hard to beat by anyone and with any budget,
so CD really has no chance anymore.
i just wish that the sound engineers would do their best and get the recording right in the first place instead of resorting to effects to balance the sound.

to each his own,
bas

[Elizabeth]

Well, I dumped all my Lps and went 100% Cd back in 1983.
Took me until ten years ago to finally see Lps had a place in my system. And THAT happened only because a huge pile of classical LPs basically fell into my lap.
Confession is good for the soul.

[Quiet Earth]

Correct me if I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

Wasn't the CD originally introduced to replace the prerecorded cassette market and to be sold along with the LP market? I remember reading about the record companies losing money at first because the LP market dried up due to people flocking toward CD and abandoning their records. They didn't see it coming. They wanted to sell both formats.

Remember the tall boxes that CDs were packaged in so the CDs could fit somewhere in the record stores, without the stores having to make new shelves to sell their product? They sort of screwed themselves when they made that cost cutting decision. I'm sure somebody got a promotion anyway. Eventually, the tree huggers made them stop wasting paper on the excess packaging because nobody remembered why they came in the box in the first place.

Lots of water under that bridge. Good times. 

[orthobiz]

As the original poster, I thought it was interesting to read this article because it was written by someone who reviews recordings on a (basically) review website. These are the people who are writing about the stuff we listen to, so it is disconcerting to know that they have tin ears. Puts things in perspective, doesn't it.

Paul

[Elizabeth]

No Cd was the NEW format, to replace the others. I think the majors were suprised at how fast it took off.
Everyone (except a few hundred golden eared dudes up by TAS) bought into CD. Record sales dropped like a stone. And I do think the majors were suprised how fast Cd took over. but they started to be swimming in money, and that ruined them.
Everyone rebought the old stuff they had on CD.

[vinyl_guy]

Everyone rebought the old stuff they had on CD.

I'm guilty. While I continued to listen to vinyl, I started buying my favorite LPs on CD. It wasn't long before my favorite record stores started carrying more CDs than records and by the late 1980s they stopped carrying vinyl.

[jimdgoulding]

I'm glad you guys can make comparisons.  My digital front end sounds too different from my vinyl front end for me to do that.  My digital is quicker and more explosive in the upper mid/lower treble range.  My analog is more neutral and mellow sounding thru the same range.  Better for classical music to me.

[TheChairGuy]

I'm glad you guys can make comparisons.  My digital front end sounds too different from my vinyl front end for me to do that.  My digital is quicker and more explosive in the upper mid/lower treble range.  My analog is more neutral and mellow sounding thru the same range.  Better for classical music to me.

I found much the same a few years ago.

Honestly, what propelled my vinyl system well over the digital system was using new Grado series with the old (better) Grado nude, shibata styli.  Then added the van Alstine Longhorn mods to greatly improve tracking.

Once I found all that, and combined with some damping (fluid or electronic) on the deck - I was in heaven 

My digi system is listenable (that in itself seems an amazing stretch since that ALL sounded so horrible up until 5-6 years ago I found) now.  I hear barely a whit of difference, frankly, between hi-zoot $5000 ones and $79 cheapies. 

I'm both kinda' amazed at how good $79 sounds and how little benefit one hears moving up another $4911 in the chain.