179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← back to listing · view thread

From:
Brian Willoughby
To:
Che
Cc:
Date:
Sun, 24 Mar 96 21:06:35 -0800
Subject:
(idm) Re: CD Vs Vinyl <- yes the taboo topic that won't go away!
Msg-Id:
<9603250506.AA06276@sounds.wa.com>
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.BSD.3.91.960324093402.5340E-100000@beacon.synthcom.com>
Mbox:
idm.9603.gz
| CDs don't have pops, or surface noise, or rumble. And they can | reproduce bass way lower than vinyl. I don't want to argue here, because I know the specs. But I have a question for all the vinyl DJs out there: why do some people I know claim that vinyl has a better bass response than CD? Is this due in part to lazy CD mastering? There must be something going on for certain DJs to prefer vinyl for its bass response (ignoring the other, more obvious reasons to choose vinyl). | Have you ever listened to a 12" without the RIAA filter? That's | what vinyl REALLY sounds like. Have you ever listened to a CD without the D/A converter? ... even without the decimation/lowpass filter? That's what digital really sounds like. What I'm really saying is that it is not fair to rate an RIAA encoded sound unless you undo all the crap that was done to doctor the sound up before cutting it on the vinyl. A more interesting test would be to record uncompensated audio onto vinyl and listen to how much it degrades after cutting losses and playback losses. | Yes, I'll grant you that an album cover presents a larger tableau | for the cover art. I'm buying music, so sound quality is the most | important thing, and the cover art is just icing. Frank Zappa agreed with you. But even he admitted that a significant portion of the buyers require something to "fondle" while they listen. | CDs suck thusly: [...], poor dynamic range (96dB is better than | vinyl & tape, but not as good as ears), poor frequency response | (0 to 20kHz is better than vinyl & tape, but not as good as ears), | and THEY COST TOO DAMN MUCH, even though they're cheaper to | produce than quality vinyl or tape (the whole reason they were | invented). I agree. CD was designed 10 years too early for the technology that was available when it was finally introduced (welcome to "design by committee"). And because it was introduced AFTER record companies had become super-big-business, the emphasis was on marketing CDs as perfectly indestructible sound, and charging a price based on the perceived value (a perception conveniently placed in the public's mind by corporate-backed advertising and promotion of the new CD format), instead of actually going the extra few steps that could have made digital compact disc an even better quality standard without the drawbacks you listed above. By the way, I just explained why I "boycotted" CD for several years before finally giving in. :-) | CDs suck, but not as much as vinyl. Yep. There's certainly room for both. I just have no use for mass-produced cassettes... (not that I want to start another "barely-musical" topic) Brian Willoughby