CD Vs. Vinyl?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
hiss

Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
this just the way Vinyl sounds?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 26 Mar 2005 05:53:46 GMT, caffieneaddict@gmail.com (Cobain4evr)
wrote:

>I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
>I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
>unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
>hiss
>
>Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
>this just the way Vinyl sounds?

There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
had vanished by the early '90s.

As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
will always believe that 'older is better'. This may be true of some
aspects of society, but is rarely true of technology, and is certainly
*not* true of vinyl.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Michael]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Cobain4evr wrote:

> I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
> I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
> unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
> hiss

What does that mean? Records played on TV, or whatever? Look, under the
best of circumstances records can sound very good. But the best
circumstances are hardly ever encountered. In the heyday of records, at
the time CD was becoming increasingly popular, certain technologies, I'm
talking about half speed mastering, direct to disc, JVC super-vinyl, Teldec
DMM recordings, and so on, pushed the state of the art. As CD sound
(recording technique, really) became more improved there was no reason to
put up with the imperfections inherent in even the best records.

The best thing that can be said for records, today, in light of the SOA of
current CD production, is that record album liner notes were easier to read
than little CD brochures, and with a record album you might sometimes have
gotten a poster to hang on your wall.

michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Cobain4evr wrote:
> I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
> I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
> unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
> hiss
>
> Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
> this just the way Vinyl sounds?

Don't believe everything you hear on TV. Everytime you hear Elvis
singing in one of his movies he is acompanied by musicians that aren't
there.

Scott Wheeler

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Cobain4evr" <caffieneaddict@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d22tda01b9m@news2.newsguy.com...
> I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
> I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
> unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
> hiss
>
> Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
> this just the way Vinyl sounds?

When you hear vinyl being played on a TV or radio program it's usually
because they don't have anything better. Thus, it's a good probability that
the vinyl is ancient and not very high fidelity.

But yes, that's just the way vinyl sounds.

Norm Strong

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2005 05:53:46 GMT, caffieneaddict@gmail.com (Cobain4evr)
> wrote:
>
> >I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but
whenever
> >I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
> >unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
> >hiss
> >
> >Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
> >this just the way Vinyl sounds?
>
> There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed
just
> the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
> unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
> classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.

Methinks your statement here is a tautology as an audiophile who
believes vinyl is superior in the most important aspects is
automatically "not serious." I've encountered audio engineers both at
school and in some of my early jobs, and if I remember right it was
about evenly split between those who thought that CD was superior and
those who thought that analog was generally superior and vinyl was one
of the best ways to brings those strengths into the home (although they
might rather listen to reel-to-reel tape).

>It's true that some
> early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but
that
> had vanished by the early '90s.
>
> As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
> will always believe that 'older is better'.

Are you threatened by this "tiny band"? You have to put them down
three times here: calling them a "tiny band," calling them
"anachrophiles", and as a strawman asserting they believe "older is
better." I think that good vinyl is musically superior to CD (although
the inner groove distortion is still a major problem in classical
music, I would agree with that), and I have no such general belief that
"older is better."

Hmm, I do think that land lines sound better than highly compressed
bit-rate digital cell phones. I think that when they changed the
design of my favorite underwear, it didn't fit as well. I think that
my city was nicer back when it wasn't so crowded. Damn, I guess I'm an
anachrophile after all.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> At that time, vinyl was the
> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.
The definition of a 'serious audiophile' being someone who agrees with you.

-- Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <d242cf027n0@news4.newsguy.com>,
Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
> the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
> unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
> classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
> early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
> had vanished by the early '90s.

Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done in
analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much less
true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not buy my
first CD until several years after they first came out because they did
not sound right.

As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to digital,
CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was analog and
there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the CD, I tend to
prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no noticeable difference.

Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with what
sounds most like a live performance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Cobain4evr wrote:
> I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
> I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
> unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
> hiss
>
> Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
> this just the way Vinyl sounds?

I owned a very good vinyl set-up (Thorens TD125/II, Magnepan ar, Stax
electrec cartridge) and had 1200 LPs. Sold it all, and have no regrets
whatsoever.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2005 05:53:46 GMT, caffieneaddict@gmail.com (Cobain4evr)
> wrote:
>
> >I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but
whenever
> >I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
> >unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
> >hiss
> >
> >Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
> >this just the way Vinyl sounds?
>
> There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing

Other than the fact that it has nothing to do with the actual sound of
SOTA vinyl playback.

- this is indeed just
> the way vinyl sounds.

No. It is the way sound editors represent the sound of vinyl. It hardly
represents any universal truth.

CD has been around so long that most people are
> unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
> classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.

Well of course. I did not hear one single "serious" audiophile who did
not think CD was greatly inferior. Since we are free to decide who we
think is and is not a "serious" audiophile your statement, as is mine
for the sake of example, is a reflection of your own biases on audio
and not any kind of a reflection on the opinions of the actual
individuals across this wide world that consider themselves to be
"serious" audiophiles.

It's true that some
> early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but
that
> had vanished by the early '90s.

As if that were a minor issue.

>
> As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
> will always believe that 'older is better'.

The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
amplification.

This may be true of some
> aspects of society, but is rarely true of technology, and is
certainly
> *not* true of vinyl.

Except in the majority of practical applications. You know, like when
someone goes out and buys some commercial title that they like and it
sounds better on vinyl. It happens. With SOTA play back equipment it
happens far more often than not IME.

Scott Wheeler

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 27 Mar 2005 05:43:41 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>>CD has been around so long that most people are
>> unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
>> classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
>> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
>> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.
>
>Methinks your statement here is a tautology as an audiophile who
>believes vinyl is superior in the most important aspects is
>automatically "not serious." I've encountered audio engineers both at
>school and in some of my early jobs, and if I remember right it was
>about evenly split between those who thought that CD was superior and
>those who thought that analog was generally superior and vinyl was one
>of the best ways to brings those strengths into the home (although they
>might rather listen to reel-to-reel tape).

OK, I phrased that badly. I knew a coiuple of dozen 'serious
audiophiles' in 1982, none of whom of coutrse had any experience of
CD. Two years later, every single one of them agreed that CD was
greatly superior to LP.

It's not realy until you get into the '90s (by which time any residual
weakness in CD players had been sorted out), that it became
fashionable to knock CD. Interestingly, that would be about the same
time that it became fashionable to claim magical properties for
single-ended triode amps, a technology which had previously been
abandoned in the '20s..................

>> As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
>> will always believe that 'older is better'.
>
>Are you threatened by this "tiny band"? You have to put them down
>three times here: calling them a "tiny band," calling them
>"anachrophiles", and as a strawman asserting they believe "older is
>better." I think that good vinyl is musically superior to CD (although
>the inner groove distortion is still a major problem in classical
>music, I would agree with that), and I have no such general belief that
>"older is better."

No, I'm not threatened, just amused, and you are of course free to
prefer anything you like. My only real quarrel is with those who make
false claims about analogue, such as 'infinite resolution', 'more
low-level detail' and the like.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Cobain4evr wrote:
> I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
> I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
> unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
> hiss
>
> Now is it possible that maybe the equipment used was inferior or is
> this just the way Vinyl sounds?

Oh c'mon guys! Don't you recognize a troll when you see one?

This guy wrote this thing just to see y'all get arguing about
this old bone. Then next thing you know he'll be asking you
whether tube amps sound better than transistor amps, and when
he's done with that, he'll ask you about using green felt
markers around the edge of his CDs.

Russ

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Good vinyl LPs were cut by disc-mastering engineers who sometimes took
liberties with equalisation, according to the known playing time of the
side.
More minures = less level, whether stereo or mono
Eq was, and still is, a personal touch. If longer duration for
compilations or some classicals or other reasons was the important factor,
bass slope was
reduced to make the grooves narrower, nut if the 12" side was about 21mins,
excellent fidelity to the master tape was usually adhered to.
These well-paid techies were "kings" in their day.

The cutter worm which scrolled gradually toward the centre of the lathe
every rev,
received pre-groove freq- and dynamics-aware info from a "read ahead" tape
head (about 4 secs) via a servo to widen the average wall pitch in time for
a loud bass excursion, or a series of
them, but which came from the real-time transfer head, and to relax pitch
when normal
levels were experienced. Even the dynamics of highs were attenuated because
of sizzle and splash excursions.
Or if no read-ahead aid, techie just ducked the bass end relative to mid and
highs when cutting.
This is why there is a bit more *mid range* heard on vinyl discs compared
with CD of same taped takes.

Then banding was another technique which involved
supervised special scrolling, also for the run-out closing circle.

Bass solos on one side of the stereo platform were a bit of a headache,
because often something less dynamic was on the other half especially in
early "ping-pong" stereo efforts.
I have bought bad stereo LPs which were transcribed from tape off-azimuth
and even a couple with L/R phase cancellation errors (both are mono
useless).
Microgroove test discs had freq tones (spot and gliding) that were deemed
flat with
the RIAA curve, but these were 10dB or 18dB below peak, never ever cut at
peak level other than a 1kHz ref.

With some labels, cutting 45s meant lots of tweaks to get maximum energy
from
the groove (think competitors' loudness in juke-boxes).
Most CDs are supposed to be direct descendants of their DAT masters, usually
with no
human-caused alteration of the sound parameters.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d25h6d0s53@news4.newsguy.com...

> Hmm, I do think that land lines sound better than highly compressed
> bit-rate digital cell phones.

"Land lines" are almost entirely digital, but normally do not use
compression. This is a separate issue from digital vs. analog,
let alone vinyl vs. CD.

- Gary Rosen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2005 05:43:41 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> >>CD has been around so long that most people are
> >> unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
> >> classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was
the
> >> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
> >> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects.
> >
> >Methinks your statement here is a tautology as an audiophile who
> >believes vinyl is superior in the most important aspects is
> >automatically "not serious." I've encountered audio engineers both
at
> >school and in some of my early jobs, and if I remember right it was
> >about evenly split between those who thought that CD was superior
and
> >those who thought that analog was generally superior and vinyl was
one
> >of the best ways to brings those strengths into the home (although
they
> >might rather listen to reel-to-reel tape).
>
> OK, I phrased that badly. I knew a coiuple of dozen 'serious
> audiophiles' in 1982, none of whom of coutrse had any experience of
> CD. Two years later, every single one of them agreed that CD was
> greatly superior to LP.
>
> It's not realy until you get into the '90s (by which time any
residual
> weakness in CD players had been sorted out), that it became
> fashionable to knock CD. Interestingly, that would be about the same
> time that it became fashionable to claim magical properties for
> single-ended triode amps, a technology which had previously been
> abandoned in the '20s..................
>
> >> As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
> >> will always believe that 'older is better'.
> >
> >Are you threatened by this "tiny band"? You have to put them down
> >three times here: calling them a "tiny band," calling them
> >"anachrophiles", and as a strawman asserting they believe "older is
> >better." I think that good vinyl is musically superior to CD
(although
> >the inner groove distortion is still a major problem in classical
> >music, I would agree with that), and I have no such general belief
that
> >"older is better."
>
> No, I'm not threatened, just amused,

Are you also amused by people who like classical music? They are a
"tiny band" out of all music consumers. What does that prove about
these folks?

Amusement is a patronizing reaction. I'm not amused by your preference
of digital; I figure, that's the way your ears work. I don't feel
superior to you because mine work differently.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 28 Mar 2005 05:42:01 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2005 05:43:41 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
>> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >> As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles who
>> >> will always believe that 'older is better'.
>> >
>> >Are you threatened by this "tiny band"? You have to put them down
>> >three times here: calling them a "tiny band," calling them
>> >"anachrophiles", and as a strawman asserting they believe "older is
>> >better." I think that good vinyl is musically superior to CD (although
>> >the inner groove distortion is still a major problem in classical
>> >music, I would agree with that), and I have no such general belief that
>> >"older is better."

Please define 'musically superior'.

>> No, I'm not threatened, just amused,
>
>Are you also amused by people who like classical music?

Frequently - and I'm one of them! 🙂

> They are a
>"tiny band" out of all music consumers. What does that prove about
>these folks?

Nothing at all. I am only amused by *specific* tiny bands, such as
those who claim that vinyl is in some objective way superior to CD.

>Amusement is a patronizing reaction. I'm not amused by your preference
>of digital; I figure, that's the way your ears work. I don't feel
>superior to you because mine work differently.

They do? Get help, NOW! 🙂
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>> They are a
>>"tiny band" out of all music consumers. What does that prove about
>>these folks?
>
> Nothing at all. I am only amused by specific tiny bands, such as
> those who claim that vinyl is in some objective way superior to CD.
People only claim that vinyl is *subjectively* superior to CD. It isn't
clear to me what 'some objective way superior to CD' would mean in the
context of understanding how human hearing perception works. People listen
to SOTA vinyl systems, find they sound great and buy them. Ditto with valve
amplication. In the context of the High End audio market, vinyl and valve
amplication are a large percentage; they are not a tiny band at all. Audio
Research produce both solid state and valve amplification, and yet the
majority of their sales as far as I know are for valve/tube stuff.

These problems are amusing in the same way that Einstein or Newton found
their scientific research problems 'amusing'. It doesn't mean they are
trivial problems, or that we currently understand very well at all.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Robert Peirce wrote:
> In article <d242cf027n0@news4.newsguy.com>,
> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
>>the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
>>unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
>>classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
>>standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
>>that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
>>early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
>>had vanished by the early '90s.
>
>
> Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done in
> analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
> transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much less
> true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not buy my
> first CD until several years after they first came out because they did
> not sound right.
>
> As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to digital,
> CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was analog and
> there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the CD, I tend to
> prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no noticeable difference.
If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD Just from
a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original recording
than vinyl ever could.


> Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
> say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with what
> sounds most like a live performance.

Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really, sound
more accurate.

We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.

C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
"nice"

Occaiasionally, I prefer my audio CD made from recording vinyl to my PC
rather than the mass prodcued CD of the same recording. So which format
do I prefer? 😉

CD

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2005 05:42:01 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 27 Mar 2005 05:43:41 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> >> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> As with tube amplifiers, there is a tiny band of anachrophiles
who
> >> >> will always believe that 'older is better'.
> >> >
> >> >Are you threatened by this "tiny band"? You have to put them
down
> >> >three times here: calling them a "tiny band," calling them
> >> >"anachrophiles", and as a strawman asserting they believe "older
is
> >> >better." I think that good vinyl is musically superior to CD
(although
> >> >the inner groove distortion is still a major problem in classical
> >> >music, I would agree with that), and I have no such general
belief that
> >> >"older is better."
>
> Please define 'musically superior'.

The reason I listen to music is to experience the emotions and feelings
of it, and to experience the beauty of it. My reference is how
classical music sounds live in a good acoustic. When listening to
vinyl, I feel the emotions and experience the beauty in a way much
closer to live music. This is of course a generalization; there is bad
vinyl and particularly good digital. I hypothesize that this general
trend happens because digital has distortion, although small in
measure, that interferes with the music more than analog's distortion.
Before you start ridiculing this hypothesis, let me mention that I
think it needs to be backed by objective evidence, as any hypothesis
does. It's not my career so I'm not in a position to do the
necessarily experiments.

Also, of course this hypothesis about digital distortion is relative to
*my* ears. It makes sense that some people aren't bothered by
digital's distortion; that's just not what their ears hear.

I know there's a lot of evidence that competant digital has no audible
distortion. My hypothesis is that this evidence applies to the average
person under the test conditions. It doesn't apply to my ears under
the conditions of enjoying music.

Best,
Mike

 

[Michael]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Codifus wrote:
> Robert Peirce wrote:
>
>> In article <d242cf027n0@news4.newsguy.com>,
>> Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed just
>>> the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people are
>>> unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
>>> classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was the
>>> standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
>>> that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that some
>>> early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but that
>>> had vanished by the early '90s.
>>
>>
>>
>> Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done in
>> analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
>> transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much less
>> true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not buy
>> my first CD until several years after they first came out because they
>> did not sound right.
>>
>> As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to
>> digital, CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was
>> analog and there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the
>> CD, I tend to prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no
>> noticeable difference.
>
> If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD Just from
> a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original recording
> than vinyl ever could.
>
>
>> Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I would
>> say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with
>> what sounds most like a live performance.
>
>
> Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
> pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really, sound
> more accurate.
>
> We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare the
> CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
> access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.
>
> C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
> lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
> "nice"
>
> Occaiasionally, I prefer my audio CD made from recording vinyl to my PC
> rather than the mass prodcued CD of the same recording. So which format
> do I prefer? 😉
>
> CD

Indeed, it’s those analog imperfections that vinyl produces that people
enjoy, and not the reality of the replication of the venue in question.

I admit that before SACD, I used to take out my old tapes and records
for certain pieces. With the absolutism that SACD has solidified in my
mind, that is fortunately no longer the case.

Yours truly,

Michael