CD vs. 12" singles...

[Rab]

I remember back in the 1980's when CD's were being promoted there was much attention that CD quality was suppose to be superior to the quality of vinyl. Of course, many of us skeptics clearly had an idea that the media was doing all it could to not only promote, but justify the added expense of the public purchasing CD's. Now, since CD's have almost run vinyl out to same frontier as 8-track tapes, many DJ's and avid music listeners seem to agree that "virgin" vinyl probably had better frequency high's and lows, as far as sound quality. Does anyone out there, that considers themselves to have a "sensitive ear" believe CD quality is better...maybe equal?



Also, I was out at a club back on New Year's Eve and heard a DJ, apparently mixing CD's? Some of these were classics from the late 1970's. I have searched under this website, as well as CDNOW and ALLMUSIC.COM to see if there was any selection of "CD single's"? This DJ I heard, mixed "Don't You Want My Love"/Debbie Jacobs with another cut quite well, but have not seen Debbie Jacob's original classic come out on CD? Also, I would like to hear from people who mix CD's. Is it the same as mixing vinyl? How do you back-que?? Also, can you mix from vinyl back to CD, and then back to vinyl?

[Graham_Start]

On 2002-04-04 13:43, Rab wrote:

I remember back in the 1980's when CD's were being promoted there was much attention that CD quality was suppose to be superior to the quality of vinyl.

For most people it is. On consumer-grade equipment, CD blows vinyl away. It's not until you get a decent analog system and decent pressings, which were rather scarce back then.

Now, since CD's have almost run vinyl out to same frontier as 8-track tapes,

That's a bit of an exaggeration... vinyl is still manufactured, as is the equipment to play it on. In fact, demand is going up, although it is far from being a mainstream product. 10 years ago, it looked like vinyl would be completely extinct by this time, yet it lives on. Compare this to the 8-track tape, which went from being a mainstream format in 1979 to completely out of existence by 1983.

many DJ's and avid music listeners seem to agree that "virgin" vinyl probably had better frequency high's and lows, as far as sound quality. Does anyone out there, that considers themselves to have a "sensitive ear" believe CD quality is better...maybe equal?

A well-mastered LP, pressed on good vinyl, and played back on a good system, that is decently set up and maintained, will outperform a CD.



However, most people don't have good systems for vinyl playback, and the average person doesn't want to be bothered with setting overhang, VTA, VTF, anti-skating, testing out different cartridges, etc. And presently it's getting harder to find decent turntables that don't cost a fortune. Basically, there are only three types of turntables you can get now: (1) crappy low-end consumer units that totally suck ass, (2) DJ-oriented decks that are durable and reliable, but sonically lacking, or (3) high-end audiophile gear that sounds fantastic, but is very expensive. Dual recently went out of business, and they were practically the last company making half-decent turntables that were affordable.



And although I consider the analog audiophile arguement to be solid, one issue that I take great exception to is the notion that the bass is "better" on vinyl. This is simply not true. For reasons too long to go into here, most vinyl is mastered with everything below 20Hz filtered out. This is simply not necessary with CD or other digital formats. Some people boast of how the bass sounds "fatter" on vinyl -- and yes it does, not because it's more accurate, but because there's 40dB more of noise and rumble in the signal compared to the high frequencies! This adds more motion and richness to the sound, but that's not the way the master tape plays. Records aren't recorded flat; the lower frequencies are boosted by your pre-amp, and the higher ones reduced.

[BitchBag]

I swear a clean non-repressed 12" sounds better than most CD's.

[kaliffen]

Playing Cds is as easy as playing with vinyl these days.
There are two cd player that are really good (and probably more but i havent tried them)

The technics z1200 and the Pioneer DJ 1000

[Rab]

[quote]

Originally Posted by kaliffen

Playing Cds is as easy as playing with vinyl these days.
There are two cd player that are really good (and probably more but i havent tried them)

The technics z1200 and the Pioneer DJ 1000

Thank you for the image kaliffen! Now, for a dumb question....does this turn table utilize CD's as well as Vinyl 12" singles?

[stevieboy32808]

if you are talking about vinyl from the 80's and every decade before it then hands down vinyl has a superior sound reproduction than cd. But if you are talking about the vinyl that's being pressed in the 90's up to today then you'd better stop fooling yourself. The reason I say this is because back in the 80's and the decades before it a song would be recorded in a studio on reel to reel or some form of ANALOG method where the tape would be mastered and then sent to the pressing plant for the master acetate to be made for mass vinyl pressings. In the late 80's-early 90's DAT tapes became the standard medium in which studios would record their final master track. DAT stands for DIGITAL audio tape. The master acetate would be pressed from a DAT tape. Therefore the sound reproduced on vinyl is the same sound you hear on CD's.

[Graham_Start]

Originally Posted by stevieboy32808

Therefore the sound reproduced on vinyl is the same sound you hear on CD's.

Not necessarily. A DAT is (usually) 48KHz sampling rate, whereas CD is 44.1. Not much of a difference, but there are those who have consistently demonstrated that they can hear the difference on a good system.

Furthermore, although analog recording is basically dead, most studios now mix and master at 96KHz with 24-bit depth. Thus, a modern LP could conceivably out-perform a CD in terms of frequency range. Furthermore, there is sometimes (and quite ironically) less limiting and compression on an LP, as most contemporary CDs are dynamically crushed to make them sound as loud as possible.

Having said that, my opinion on LPs remains the same: they *can* sound better than CDs, but they usually don't.

[spacebass]

I think Cds definitely could be far superior to 12" but the answer lies not in esoteria but how they twiddle the knobs when the set up the CD master, as I believe CDs are limited in their dynamic range so they do not blow away run of the mill home stereos, 'compression' as Graham mentions is the key, I'm sure he could develope this concept further.

If it was viable I am sure the record companies could make 12" Cds that would rock!

[eddie]

Personally I always like Cds because they are accessable and I don't have to worry about a warp or getting scratched. My preferrence is a hybrid. I prefer a Cd dubbed from virgin vinyl by the manufacturer.

To Graham Start: I did notice that the sound quality on a tape recorded from the radio sounded better than the company made tape. Could it be that the music is amplified once through the radio stations amp, then my amp during recording, and again during playback. I did notice that 'fatter' sound and the fade time was heavily distorted and the track sounded like it ended almost immediately when actually there was a 20 second fade out. Is all the pre-amping doing that? I highly doubt if technically it was a superior recording but it just sounded better.

[Graham_Start]

Radio stations heavily compress their signal, which would be one reason for the difference. The other is that most mass-produced cassettes are made with cheap tape, and done at high speed instead of real-time... back in the 70s, the technology for decent high speed duplication just didn't exist, so they sounded very muffled as a result.