The CD Theory

[originalbigm]

Here is a thought provoking article on The CD Theory that I found interesting.

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl34.html

[QUINNY]

And you believe every word he says! :roll:

How could CD be a step backwards? Please explain in a logical way to this 52 year old who's owned and played 78's, 45's, 33's and CD.

It's true, the music Biz did start to die in the 1980's. That's when (more) affordable recording equipment started to rear its ugly head. That's when indie record labels sprung up like mushrooms and the way records were made available began to change. In many ways I've been part of that revolution (bringing the ability to record and issue material to semi pros and lesser known pros at knock down prices) and I'm not too sure that I'm happy about it. Less is more, eh?

[originalbigm]

First off all I don't believe every word he says like I don't believe every word you say.I simply provide the information for people to glean what they may from it.I certainly believe that record companies have an interest in maximizing their profits and never let it be said that record companies are genuinely interested providing quality over quantity.Remember boy bands.Even when vinyl was king they took shortcuts to minimize costs and it was reflected in the quality of recordings then so what makes it so different now.Look at the artists we have nowadays they come and go like the wind.Why do we still flock to the artists of old when they come up with new material,Because they are on CD or maybe because we hope they can capture the magic of old in their music?There was a time when people bought music because of it's sound not because it had a great video associated with it.I'd really like to hear Al Green's new release on vinyl as well as CD and see which one I'd prefer.
I believe that CD's are a matter of convenience and time savers. I don't believe that CD sound quality is all it's cracked up to be. The record companies saw huge profits from it's development and to promote anything else is contrary to their bottomline.Consequently the advent of MP3's, whose sound quality has been compared to the old 8 track format were a threat to that bottom line in that it perpetuated the downloading of music on the internet.The record companies had to stop this so now we have internet sites selling us inferior quality sound in MP3 formats.Again I'm not criticizing anyone who goes this route as it just proves that nobody gives a hoot about sound quality as long as it sounds OK!Again conveniance.Download MP3's ,create a custom playlist and play it on my MP3 player or burn it on a cd so I can listen to it in the acoustically perfect environment of my car.
That's why I believe that even the better and superior quality of SACD and DVD-A formats are having difficulty establishing themselves. Are these formats attempts to create a more life like sound that they can then promote at greater cost.MP3 and Minidiscs are cheaper but sound OK.

So I can see where the authors argument of CD's being a step backward comes from.They haven't caused the masses to demand better audio only more conveniant and OK sounding audio.IMHO

I've learned long ago that when it comes to sound quality there are pros and cons to every format and the question is which one works best for you.Personally I choose to listen to vinyl as much as possible on a half decent analogue setup when I have the time to appreciate all the nuances and and flaws.It has always sounded sincere,alive and reassuring.I guess you can say I'm not one who embraces technology blindly or without question.

[QUINNY]

Originalbigm:Sorry, but my ears and my brain tell me vinyl is inferior on most (if not all) counts.
CD has done way more than anyone could ever imagine to up the overall appreciation of sound. It brought a damned good sound to the masses, where before it was only the hi fi anoraks and super rich who were lucky enough/enlightened. I reckon most vinyl guys are just pissed 'cos any old Tom, Dick or Harriet gets as good a sound from their cheapo CD set up as they took years and thousands of bucks to realise with their vinyl set up. That's what this whole debate is really about, or maybe it's just good old elitism?
The same sort of debate has raged in the pro audio world for years now. Valve this, valve that, retro this, retro that. Yes, some of this gear can sound very sweet, but does that really justify its 10X - 20X dearer price tag? Maybe it does for some people, especially the elitist types, but I personally don't buy wholeheartedley into that bull. It sounds different, that's all.
If anyone subjectively buys into it, fair enough, but please give us mere easily pleased/less intense humans a break, 'cos subjectively we like our CDs and our digital sound!! Do we write endless amounts of crap trying to convince the analogue heads of this world? Not really.

[Mixmachine]

Originally Posted by originalbigm

.I'd really like to hear Al Green's new release on vinyl as well as CD and see which one I'd prefer.

----there is Nothing like the fresh smell of vinyl in the morning........
----it smells like.......
----Excellence
:lol:


http://store.acousticsounds.com/stor...3163&do=detail

[originalbigm]

CD has done way more than anyone could ever imagine to up the overall appreciation of sound.

If you mean it simply eliminated the background hiss and clicks and pops agreed.But I'd argue that the masses in fact found something lacking in the overall sound of the music excluding the noise.Again the sound was OK and convenient to them.The younger generation had no other format to equate to since they were raised in the digital age and MTV and hell we all know how good the sound is on TV.Why do these same people get so turned on to the sound of vinyl when they do hear it on a half decent setup,on a relatively clean record?

where before it was only the hi fi anoraks and super rich who were lucky enough/enlightened.

Are you serious?

I reckon most vinyl guys are just pissed 'cos any old Tom, Dick or Harriet gets as good a sound from their cheapo CD set up as they took years and thousands of bucks to realise with their vinyl set up. That's what this whole debate is really about, or maybe it's just good old elitism?
The same sort of debate has raged in the pro audio world for years now. Valve this, valve that, retro this, retro that. Yes, some of this gear can sound very sweet, but does that really justify its 10X - 20X dearer price tag?

Well I guess that in the 70's the entire population were elitist since we all had analogue systems.Funny I don't recall
any of my friends having multi thousand dollar systems but good systems none the less.I guess the fact that the old law of supply and demand has fallen out of the equation today because as I recall it costs way more to produce 100 than 10000 units.So the simple law of economics dictates the cost of stereo components is proportional to the number of manufacturers and the amount of units they supply.Also knowing that the market place is dominated by CD and related equipment obviously there is not a market for identical analogue equipment at that price range.Which I would agree at that level would not do it justice.However your contention that only pricey high end equipment can produce sound quality equivalent or better than CD is wrong.Quoting from an article that I came across

" If you're going to do vinyl, there are no short cuts. You can create the illusion with a modest $2000. table/arm/cartridge/phonostage if you,re prudent and careful in choosing the components. That's the same price as a good DAC, and for the difference in sound I think the rewards are obvious."

If anyone subjectively buys into it, fair enough, but please give us mere easily pleased/less intense humans a break, 'cos subjectively we like our CDs and our digital sound!! Do we write endless amounts of crap trying to convince the analogue heads of this world?

I don't believe I have ever admonished anyone about their listening habits or formats of choice. What could be more elitist than one who because of technical know how wishes to constantly admonish people with contrary points of view:-? Again the purpose of information is for learning and understanding and as I've said before that there are arguments on both side by people with far superior knowledge on this subject than me and possibly you.I read all articles concerning this and draw my own conclusions subjectively.The argument for analogue has been pretty convincing in a rather clear and concise way.We will agree to disagree on some points.I do believe these forums are for promoting views from all sides.By the way I do own a Cd player and a DVD player and have a CD player in my car and my wife has a portable CD player that she loves and my son has a MINI disc recorder and downloads MP3's and I do have a CD burner.So I guess that makes me a hypocritical elitist To each his own

And for those interested in another fine essay on analogue vs digital discussion
http://www.decware.com/paper20.htm

Also this website expounds on my premise of the convenience aspect of digital formats and according to this author MP3 will become the dominate format for the masses.

http://www.digitalsongstream.com/book/introduction.htm



:D " Neil Young compared Cd's to taking a shower with ice" cubes :lol:

[QUINNY]

Originalbigm: You've taken my comments far too personally.
Let's just end by my saying that I'll never understand why anyone could prefer vinyl to CD and you obviously feel differently.
BTW: $2,000 for tone arm, deck and cartridge is big bucks in my book! Try an average $250 and tell me CD doesn't sound better.

[originalbigm]

Your question was

And you believe every word he says!

So you made it personal

Your statement was

Originalbigm:Sorry, but my ears and my brain tell me vinyl is inferior on most (if not all) counts.

If we're talking subjective then present me the arguments that would convince me your statement is irrefutable.And let's not get into the noise thing because I have conceded that CD's are better from that aspect.As a matter of fact there are those who posture that this noise contributes to the overall dynamics of analogue sound.

I quote from an other article written in the July 2001 issue of Home Theatre magazine by Chris Lewis who summed it all up like this.
"It's ironic that, on the surface, the compass of progress points squarely into the past: The best we can hope for from our digital systems is to emulate the best of our analog systems. When you remember, though, that analog is a physical/electrical representation of the original experience and that digital is a processed representation of analog, it starts to make more sense. No one ever said (or should have ever said) that analog didn't sound good; it's just that it has many aspects that, for lack of a better phrase, are a pain in the ass. If SACD and the other high-resolution formats can successfully combine the ease and flexibility of digital with the sound of analog?while at the same time capturing the hearts of the masses and not getting bogged down by their own peripherals?then the future of audio really is upon us. CD, MP3, and the rest of the usual suspects may be alive and kicking for now, but their graves have been dug. What actually gets put in those graves is up to you."

If your preference is CD So be it .Enjoy it!I'll continue to appreciate the fine sound of vinyl even with it's shortcomings :)

[QUINNY]

Originalbigm: It's funny, but all you drag up are more articles with NO real information. Just that the writer LIKES the sound of vinyl. That is a subjective assessment, nothing else.
These same guys may have strange hearing or they may have perfect hearing, but by ALL measureable parameters, CD beats vinly hands down. So go figure why I and countless billions prefer CD. It couldn't actually be that it does sound better, could it?

Yes, vinyl does contribute to the sound. It contributes noise, pops and crackles, distortion, wow, flutter, feedback (if you're not careful), wear and tear (so that, in absolute terms, the record will never sound as good on successive plays) and is nowhere near as linear in response. Oh, and by the way, records have to have their actual frequency respose limited (sometimes severely in certain frequency bands), otherwise they couldn't be cut. Need anything else? :lol:

[efunk_adelic]

Alright guys.... I sure that both of you own this on record and CD... take a listen to Barry White's - Can't Get Enough Of Your Love, Babe on vinyl vs. CD. Tell me which one sounds better... note: nevermind the snaps, crackles & pops... because I wanted to make a point here.

I'll be back later, a few hours...

[originalbigm]

Simply show me articles to the contrary.Do you expect me to accept what you purport as gospel.I want other points of view or information that I can learn from and form opinions with.Isn't that one of the benefits of the web. I've had difficulty finding any articles that extol the superiority of CD as a continuing format most are saying that we need a better format because that one ain't cutting it any longer.Pray tell why if it's so flawless and great.So what's the argument gonna be when the record companies and manufacturers decide that CD is obsolete and that you now need this better technology at a higher price of course.CD's were to be the be all and end all of sound technology as I recall from it's inception.I'm afraid we.ve been sold a bill of goods.The real beneficaries of this technology were the record companies sure they gave us ease of use and convenience as the crumbs off the plate while they systematically gouged us.

[efunk_adelic]

Quinny & bigm, disregard my last post... I just realized I told you guys what to do... :oops:

I'll find a better way to get my point across...

[QUINNY]

Originalbigm: Your last post more or less vindicates what I've been saying.
All the rhetoric comes from vinyl freaks who have a REAL downer on CD. They are few in number but vociferous and bitter in their condemnations. I reiterate: Their tirades are purely subjective with no real scientific back up. They like the sound of vinyl. O.K I can live with that, but don't try and justify it by dissing CD, DVD, SACD etc with no proper back up. It may well be that their ears are slightly different to the majority of people. They may well 'hear' things differently. They may well have a more accute perception of mid-range frequencies for example. This could either be a fault with their hearing or may signify the rest of us have a problem. However, none of that is a justification to diss CD and the 'plebs' that like it. They prefer the sound of vinyl, that's all.

Sound quality may still be a 'black art' (for me the jury's still out), but so far as I'm concerned, everything I know and listen to still tells me that CD is better and there is the scientific data to back it up. Just look at the spec sheet of your CD player and compare it with that of your record deck set up. Forget the cartridge frequency response specs. If there's no real information above 20 KHz (which there isn't, 'cos any harmonics are likely to be lost in the noise), even a cartridge that goes to 100KHz is NOT going to extract what isn't there. The real clincher for me is the noise of vinyl compared to CD. When I listen to anything in real life, it's not accompanied by rumble, hiss, crackles, wow and flutter. By all scientifically measureable parameters, CD does a much better job of getting rid of these major artifacts and leaving the sound to be enjoyed for what it is. In 2004 this is fact, not fiction. That doesn't mean that something far superior won't come along.
I rest my case.

So far as record companies (and artists BTW) ripping off the public by issuing CD. Hmmm, there is an element of truth in it, if you believe in conspiracy theories. The truth of the matter is that there was a new format which did offer a significant improvement in sound quality over vinyl, so far as the vast majority of consumers were concerned. It was then those consumers' choice as to whether or not they bought into it. The decline in vinyl was mostly down to consumers exercising their preference for CD. Just like microgroove replaced 78's (which by the way, were cut straight from session to disc - superior to latter techniques?). This was great for the music business as a whole (not just the record companies), because there are not many businesses that can re-invent themselves every 20 odd years. The point is that music is timeless. Music carriers are not. We'll always buy our favourites on new formats that offer superior sound quality. As an overall view, that's what CD did!
So far as I'm concerned, its a shame that Minidisc wasn't invented before CD. It would have been a far superior consumer format, especially in the recordable market. How many CD-R frisbees do you have? Many I guess and so do I, but I don't have any Minidisc ones and the sound quality now is very good. Not for audiophiles maybe, but for Joe Public it is hunky dory.

[Sami M]

Totally with Quinny on this, vinyl is not capabable of delivering the information the cd is. Furthermore, the installation of turntable and the wearing and dusting of dear vinyl and stylus are a real tease.

But about the md, yes it's sad that its being seems to have become to an end. It's very easy and fast to use. And for the sound quality of the md, I'd say that if it requires hard concentration to pick up differencies compared to cd. I have had two md players, the 1st is from 1997 and the other from 1999. Very hard to tell which one is playing cd or its digital copy on md when compared in real time.

Nevertheless, it seems that the old c-cassette will outlive md. The amount of md-players, even in Sony's range have come down rapidly.

[Forrrce]

The reasons why I like (and at times prefer) CD are pretty much the same as Quinny's. If CD were so inferior to vinyl, there would be no audiophile CD market at all. Minidsic reached its giddy heights with Sony's JA-555 ES (this machine took MD to the limit) and has stood still. DAT didn't really take off in the home market because both hardware and software were expensive.

I've yet to hear an argument which convinces me that CD is inferior as a format. As long as the source material is from the good masters (or, if not, at least Cedared and processed by an engineer with ears) and mastered with due attention, I'm there. Any overbaked, supertweaked recording I do at my leisure can be reproduced on a CD, with nothing noticeable missing. Better than cassette. Better than minidisc.

A clueless colleague who is now campaigning under the 'vinyl is warmer' banner told me of the engineer who cuts his acetates not liking the 'flat' sound of last year's Jurassic 5 LP - so he duly laquered it, played the laquer to DAT and then cut the production masters from this 3rd generation copy. Why? "Better bass response". How irresponsibe - ego-tripping, garbage-talking idiot. Why not just add a little more bass at the cut if he thought it was necessary? Now anyone who buys this LP is unwittingly paying for a vastly inferior product - though it's a hip hop LP, so I don't think anyone would necessarily notice. Brainwashed follower, or what? :roll:

One of the reasons why I stopped buying 4 hi-fi mags a month was that there were too few Ken Kesslers - common-sensers who just got on with it. Seeing serious, hi-fi reviews of sample-based LPs which were created using everything these 'buffs' rail against - Technics (a complete joke to these statesmen - like it's that bad! It's no reference deck but it's great for what it is) - mixers (horror) - Stantons (disgust) - samplers...and crusty, scratched old records that these reviewers would doubtless poo-poo in a review! Sometimes, the hi-fi fraternity just can't see beyond its own anus.

Anyone who says they love the crackles and pops on records is just as guilty of listening at the music, as opposed to it, which is a criticism often levelled at those who take music reproduction seriously. They're nostalgic for what makes them comfortable, but noise annoys and I want less of it and more music. I don't listen to music with 'graphs and 'scopes, I listen to it with my ears. Digital is not inferior. Gimme CD!