 SlidetboneMazin GoPremium
join:2002-11-10
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to SRFireside
Re: Are You Serious? Right, but here is the primary reason why LP's made a comback...which are the same reasons the CD will be around for much longer than we think.
The LP analog format captured captured the entire spectrum of the recorded media. So if the engineer did a great job mastering, the LP will reproduce close to 99% of that original master tape. Pair a good turntable with a high fidelity stylus and cartidge and you are good to go.
The statement LP's are better than CD's is true (only for a specific time period) because the LP was created from an analog media. Many reissued CD's made from recordings mastered on analog tape do not capture the entire essence of the original due to sampling and compression. Many studios did not adopt digital recording equipment up until the mid 90's or so. My collection of LP's stops at around 1989. This is the period the LP rules.
One example is Boston's Don't Look Back. Compare the LP sound versus the CD reissue. BIG difference! Remasters have been better than the reissue CD, but not by much. Here the LP is king.
CD's produced from digital recordings are a great blessing! These do not alter the master medium. So it is a good thing.
Audiophiles for the most part do not go for digital downloads because the format is lossy, even if it is an MP3 at 320kbps. For an MP3 to me manageable for downloads, digital "holes" are poked into the file. You lose a lot of frequencies.
A normal listener will not care one way or another.
If I have to create MP3's to carry in my Sansa (no iPUD here...misspelling is intentional) or my car, I create them from CD's and LP's I have bought. As a studio musician, I know where the monies go to on music sales and I want my fellow musicians to get paid too.
I do not see the demise of red book CD's. And like Alex said here, listeners like to have a tangible item...to read credits, to look at the album art, to get an autograph, to know things about the recording. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by Slidetbone:CD's produced from digital recordings are a great blessing! These do not alter the master medium. So it is a good thing. Audiophiles for the most part do not go for digital downloads because the format is lossy, even if it is an MP3 at 320kbps. For an MP3 to me manageable for downloads, digital "holes" are poked into the file. You lose a lot of frequencies. A normal listener will not care one way or another. While digital masters can be a good thing many Rock / Pop CDs made in the past decade have terrible mastering with little or no dynamic range. People who mostly listen to mp3s probably don't notice or care but audiophiles will. Maybe if the CDs produced in the past decade were of better quality many more people would have noticed the audio deficiencies of the mp3. |
|
|
|
DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | reply to Slidetbone
There are some very compelling arguments about vinyl STILL being superior to CDs (though to achieve that level of quality is problematic to say the least).
LPs have a much wider frequency response than CDs (once again assuming a playback system with a quality stylus, proper tracking weight, good pre-amp, amplifier, speakers, etc. I'm also excluding some of the audiophile formats such as SACD). While it's true that CDs capture the range of audible tones (for humans), there are frequencies beyond human hearing (in the ultasonic) that can radically affect the transmission and shape of the lower (audible) frequencies. This "natural" distortion can play a huge part in creating an immersive, authentic playback environment.
However, most listening environments preclude such critical and balanced playback, not to mention the inconvenience factor, so the benefits for the average listener are pretty much nil. I remember reading several white papers on this published in Japan about ten years ago.
Still, since the subject of theoretical quality was raised...  |
|
| I think (?  ) the real point is that CDs were never designed to provide the best sound quality possible. They were simply meant to solve/simplify a manufacturing and distribution problem/process. Digital is just as capable as analog of producing the "ultimate" sound quality short of live performance (especially with cost being a factor). (Is it live or is it Memorex?) CDs were simply the result of decisions regarding how to provide a superior combination of sound, simplicity, and "life" (vinyl and tape wear out with use) at an acceptable price (or more accurately, profit). CDs were a means to an end; "digital" is capable of much higher quality than that which CDs deliver. |
|
DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | No arguments here! I should have been clearer about what I meant when I said "CD"; I was referring to the red book standard of the 44.1 kHz sample rate and not the potential for digital signal collection on an optical disc. Digital has the potential to collect an analog waveform with 100% accuracy, but the file size (depending on the signal length being collected) would be quite large and completely inconvenient for consumer use!  |
|
