Maybe 99.9% of rock, but there's still tons of soul waiting to be reissued.

I love CDs. I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination. While a high end system with a high end turntable might very well provide the best sound reproduction possible, I tend to think along the lines of what is fhe best I'll be able to get within a reasonable budget. I can get reasonably good sound from a decent CD player, albeit not audiophile quality.

When I was a teen, I played my LPs to death (on a decent, but not great turntable.) The surface noise was always a distraction to me (even if it was nothing more than a pop or crackle every five minutes) and even a brand new LP had some degree of surface noise. The sole exception was a Ray Charles Greatest Hits LP I once bought, which was pressed in Holland. It was in what looked like a rice paper sleeve. The sound quality was amazing. No pops and clicks at all. I'm pretty sure that the record manufacturers used varying grades of vinyl for LPs. (Wasn't thre once a big hype about "virgin vinyl"?

I realize that CDs COULD be done significantly better, but they still sound better to me than a noisy vinyl disc.

I think that many people hate the CD because it is representative of an industry which has clearly demonstrated its lack of concern for its employees and its customers. For me, the thing I HATE about the CD is the overinflated cost. Its death will not be becuase of illegal copying or illegal downloads. It will be because the consumer has decided that the format is not worth the amount being charged for it. Honestly, the 50% off sale at Barnes and Noble last week was the first time in years that I felt like I was paying a reasonable price for CDs (and even then, some of the prices were a it high.)

Yeah, the idea was that like most other new media technology CDs would come down in cost as it expanded. Players got cheaper but CDs got pricier.

Much more than 99.9% of rock is waiting to be reissued too. But I was only guessing that if it hasn't been reissued by now, the odds are slim to none. I'm afraid that goes for soul (and most other genres too). What could happen in 2008 that would suddenly make the powers that be think it's economic after all these years?

Maybe this was on purpose. Gillette practically gives away razors and really gouges you (no pun intended) with their blades.

Chip, the sampling rate selected for the Red Book format is too low to store all the musical information. A small portion of the music is lost at 16/44 & can't be recovered. A properly mastered LP in mint condition played back on top notch equipment will always sound at least slightly better then top notch cd. My point above is that most people including myself can't afford top notch LP playback.

If you had said, "SACD" or "DVD-a" or simply "digital audio" rather then cd, I would at least theoretically agree with you.

I, being about 40% deaf, couldn't begin to tell the difference between original CDs and 128Kb MP3. Any additional gain by quality vinyl is completely lost on me.

True, but my ears wouldn't notice that -- if the CD were mastered by a Steve Hoffman or Vic Anesini. They would, however, notice the noise on records.



SACD (and DVD-A, I guess, though I don't have any) is definitely better than CD. My CDs of Allman Brothers At Fillmore East never sounded as warm as my old LP. The SACD does.

Better yet, just start a large, roaring fire in the fireplace. Then, put your CD on in the same room. I promise, It'll sound JUST like all your old vinyl!

And why are the "audiophiles" so focused on bass? Because of the RIAA equalization curve (used for LP's), the bass was never really "there", although they keep claiming that LP's had more bass and were more "visceral". And when the engineers do this to CD's, I just back it off using equalization. All that THUMP THUMP THUMP just gives me a headache (do I sound like me parents here?).

And no, I really don't care what the artist(s) wanted...

- Rich

many feel that bass adds 'warmth". i disagree, smoothness and clarity add "warmth" and also brings out the bass.

volume has nothing to do with it.

renny

As an example of why I say properly mastered CDs are better than LPs: I can't tell the difference between the CD and SACD layers of Steve Hoffman's Creedence hybrids. I can tell the difference between the two layers of the Rolling Stones hybrids, but not with Hoffman's work.

Steve Hoffman? Never heard of him.

Twenty-some years ago, I would have argued that the sound of vinyl was WAY superior to CD, because the phonograph needle was reproducing a continuous analog sine wave with the full audio information of the music, whereas the CD laser was reading discrete bits of the square-wave, chopped-up distillation of the music. And besides, many early CD's used the compressed master tapes which sounded great on the vinyl medium, instead of remastering for the dynamics of the new digital medium.

These days, my ears aint what they used to be (I have trouble hearing many of those "mosquito" ring-tones so popular with today's generation). And I get slightly annoyed with the static pops when I play records in my basement. Thus, I have been transferring much of my vinyl to CD, so I can listen to it wherever and whenever I choose, and even rip it to my Creative Zen. This way, I get the best of both worlds: the warmth of the sound of records, complete with the "dither/white noise" of the vinyl surface noise, and the convenience and portability factor of digital.

Whenever I miss the sound of my old records, I just have a bowl of cereal.

People used to eat cereal with cream? Echhhh!

My grandma still eats hers in half & half, but that's a compromise. She grew up on a dairy farm, so the "blue milk" (skim) was chucked out and only the cream was kept, because it would keep longer, back before electric refrigeration was widespread.

I thought only Aunt Beru drank blue milk.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZutcPUd_AVQ[/youtube]

That's a great clip

"and if you really want your CD's to sound like vinyl, buy an equalizer, spend the time to re-EQ every CD you listen to and add more bass, and run a room vaporizor everytime you listen to a CD "

From above.

It's funny as I do exactly the same thing re-EQing every cd I listen to.Some cds have been badly mastered or even worse re-mastered which can upset balance of the bass and treble that may have sounded fine on the original vinyl.I tend to think that the sound transfer on many cds can sound a little clinical or "tinny", which can be remedied to some extent by boosting the bass slightly over the average on the equaliser.
One example of a group who's production may sound a little treble heavy,at least to my ears, are the Mamas and Papas both in the case of the newer remasters and the original MCA 1990 original album reissues.Perhaps they were simply recorded that way,but I always imagine they may have sounded closer to the vinyl with a little more bass for warmth.
It's true vinyl records suffered from static interference and the "snap,crackle and pop" which nobody likes,but my intention when listening to a cd is aways the concern of how can this be made to sound as close to the original record as possible? I suspect many of us want the generally superior sound quality of cd,but still feel nostalgic for the days when we listened to vinyl.

Master Hare,

You want your CD to sound as close to the original LP as possible, yet you re-EQ the CD yourself to suit your listening sensibilities? I never re-EQ.