Re: CD's vs LP's (I love it

["Mike Fenech" <mike_fenech@netsolve.net>]

RE>>CD's vs LP's (I love it)
My turn....

ID> Scott James and I had a minor disagreement over the issue.  I told him
that given the proper treatment any CD can sound as good as the original LP
or better. (Leeds being an example).  His response was that the sampling
rates are much too low for this to ever happen.

Ian's correct, but unfortunately not enough CDs havd been given the 'proper
treatment' as he mentions for Leeds to be anything but an uncommon
occurrence.  Scott's correct about the 44k sampling rate limitations, but the
recent introduction of HDCD (high-definition CD) software and hardware will
make the obvious differences (and they certainly are, for those who read
Stereo Review and don't listen) almost non-existant. 

ID> personally I'd rather buy a nice tube amp.  

Me too.  I'm getting a better one as soon as I move.

ID> The biggest knock against CD's is that they never give a warm ambience. 
I disagree.

Me too.  There's plenty of examples of good sounding CD's.  Of course, it
helps to have a good player as well.


KW>engineers and producers spend a hell of a lot of time setting levels and 
getting sounds _just right_ during recording

Not with those Yamaha NS10 studio monitors they won't  :) 

KW> I think that something that is overlooked is the quality of the equipment

through which people play their music.  Not necesarily the cost, but the 
ability of the equipment to reproduce what is on the media without coloring 
or influencing the sound.

Agreed.  And the cost isn't as high as some people think.

KW> My speakers have a frequency response curve that looks like an elevation
map of a pool table.

In your room?

KW> When these systems get ahold of the precision of a CD (more importantly, 
one that was _recorded_ digitally),  it's no wonder that the sound seems to 
lack something.  

A truly good system will easily point out the limitations and strengths of
CD's (and LP's).  As adamant as you are about the quality of your system I
would think you'd hear some limitations.  I can only think of two reasons why
you wouldn't:  Your reference for judging sound quality is other inferior
systems rather than live music, or you have a very 'forgiving' system whose
inaccuracies gloss over CD limitations and simply complement conventional
CD's.  But as long as you're happy with what you have I guess that's the most
important thing.

DO> The CD vs. LPs debate is completely irrelevant for the vast majority of
people who lack the equipment that will push the limits of either format. 
That said, I think that far too many CDs have been poorly mastered or
mastered from inferior source tapes.  Many record labels have conceded as
much by belatedly upgrading various artists's catalogs.

Good post, Dave.  For those of us who have made music reproduction a hobby
(as opposed to those who pretend to), a great deal of effort and passion goes
into it.  Many (like me) don't have the funds to attain the state of the art,
but we do a lot of research and listening to create the best systems we can. 
I wish the labels had 'conceded' earlier on, but perhaps they too fell for
the 'perfect sound forever' line.

JW> ...the differences in quality of Live at Leeds LP vs. CD (and I agree
about the CD being better, screw anybody who thinks otherwise...

You're right...the LP was a BAD recording, as was the previous CD pressing.