Conference cookie::notes$archive:cd_v1

    I'm a newcomer to notes which is why I fouled up the first entry;
    I am also music freak and have read as many entries in CD as I have
    time for, and I can't help noticing that many people seem to put
    a lot of emphasis on CD's undoubted technical merits,ie its dynamic
    range,signal/noise ratio, etc., and the durability of the disks
    themselves. All this is OK as far as it goes but it misses the point,
    which is that the purpose of any source, whether it be CD,cassette,LP
    or radio, is to reproduce MUSIC, and I would assert that CD players
    can be as bad at this as some turntables.
    
    Those who complain about the quality and durability of their black
    vinyl should try hearing their albums played on a GOOD turntable
    before writing analog off. A quality turntable with a mechanically
    matched cartridge and arm ( not necessarily costing an arm and a
    leg ) will outperform a similarly priced CD player in the way the
    music is portrayed. Ok, sosohe laws of physics and the need to get
    a fixed amount of music into a fixed space restrict the dynamic
    range and frequency response, but do you listen for these when you
    go to a live gig-either by the Boston Pops or Ry Cooder?Of course
    not. Try teaching a class of five-year-olds about dynamic
    range,bandwidth, or signal/noise ratio and they will learn nothing;sit
    them around a piano and teach them rhythm,tunes and do re mi and
    they'll be right there with you in five minutes. Technical factors
    make recorded music, whatever the medium, easier to listen to but
    are not fundamental to the nature of music;if a piece of hardware
    resolves the fundamentals ok then it will sound right and any technical
    inadequacies will be resolved into a different aural plane. That
    is not to say that 'musical' hardware is technically
    inadequate;domestic audio at any price is a bunch of compromises
    and it depends where those compromises are made that determines
    what the strengths and weaknesses are. A CD player designed with
    gimmicks will sound just as trashy as similarly designed LP turntable,
    and neither are any better than expensive toys when it comes to
    reproducing music properly.
    
    I note with interest that many contributors to these note are in
    the USA; over here in the UK, our HiFi press perpetuate an image of
    the USA enthusiast having a listening room big enough to justify
    speakers like Apogees and Dahlquists, driven by such esoterica as
    Krell or Mark Levinson-superb products but hideously expensive over
    here. If I drove a system like that with the sort of signal I would
    expect from a $200(140 pound-sterling) front end I would expect
    it to sound like the trash many contributors speak of,and I would
    further argue that given those components it would be pointless
    to spend less than $1400(1000 pounds) on a front end whether it
    be CD or LP. I'm sure some of you out there would like to correct
    my assumptions about your systems! In a cheap Oriental rack system,
    a cheap CD player will sound better than the regular turntable sold
    with the rack,since the turntable would be no better than a toy anyway.
    
    
    Anybody who is still with me will have guessed by now that I have
    an analog-only system;the reason for this is simply that every
    improvement I make gives me a new record collection. If I went for
    CD then I would not be able to improve beyond what the format will
    give me,whereas although I'm not hearing everything on my records
    my system would show a similarly priced system with a CD front end the way
    home ANYTIME. I could probably get more music by buying a really
    upmarket CD player but then I would have to start my collection
    again, paying twice the price per disk; if I spend half the cost
    of an upmarket CD player on a new arm, I get a new record collection
    over again, my old records sounding better not worse.It's an age
    old myth that a good record player will emphasise scratches
    and dirt on old disks;this is utter rubbish. A good turntable fitted
    with a well-matched arm and cartridge has electromechanical
    characteristics which allow the system to respond to the ebb and
    flow of music,rather than the dislocations caused by scratches,and
    pushes the dynamic range toward the theoretical maximum for the
    medium. Anyone who regards their vinyl as clapped out should hear
    it on a front end like this.
    
    
    My main concern over CD is not that it is a threat to LP (any more
    than Elcassette was);I am concerned over the way it has been hyped
    by the industry.It is not perfect as many first time buyers have
    found to their cost, and players are still subject to acoustic
    feedback. Also the disks are not as indestructible as we were led
    to believe. I will concede that CD betters LP in many ways but when
    comes to making music, "many are called but few are chosen", and
    the number of musical CD players can be counted on the fingers
    of one hand and are beyond the reach of Joe Soap-unless he takes
    out a second mortgage-especially if he wants something to play on
    it.Many people have been taken for a ride by the concept of CD being
    pushed on the public. My one other concern is about digital audio
    generally.Many musicians would not now have a public if it were
    not for the small studio with the analog desk which gave them their
    first break;these small studios cannot afford big digital mixing
    desk, and up-and-coming musicians cannot afford the fees of the
    big studios. If the only medium for recorded music is going to be
    digital then the future for music is bleak-unless you only listen
    to classical, Duran Duran or Dire Straits.(compare Brothers in Arms
    to the Straits' debut album on all-analog vinyl and you'll wonder
    where the music went-into the digital bit-bucket,probably.)If this
    happens it can only be bad for music-although it may well suit
    the major labels who see music and musicians as just a source of
    profit-so that's where Dire Straits' music went!
    
    For anyone out there who's interested, my analog only system consists
    of:-
    
     Linn Sondek LP12/Linn Basik Plus/Linn K9,Audiolab 8000A integrated
    amp.,Linn Kan speakers on rigid open stands strung together with
    Naim NAC-A4 cable.
    
    I listen to just about anything from Classical through to rock and
    contemporary blues (UK and USA).
    
   
    
   
    
    

    I'm sorry to disillusion you, but this has all been said, in this notes
    file an elsewhere.  The LP has certain advantages over CD, and vice
    versa.  Depending on your musical tastes, and the kinds of listening
    you do, you may find the advantages of one to outweigh those of the
    other.  If you're happy with your analog system, great!
    
    But what kind of condition will your records be in by the time you
    upgrade your system enough to REALLY hear them?

    This has been debated at length, but I think there is merit in bringing
    it up as often as anyone wants. For one thing, CD is both being shown
    for what it is (less than perfect) and improving. For another, the
    completely anti CD folks, in some cases have taken a second look
    at the potential, instead of just the failed promises.  This format
    is progressing, and may yet advance the state of the art at the
    high end too.
    
    Yea. I think there are positive arguements for both formats. I can
    only do justice to (afford) one, I chose LP.  I am interested in the 
    progress of CD however.
    
    The belief that LP records HAVE to self destruct is false. Proper
    and regular cleaning, using the right methods like Keith Monks,
    Nitty Gritty, etc., religious stylus and record cleaning before 
    each play with damp pads/brushes, application of state of the 
    art preservatives like the LAST system, and storage in dust free
    sleeves can virtually eliminate damage.
    
    Sure its a lot of hassle, in fact it is a ritual. Based on what
    I read in these notes, CDs arent the bullet proof solution promised
    either, they just exhibit their mistreatment in a different manner.

    Walt

    The thing that annoys me the most about LPs is the fact thay they
    wear.  It doesn't matter how good a turntable, cartridge, etc. you
    have -- after 100 plays, it's not going to sound as good.  I have
    many half-speed mastered, virgin vinyl records which sound incredible
    on a decent system, but I've noticed the noise building up on them
    as they age.  I know CD's aren't indestructible, but you have to
    be pretty careless with them (as compared with LPs) to render them
    unplayable.  The thing I like is, they work as well and sound as
    good as they ever did, or they don't work at all.  There's no slow
    decay.  Nothing annoys me more than even the slightest pop on a
    record when I know that it wasn't there before.
    -Steve_who_owns_both_LPs_and_CDs
    

    Ok, I can't resist.
    
    What ABOUT the music?   It seems that the writer of the base
    note has fallen into the classic audiofile trap of confusing
    audio reproduction with music.  They're not really very
    similar.  Ever notice that the 'golden ears audiophile deluxe'
    recordings rarely have great performances of great music on
    them?  Partly because of the budgets of the firms that
    produce the records, but maybe also because that's not really
    the market they're aiming for?
    
    Anyway, analog/digital has nothing to do with music.
    Another person wrote (in AUDIO, I think)  "...I listened to various
    kinds of music, including pink noise...".  Same confusion
    there too.  Music is not sound, any more than a Rubens painting
    is light.  The usual way of experiencing music is through sound
    (that is, after all, the intention), but that is not at all the
    same thing.  You can read music, just as you can read a play.

    
    Somebody shoot me before I start frothing at the mouth...
    
    
    			George
    			(Rabid musician)

    I, for one, am not prepared to weather the storms a renewed digital
    to analog comparison.  It has been hashed out before to no solution
    and hashing it again will serve only to raise blood pressures. 
    I recommend that the writer of this note take that argument to
    audio.note.  If he wishes to talk about various CD players, and
    their care and feeding, fine, but there really is no need to start
    up the argument again.  I look in on this conference to read
    information about CD's, players and industry gossip, not arguments.
    To .0, I'm sorry that CD's and digital recordings do not suit you,
    but they *do* suit a lot of those who read this conference.  Nothing
    that I say will change your mind, and nothing you say will change
    mine.  Please, let's leave it at that.
    
    Gary

    after reading the first few lines of .1 I figured that the noter
    was one of the "I HAVE A HUGE RECORD COLLECTION AND NOBODY IS GOING
    TO CONVINCE ME THAT CD'S ARE BETTER THAT MY EXPENSIVE TURNTABLE
    AND LPS". Reading further I was not only convinced of this. But,
    he was going to preach to us too. It didn't take me 60 lines into
    your note that you were an all analog system owner I saw that in
    the first note "CD vs LP"
    
    I will try to respond to some of you opinions of CD's in an apropriate
    response to your attitude towards CD's.
    
    your point 
    CD players can be cheap and gimmicky and no better that an equivilant
    priced turntable.
    
    BUT, a cheap disk player will not eat CDs like a cheap turntable
    will eat records. I have many albums with the initials BSR carved
    in them from my first turntable.
    
    your point -
    that a record in good condition on a good turntable sounds very
    good.(I know I have on)
    
    But, as that record starts to wear at a rate inversly proportional
    to the combined cost of your turntable, tone arm, and cartridge.
    the record still remains damaged. You will be able to hear rice
    crispies(snap crackle POP) from now until infinity. While CDs come
    with error correction built in so even if a CD is damaged if still
    sounds as clean as the day it was made; and if it was damaged so
    bad that it couldn't be played, well, neither could the LP.
    
    your point - 
    Do you listen for dynamic range and frequency response at a live
    performance.
    
    No, BUT, it is noticed. I realized just how good a CD wass while
    at a George Winston concert. It was at EM Lowes in Wocester, MA.
    a solo performance with no sound system. Just george and his piano.
    During one of his songs he muted on of the strings with his finger
    for effect. It got to the point where I could hear the hammer hit
    the string over the sound of the note. I wasn't in the front row
    I was in the second balcony. With a CD that would be captured. with
    a LP HISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNAPSSSSCRACKLESSSSSSSSPOPHISSSSSSSS.
    
    your comment -
    "Cheap oriental rack system"
    
    My cheap oriental CD(sony D5, which I can fit into my briefcase
    with a days worth of CDs to listen to at work try that with your
    turntable) sound just fine through my american system(hafler DH110,
    DH-200) over my cheap BRITISH speakers(cellistion).
    
    
    your comment - 
    "If I spent half as much on a new arm I get a new record 
    collection...   ... It's an age old myth that a good record player
    will emphasise scratches and dirt on an old disk; This is utter
    rubbish"
    
    WELL, we are contradicting ourselves here. First you say a new tone
    arm will make you records sound better. Then you say a good turntable
    won't emphasise the scratches. The five year old that you said would
    care about dynamic range could tell you that if you have music,dirt
    and scratches in a groove: and a new tone arm will reproduce the
    music better that it will also play the dirt better. Unless, of
    course, your tone arm has AI or maybe, ECC like a CD.
    
    your point -
    you are not worried that CDs are a threat to LPs 
    
    There will always be a market for LPs as long as you and people
    like you continue to buy them which should be quite a huge market
    for in the imortal words of PT Barnum "there's a sucker born every
    minute".
    
    your point -
    you are worried about the cost of digital mastering equipment keeping
    aspiring musicians out of the market.
    
    YOU, working in the high tech field, should know about the price
    curves of new technology. They go down. My first pocket calculator
    cost more than my personal computer.
    
    My suggestion to you would be to get off your soapbox and realise
    that CDs are here to stay. Now I am not advocating replacing your
    record collection with CDs I am merely suggesting that If you consider
    your records to be a component of your system(which they are) that
    instead of upgrading your tonearm that you upgrade your music source.
    
    paul (normally on APOLLO::)Goodwin
    
    about your attitude towards CD
    
    "A closed mind is an empty mind!" 
    
     
    
    

    re .6 
    I saw your reply to this note after entering mine. I agree that
    this is not the place to discuss this topic and neither is the audio
    note file. There is a records note file (comet::records) that would
    be even better suited for this where the author could get a support
    group started and not bother those of us who have chosen to listen
    to CDs 
    
    paul

    I will agree that there is an unbelievable amount of hype about
    CD's. The industry would have you believe that CD's are the *only*
    worthwhile medium for music. Like anything else, one has to take
    this with a grain of salt, but that doesn't mean one has to
    through out the baby with the bathwater (you, can, if you wish,
    through out this mixture of metaphors, though).
    
    The base noter's main point --- that the *music* is more important
    than the sound --- is perfectly valid. And that's why I prefer CD's
    to LP's. It's also why I get amused by those people who talk about
    "there's hiss on this CD" as if that's an affront to Truth, Justice,
    and the American Way. Yes, CD's are not perfect, many have noticible
    hiss on them, but of all of the CD's (over 150) in my collection,
    I haven't heard one that sounded *worse* than the LP. Of course,
    I'm talking in terms of just kicking back and listening to the
    *music* --- I don't sit there with A-B switches, tweaking this and
    adjusting that.
    
    I've said it before in this file, and I'll say it again: the alleged
    superior audio quality of CD's to me is icing on the cake. I prefer
    them because they (1) are easier to handle, (2) don't take as much
    care and ritual as LP's, (3) are more compact for storage, (4) are
    programmable, and (5) don't wear. And once I get a "discman" and
    an amp for my car, I'll have *one* medium that I can use for home,
    office, and car. CD's are just damn *convenient*.
    
    And then there is the audio quality. I've heard things on some of
    my CD's that I hadn't heard on the LP's of the same albums, played
    through the same system (Dynaco 120 and PAT-4 and AudioAnalyst
    speakers --- the CD player is a Magnavox 2020 and the ex-turntable
    (I had other problems with it) was Acoustic Research).
    
    I won't totally give up on LP's. I've got too many that are obscure
    enough that they'll probably never see the light of laser. And I
    don't argue with those people who choose to keep to their LP
    collection. If that's what you want, fine, but please don't start
    another CD vs. LP argument. It's jsut a religious argument in a
    clever plastic disguise.
    
    --- jerry

    ERIC::SALLITT, I'm glad to see a new UK noter, and as you can
    see we yanks don't all own Krells and Apogees.  In fact, only a
    very small minority have ever heard a LP on a competant system.

    Americans are easily mislead by TV and magazines (as can be seen
    by our choice of a President) and are victums of the marketing hype
    of the mass market consumer electronics producers and their speakers:
    Digital Audio, Stereo Review, High Fidelity, and Audio.  Those four
    advertising vehicles sell over 1 million copies monthly (combined)
    while The Absolute Sound and Stereophile each have about 20,000
    sales.
    
    In the UK, there are many more small specialty shops.  Here we have
    department stores and discount chains and mail-order discount stores
    selling.  Selling, not educating, just selling.  There are some
    good shops around, but they usually don't take (or have) the time
    to re-educate the propaganda fed consumer.  "Consumer", not customer
    or friend or human being.  "Consumers" want the lowest price and
    don't build relationships with shops that can provide guidence.
    That is why specialty audio stores don't try to educate.
    
    I get the impression that the general knowledge of audio is higher
    in the UK than it is in the US.  At least in UK magazines they judge
    and compare products on sound.  In the US, magazines show some nice
    glossy pictures, describe the "features", give the measured specs,
    and sum up with something as helpful as "yeah, it works".  Most
    US stereo magazines try to tell people that all equipment sounds
    the same! Most CD players do sound the same and most receivers too!
    
    I have both LPs and CDs.  I use a Linn LP12 and an extensively modified
    Philips CD player.  I am divesting myself of CDs (isn't that the
    moral thing to do these days?).  The CDs are musical on my system,
    but I've decided that they arn't worth the money and I can recoup
    a reasonable sum because people are very willing to buy my used
    ones.
    
    I too try to tell people that you don't hear ticks, pops, and hiss
    with a good turntable and preamp.  I usually get the same response
    you have.
    
    My theory about not hearing LP noise on good equipment is that the
    good equipment brings out so much more of the music that you end
    up getting distracted by it and can't concentrate on the S/N, THD,
    watts RMS, 20-20khz +/- .5db and other really meaningless things.

    Still, for most mid-fi Japanese receiver systems CD players do sound
    better than a likely turntable (there is no help in the US on what
    turntable to buy $400<.
    
    Please join the AUDIO notes file where there is more high-end interest
    and most of the CD stuff is delegated here.  Also help to keep us
    up on UK happenings (HFN&RR is now over $5.00 at the newsstand).

CD's have not yet become realistic for my purposes.  In terms of pop music, I 
collect an artist's complete works and then make chronological tapes of what I 
like, after which I sell the albums.  In terms of jazz (and to a certain 
degree some pop/rock/funk material), most of what I buy is obscure labels or 
out-of-print records that are unlikely to EVER appear on CD.  I tend to not 
play the same jazz albums that often, unless I'm working on a particular 
piece, so I don't worry about wear.  LP's give much more flexibility for 
taping and playing, as one can SEE where one wants to be on the records.  This 
is particularly important when one needs to do a fade-in or fade-out.

However, there will come a time when I need either a CD player or the next 
thing down the line.  The main reason is that more and more companies are 
dropping the LP format, and also a lot of out-of-print material that has 
mass-market appeal is being digitally-remastered.  There is a Gerry Niewood 
album that is at the top of my buy list (he's one of my favourite jazz 
musicians and composers, and for the uninitiated he can be sampled on the 
SImon & Garfunkel Central Park album or on most of Joni Mitchell's late 1970's 
albums), and is available ONLY on CD.

Perhaps I'll be tempted when The Beatles' records are FINALLY released on CD, 
but right now there just isn't enough material that I want enough to pay the 
extra money for (especially since I'm used to paying an average of $3 per 
album anyway, since I ravage the cheapo used stores for obscure records that 
are $1 or $2).

I no longer care about clicks and pops, even when I occasionally revert to 
listening to classical music.  Natural sound is the key for me, and when I 
checked out CD's two years ago they had weird EQ, lack of stereo separation 
and dimension, and an overall metallic edge that drove me crazy.  They just 
didn't sound like the real thing.


				Mark

re: 10

I find it interesting that you have directed somone to the audio conference
because of some implied purity there.  I have followed audio for a long time
and while I thoroughly enjoy music and the developments around better
producing equipment I have come to the conclusion lately that there is
a snobbish air of superiority in the audio conference.  Many times people have
asked for information and advice and after describing their equipment feel
compelled to apologize for its obvious inferiority to avoid excessive flaming.
Everyone should be able to use and enjoy what they have and can afford without
feeling that somehow because they bought a mainstsream product it must be a
piece of garbage.  Many people can be very satisfied with their ultra
consumerism products because in many cases they offer reasonable performance
per dollar spent.  It may not meet your needs but it may meet theirs.

-peter

    Gee Peter, I am sorry you feel that way.
    
    I have thought of Audio.not as a great place to ask and give advice.
    If someone feels they should appologize for owning inferior equipment,
    maybe they are not as happy as you think. If they are happy they
    owe no one an explanation.
    
    I think Marks main point is that the vast majority of Americans buy 
    sound reproducing products, without having heard it, from someone who 
    knows nothing about sound in a store crammed with people and stuff.  
    Of course they are satisfied...for a while...noone showed them any
    other way to do this. And of course, the magazines or "buyers guides"
    at the rack in the booksellers are equally helpful "Buy anything,
    it all super!"  That makes them ignorant, not stupid. Ignorance
    can be cured. Stupid is forever.
    
    There is a lot of very good inexpensive stuff out there, and some
    of it has names of the mass market manufacturers on it. But you
    sure cant tell that by lining them up and looking at the buttons
    and price tags.
    
    I have a theory that people in this country have been trained by
    TV to buy what someone in a suit tells them to.  An associate here
    thinks it is a TV advertising conspiracy starting with toys and
    funded by the American car makers, so they can sell those kids anything
    they make when adults.  OK, laugh, but ask your kid where he came
    up with his Christmas list, and why you switched detergents.
    
    Walt (born again audio consumer, class of '78, thanks to a dogged
          friend and Take 5 Audio)

    Re/ .12 and .10:
    
    Well, .12, didn't you notice the "snobbish air of superiority" in
    Mark's reply?  It seemed to me that Mark's attitude was that anyone
    who prefers CDs to LPs must be a mindless consuming American who
    has been duped by the forces of mass marketing.  Also, in the
    "Emperor's New Clothes" tradition, only such mindless consumers
    can hear the clicks, pops, and surface noise of LPs.
    
    I know there are people who claim sonic superiority for LPs although
    I have yet to hear it.  There are also people who prefer LPs for
    price reasons alone.  My reasons for preferring the CD are:
    
     -	on MY system, they sound better
     -	they require no special kid-glove handling
     -	they don't wear
     -	they are randomly-addressable, programmable, etc.
     -	they're so cute
    
    Now, if someone has some NEW information about sonic, mechanical,
    or other advantages of one medium over the other, I'll be glad to
    hear them.  But let's not prolong this stupid spouting of opinions.

    There are 2 schools of thought regarding CDs vs. LPs:
    
    LPs sound better because the sound is more natural (in particular
    no metallic, artificial sounding strings on classical pieces).
    
    CDs sound better because of great dynamic range, exceptional clarity,
    relative undestructability and absence of bacground noise.
    
    Unfortunately I agree with both.

    Re: .14
    
>      	 	   It seemed to me that Mark's attitude was that anyone
>   who prefers CDs to LPs must be a mindless consuming American who
>   has been duped by the forces of mass marketing.
                   
    Would "Americans are kept ignorant by mass marketing" be kinder?
    You supported my main thrust (thank you):
    
>       I know there are people who claim sonic superiority for LPs although
>   I have yet to hear it.

    Consumers don't get the chance to listen and compare components,
    hear a quality reference system, or hear a good LP vs CD comparison.
    I don't blame anyone for being ignorant, but at least your statement
    expresses openmindedness that LPs might indeed sound better (under
    the right circumstances).  Too often CD fanatics don't even allow
    the possibility. 
    
    Right now, even the more audiophile type companies are jumping on
    the CD bandwagon along with the audio press.  ITS GREAT FOR BUSINESS!
    CD has done for the audio business what Bobby Fischer did for chess.
    Suddenly people who haven't bought records in 5 years are buying
    up CDs in dozens.  Everyone worries if the kitchen floor shines enough
    and their system is "digital ready".  People who havn't touched
    their stereo in 15 years are buying new speakers, cables, amps,
    preamps, CD players, and even turntables.
    
>     			    There are also people who prefer LPs for
>   price reasons alone.    
    
    I'm probably in that camp.  My CD player is roughly comperable to
    my LP front-end currently, however LPs are about half the price.
    If someone buys a lot of recordings, then they can easily pay for
    a good LP front-end with the CD vs LP savings and continue to pocket
    money afterwards.
    
    For me the big advantages of CD are:  convenience, and length of
    play.  LP wear isn't a problem I have, though some LPs I played
    over a hundred times.  CDs can scratch and can degrade as the error
    correction is not perfect.
    
    NEW information?  None really.  D/A and A/D conversion is still
    not perfect and good implementations cost too much to put in
    consumer products.  However, an OK CD player still costs less than
    the equivelent LP front-end.

    CD is better, and that's that.
    			-Superclam

                        
    Now, I think it is a given that the $400.00 cd player sounds better
    than the $400.00 turntable.  Does anyone dispute that?
    
    How much more money are we talking about to get a turntable that sounds
    better than the cd?
    
			    					-mr. bill

    I guess I must be stupid. I've been in broadcasting, recording,
    and sound for the past twelve years, in addition to my hobby here
    at DEC. I am also really into music. I listen and analyze. I pull
    things apart, I critique. My opinion, along with alot of other
    professional people in the same business I'm in, is the following:
    
    1) CD vs LP.    ( The professional Broadcast view)
    
    	Up until the advent of the CD, LP was the only medium we used
    in professional broadcasting. Our problem was that the LP would
    get cue scratch very quickly if it was played alot. We then thought
    it was great to dub the songs wanted onto tape carts. This was fine,
    to rid us of cue scratch, but we suffered form the plague of mis-fires,
    wow and flutter. ( cassettes and open reel aren't that good for
    queing for segways and the sort) When CD's came out, we found our
    answer. They sound great, last long time, and que quite nicely.
    On halfway decent stations, which do not compress the hell out of
    the signal, the sound also sent to the listener was much better.
    Thus, my first reason of why CD is better.
    
    CD vs LP.  (my personal opinion)
    
    I bought my CD player in November of 1983. Then CD's were to expensive,
    but I knew they would come down, soon. I purchased CD's not because
    it was a fad, but because I love music. I personally felt the sound
    was much better, ONLY, if it was recorded right. Alot of CD's are
    real bogus recordings, due to some record companies just wanting
    to flood the market for demand, not caring of quality. Some companies
    do care. They produce some excellent discs. I do want to point out,
    there are some LP's that sound better than a CD, due to the fact
    of the recording engineer/producer's attitude towards recording.
    It is a known fact that alot of engineers overkill in recording
    to produce a good sounding LP, but when the sound is exactly transfered
    to the CD, the CD's almost perfect quality reveals the lousy recording.
    It is not the recording revealing the CD's lousy quality!!!
    
    .END
    
     I myself still listen to records, due to the fact that some CD's
    still don't exist, or that the record company puts out a piece of
    crap.
    
    In brief, LP's are good, CD's are much better, but your mileage
    may vary depending on whether you are a passive music lover, or
    and active music lover. Some of the folks in this topic are obviously
    the former (or they are just ignorant).
    
    						Jeff
    

At the  risk  of  takiong  this  (already  long)  note  down a rathole, this
question is aimed ONLY at Jeff (note .20):

You say  some  labels  exercise  more care in recordings while others aim to
flood the market and don't care about the quality of their recordings.
Do you have any general observations about what labels are more consistently
good about recording quality?

    Re: .20
    
    Absolutely, CD is the better choice for broadcasting!  Cueing is
    much easier, don't have to count bads, know when it starts, and
    you can write down the time of how far to start in for those stations
    that like to butcher.  Best of all the jocks take longer to distroy
    them with greasy fingerprints and scratches.  At home, one can take
    the time to be careful.
                            
    I forgot anoter advantage of CD:  Producers MIGHT be playing fewer
    games with EQ on some recordings.  They might not mono the bass
    or roll it off or boost it ~100hz.  They might not compress it as
    much.
    
    Probably the best thing CD has done is gotten some great music out
    of the vaults, worked on, and re-issued.
    
    
    re: .19                                 
    
    hmm, lets see:
    New Dual 505 II - $200(guess) or AR EB101 ($275) or used Linn ($400)
    Grado cartridge $18 or $25 (forget the model #)
    Good preamp:  Superfon Revelation ($350?) or just a NYAL IT phono
    preamp ($250?) or some used stuff for ~$200 (Musical Concepts MC1,
    conrad-johnson PV4, PS Audio Source, Dennisen Sirius, Superfon)
    Integrated amps: Several British ones ~$450 new, ~$250 used.
    
    So for about $600 (or ~$400 for new/used) vs $150 for a Magnavox
    CD player (2041) may be around the CD vs LP difference for 50
    recordings.  Figure even fewer if you waste money buying the same
    thing on CD that you have on LP already.
    
    Of course, at the bottom end for good LP reproduction you will have
    a little less detail than from the CD but it will be more pleasant
    to listen to for longer periods of time.
    
    Mark

    I will take a couple stabs at a very good question in .19
    
    The biggest difficulty in comparing sound goodness between LP and
    CD to live is getting agreement on how the different detractors
    equate. I started to try to list them, but decided against that.
    
    Given that certain differences in sound characteristics between
    CD and LP will always be there regardless of expenditure, but that
    they can be equated somehow to equally good (or less than perfect):
    
    I would hazard that the typical well received stock CD player (like
    Magnavox 10xx/20xx and Yamaha CD200/300) listing for $250-$350 is 
    about equivilant to a Grado Signature 8MX, Rega Planar 2, and NAD
    1130 (total list $760).
    
    Up a notch, the level III Musical Concepts mod Magnavox (for $850)
    is close to the pinacle of CD playback.  This might be the equal
    to a Monster AII/Koetsu Black Gold/Carnegie 1 cartridge, Linn/Linn
    or ET2/Oracle arm/table, and Meitner/CJ preamp (list $3600-$4200).
    
    There must be a zillion combos of the LP playback that are equivilant
    to the above, and there are some ways of lowering the LP cost (like
    buying an MC mod DH-110, or PS audio preamp which would take close
    to $1k off the cost) as well as increasing the CD player cost ($1800
    to $3000 is possible).  Also the LP cost is assuming all the preamp
    cost because, at least in theory, one does not NEED a preamp to
    make a CD player work.  

    I happened to pick the MC mod Magnavox because I have heard Mark's
    on my system and have that as a reference point.
    
    I managed to control my costs by designing my own preamp (parts
    ~$500), make extensive mods to a previously expensive used table
    with 2 major failings (about $300 invested), sticking with a good 
    arm I bought ($500) before the latest crop of $800-1800 arms came
    out and finding a jewel of a cartridge (list $590).  My own opinion 
    is that it is about as good at the above LP better system. That makes my 
    stuff about X2 the modified Magnavox, which I thought was as good
    with the better discs I heard.
    
    If I were walking into this fresh (no collection of LPs or hardware
    of any kind) I would be inclined to start with CD too.  Its just
    not my case. 
     
    At least thats one take.
    
    Walt

re .10

Are you telling me that if I spend enough money my system can tell if
an electrical impulse is music or hiss/crackle/pop ? Bologna ! If there's
ANYTHING in that record groove it's going to get picked up and transmitted
(all the more so for the better turntables) to your speakers, and you
will hear it (even if you should choose to ignore it).

P.

        
              Hey Mark ?  You are on your own bub.  
    
    This has become a religious crusade complete with simple minded
    models and flying cold cuts.
    
    

    bye...

RE: .16

Good point!  If the media have different strengths, then perhaps they should
have different applications!

For instance, I am having a more and more difficult time finding TypeI tape
formulations.  Everyone will tell you that "TypeII is better and cost about
the same so why bother with TypeI".  My own experiments have shown that TypeI
is best for loud music somewhat lacking in dynamics or extremeties of the
frequency curve.  TypeII being better for most folk, chamber music, chamber
jazz.  Some of the new "hot" TypeII tapes like Sony's UCX-S are great for Big
Band and other loud music with both dynamics and large frequency range.  I'm
told that I'm stupid when I try to buy a TypeI tape to tape Dead Kennedys (a
hypothetical example, but you get the point).

The Gerry Niewood CD sounded VERY natural.  Most classical CD's I've heard
sound bizarre.  I have never heard a pop/rock CD.  I am beginning to believe
that CD's might indeed be a better medium for recordings that are not
predominantly of acoustic instruments.  That would be ironic, since classical
music is the genre that has most strongly embraced the CD medium (you can find
excellent classical LP's for dramatically low prices almost everywhere now as
a result).


				Mark

    re: .23  (thanks a lot for the support :-) )
    
    I don't agree with your systems.  A Grado Sig 8 seems like too good
    (expensive) a cartridge to match with a NAD preamp.  I'd spend the
    money on the preamp and less on the cartridge.
    
    I'd also disagree that my CD player sounds as good as the front-end
    you mention.  A VPI/Souther/Shinon Red won over it using c-j Premier
    II, MV-50, ProAc Studio I, and FMS wires, as did a Oracle/Excelsior/
    MC Alpha II using ARC SP11, forgotten amp, and Audiolab A3's(?).
    
    I wouldn't suggest a CD player be modified as much as mine.  A level
    two mod is as far up the diminishing returns scale as most people
    could want.  On the other side, a $20 DC blocking capacitor mod
    to a basic player goes pretty far towards making CDs less objectionable
    and reduces that CD fatigue - worth a couple $100 up the LP side.
    
    Of course, all these CD vs LP comparisons and the point at which
    they sound enough alike depends on the rest of the system - amp,
    speakers, and wires.  The more revealing the other things are, the
    better you can hear LP vs CD differences.
    
    Mark
    
    PS I don't know why, but LP noise is less objectionable on better
    systems.

    Re: many
    
    Since my plea was obviously ignored, I'd like to plea it again.
    Why in heaven's name must this be discussed again?  Why? Why? Why?
    I get so damned tired of seeing people get looked down upon.  If
    those of you who prefer the audio elite get so frustrated with those
    of us who do not, why do you continue to belabor the point?!  You
    will win no converts by taking the attitude that 'these audio peasants
    are complete assholes and I don't see any point in communicating
    with them so I'm going to go stomping off.'  It just makes those
    of us who 'have been duped by the advertisers, and the Wayne Greens
    of this country' as frustrated with you as you are with us.
    
    I have been interested in electronically reproduced music (whether
    you call it hi- or mid-fi) for about 10 years.  I don't consider
    myself to be a puppet of the hype.  I am capable of enjoying music
    reproduced by LP or CD and have not been brainwashed into thinking
    that the end-all is the CD. (Or the LP, for that matter.)  Though
    I'm not in a financial position to spend thousands (or even
    half-thousands) for turntables and cartidges, I don't want to abridge
    the right of the individual to do so if he believes that it will
    improve his enjoyment of the music.  I also don't intend to look
    down my nose at those who pursue that route, even though I feel
    that the CD is a perfectly acceptable alternative.  I don't feel
    that it is necessary for you to look down your noses at the 'great
    unwashed masses' either.  
    
    Create a conference for discussion of the topic, if there isn't
    one.  If there is one, then direct the 'lost souls' to it and continue
    the discussions there.  You are likely to win more friends by inviting
    them to your territory than by attacking them on theirs.
    
    You are now free to tell me that I'm full of shit. :-)
    
    Gary

    BTW, the single quote marks are used here for emphasis only.  I
    am not attempting to quote anyone.

    But, but, but....
    
    We haven't even STARTED to talk about interconnect cable and
    speaker wires yet!
    
    Or LP tiptoes, for that matter (nailing the LP to the platter
    does wonders for reducing resonances).

re .25, .27 

>    PS I don't know why, but LP noise is less objectionable on better
>    systems.

Oh, now I get it - the noise is there. You just choose to ignore it.
That sounds simple minded to me. No flying cold cut.

P

	WOW!  30 replies in 3 days!  Impressive.  I've got only 2 things to 
	add:

	First, I have a serial # 100 RCA Victor wind up phonograph that was
	manufactured at a time when grooved media technology was as old as 
	CD technology is now.  If CD makes half the improvements of grooves,
	you'll sooner or later find your expensive turntables showing up in
	second hand furniture shops.

	Second, I thank the 30 odd years of listening to American TV, 
	particularly the ads, for educating (read deafening) my ear enough
	so that most expensive audiophile equipment sounds the same as
	my cheapo system.

						     
							- JP

    If one follows the line of thought put forth in the base note to its
    logical conclusion, we'd all still be listening to shellac 78's now,
    wouldn't we?

    In the history of audio, there hasn't been one significant innovation
    (Peter Goldmark's invention of the LP, stereo recording, Dolby A noise
    reduction, etc) which hasn't had a small camp of detractors saying its
    unmusical.  Meanwhile, everyone else with more common sense and no need
    to feel superior to others is able to enjoy the benifits of the new
    technology.

    As for ragging on the CD makers (come on, lets ignore advertisements,
    shall we?), suppose you were an engineer who played a key role in
    developing a totally new way of storing and distributing audio over the
    past decade (I'm not talking inconsequential puttering around on the
    kitchen table, replacing a few passive components) and have seen it
    gain immediate acceptance in an international marketplace.

    How would you feel about your new product?

    - Jim

    I am not as yet a regular contributor to this note file.  This
    is because I do not as yet own a CD player.  So I don't feel that
    I can really contribute until I do.  But, I was involved with the
    last argument that was brought up earlier in the file regarding
    this issue and I feel compelled to get into it again here; even
    at the risk of creating a few audio "enemies".  Also, please note
    that I am the moderator of the COMET::RECORDS file.
    
    I agree whole heartedly with the person who said you won't change
    my opinion and I won't change yours.  However, I get a little tired
    of reading the notes on either side of the arguement that display
    nothing more than snobbery.  I can't say for sure but I believe
    that I was the one who coined the phrase 'dinosaur discs of vinyl'
    and I believe that the days of vinyl are as numbered as the days
    of the wax and ceramic discs of yesteryear.  But, these facts
    still remain:  Vinyl discs are still available, and they are also
    cheaper.  Some recordings are available only on vinyl and some are
    available only on CD.  
    
    While these two media are available concurrently it is to the
    consumers benefit and I for one plan to take advantage of the fact.
    I am tired of hearing the pros and cons on this issue.  If your
    opinion is that CDs are the beginning and end of the world then
    good for you.  For those of you that have trouble with the fact
    that the physics of the wear and tear on vinyl due to the dragging
    of a sharp object around the grooves then I suggest you do as I
    do and record the album the first time you play it after removing
    the shrink rap.  By the time the tape wears out your record will
    still be worth a second recording without much physical damage due
    to overplay.  Of course, though this does not fix the problem of
    crummy vinyl direct from the manufacturing scource but this is the
    unfortunate problem (side effect) of an aging technology.

    Records have also been around long enough to make some of them worth
    collecting.  Someday CDs will have the same collector status and
    that time may not be too far into the future.  So, I say let's forget
    all of this phony posturing and accept the fact that these problems
    exist because after all it comes down to the fact that it's what's
    recorded that makes the real difference.  I mean, it's not a matter
    of buying records or CDs because of the media, I would think that it's 
    the music or artist that is being bought first and the media that
    is the  second choice.  If the ears are SO sensitive to signal and 
    noise ratio then buy the CD, on the other hand, if the pocket book 
    is more sensitive than the ears then by the record.
    
    I'm still into records because I have been collecting them for a
    very long time.  Also, my wallet has not allowed me to get my CD
    player yet.  And, because of a swapping of priorities I got skiis
    in place of the CD player for Christmas, BUT my birthday is not
    to far away and the player has moved back up to it's top status
    once again.  But, even after I buy the player I do not imagine
    myself discontinuing the purchase of vinyl for no other reason than
    signal to noise ratio.  Many times the purchase is dictated by the
    music or the intrinsic value over the quality.
    
    At the risk of becomming long winded I want to relate an impression
    by way of paraphrasing a Ray Bradburry short story that I cannot
    remember the title of.  Anyway, the gist of the story is centered
    around the time after the holocaust.  There is a man living in a
    cave and the primary luxury in his life is his record player and
    the very few records that he has to play.  He owns exactly two
    needles, a good one for those special occasions and a not so good
    one for everyday use.  Although, he does not play his records to
    often in fear of them becomming totaly unusable in the future, the
    music is the tie to a way of life that has been totaly disrupted.
    It might be argued that if the story were written today that the
    guy might have a CD player and a generator to power it, but I think
    the point is that the music is the important thing and not necessarily
    the technology.

    BTW, the reference to the record in the story is La Mer by Debussy.
    
    =ken

    An "aside" on Collecting CDs:
    
    There is a store in Dallas that has one of the bootleg Abbey
    Road CDs.  If you have $200.00 they may sell it to you.
    

    -{ FROM THE MOUTHS OF BABES...}-
    
    To end the hoopla, judge the following:
    
    My top-of-the-line Stanton ccartridge (all a poor 17-year old can
    afford) which is perfectly adjusted ends up with a sizable glob
    of vinyl on it after one play of kraftwerk's electric cafe; a
    freshly-opend copy of In Visible Silence by the Art of Noise ALREADY
    has hiscrackle pop and othe various potato-chip eating noises.
    
    CD's don't have these problems, regardless of quality of equipment
    and care. I don't even own one yet, but already I know a CD player
    would be worth its weight in gold. Problems such as these, which
    occur at BOTH HIGH AND LOW ends of the spectrum should prove the
    CD to anyone.
    
    P.S.This is my first note, excuse the errors in typing, but
          are there any JOY DIVISION\NEW ORDER\Punk\New Wave Freaks
    out there????
    
                            KOMACKINO