CD aint a bad format!

[Rare Bird]

Not at all

I carried out a few test last year to really prove CD is not a bad a format as people perceive it to be..
The test was to copy a top quality vinyl record to CD in the best means possible then compare the vinyl burn to a shop bought version of the same album.

My findings were as i thought, it's not the CD that is the problem! The CD burn on playback sounded virtually the same as the original vinyl record, no edginess etc at all but the shop bought version did give a different, tad uncomfortable sound usually associated with CD..So at the end of the day it's actually a very good format in more ways than one..

Anyone else found vinyl rips to sound superior

[The Vinyl Adventure]

vinyl ripped through high quality kit in high res, and then played back in high rez through apropriate equipment should sound very good (in my lack of real knowledge about this sort of thing logic) after all the downfalls of using a tt in a room full of music induced vibrations are no longer at play....
true or false? i recon my logic is fairly sound provided the rip and playback quality are good enough...

[Mike]

Errmmm... but....

What did the vinyl sound like compared to the CD?.... What did you use to transcribe the vinyl, etc etc.....

I'm not entirely sure what this 'proves'?

[Rare Bird]

I'm not entirely sure what this 'proves'?

The experiment was to proove one or two thing.Forget about what was used to transcribe.

The fact of the experiment was that the Burned CD sound just like the vinyl album it was taken from, no influence.

The shop bought CD of the same album was a disaster compared.

Which proves!!!!

[Themis]

Objectively, nowadays, with good clocks and converters a redbook CD is indistinguishable from the source, except for some very very rare auditors (I've met nobody, to be honest)
A studio 24/96 recording is indistinguishable from the source to anyone.

But... it hasn't always been like that. It took 25 years to achieve this.
I don't even imagine the evolution any other format (vinyl, tape) would have had, with a small fragment of the (huge) money spent during the CD "revolution": studios completely renewed, home players renewed, music collections renewed...

All in all, I think that CD came too early. If it had not come out in the 80s, we would have been directly into the digital area in a better way, perhaps directly with streaming devices.

[Rare Bird]

But your bypassing the purpose of the experiment. Just Disregard how CD's are mastered etc for a sec. What i found was the record directly copied onto CD-r was virtually of the same sound as per original vinyl record, which proves the CD itself is not at fault & gets unfairly slagged orf.. I'm tring to say that it's the studio work of these recording converted to digital through which ever means they use, that is destroying the sound hence giving the format a bad name.

[Themis]

But your bypassing the purpose of the experiment. Just Disregard how CD's are mastered etc for a sec. What i found was the record directly copied onto CD-r was virtually of the same sound as per original vinyl record, which proves the CD itself is not at fault & gets unfairly slagged orf.. I'm tring to say that it's the studio work of these recording converted to digital through which ever means they use, that is destroying the sound hence giving the format a bad name.

I agree completely with you on that. Since 1999, a bad-sounding CD is unacceptable. It means the mastering was a slaughter made by an idiot.

[Rare Bird]

Yep.Thank you.

[Ammonite Audio]

Andre's experience mirrors my own. I copied a load of old LPs to CD, using a standalone Pioneer CD recorder (very good recorder, although awful CD player). The results were stunning, proving that there's not much wrong with 16bit 44.1kHz digital; rather it's the recording, mastering and production of commercially produced CDs that lets the format down. Of course, 24/96 etc are better, but how many of us have actually heard Red Book CD at its best?

[Mike]

The experiment was to proove one or two thing.Forget about what was used to transcribe.

The fact of the experiment was that the Burned CD sound just like the vinyl album it was taken from, no influence.

The shop bought CD of the same album was a disaster compared.

Which proves!!!!

But your bypassing the purpose of the experiment. Just Disregard how CD's are mastered etc for a sec. What i found was the record directly copied onto CD-r was virtually of the same sound as per original vinyl record, which proves the CD itself is not at fault & gets unfairly slagged orf.. I'm tring to say that it's the studio work of these recording converted to digital through which ever means they use, that is destroying the sound hence giving the format a bad name.

Aaahhhh!!!.... Now I get ya!