harbars said:

Interesting - but, as you know, totally pointless! Even a dog's hearing cuts off at 67kHz, so this speaker can reproduce sound that even your dog can't hear!! Great

Mindflux said:

You can easily hear the difference, when you play vinyl and cds back to back. The cds just sound, lacking a better term, sterile and are lacking punch, if you will.

FuNkeNsteiN said:

partly right ...
If you have an High-end turntable you should compare it with an high-end cd-player, which will cost you a terrible amount of money ....

Than you'll see that the difference isn't so obvious as you think it is.

Another point ... some cd's got a great remastering treatment which the original vinyl never got, which makes the cd release even better than the vinyl.

Prince's back-cataloque got a terrible cd-tranfer. All Prince's cd-releases untill 1993 sound terrible compared to the vinyl.

Listen to Wacko's Off The Wall remaster ... sounds amazing on cd.
[Edited 9/26/07 12:55pm]

ThataintFunky said:

True, a good remastering job makes CDs sound pretty good. I still dig vinyl better though

Probably since his earlier stuff was made for vinyl, thats how it sounds best. Maybe even the later stuff, since he's of the older generation. Maybe he's still using recording techniques that go better with vinyl.

FuNkeNsteiN said:

Agreed - vinyl sounds much better! Warmer, truer sound all around. With the right system and the right care, they're perfect.

That's the thing though; handling and care are critical! That's where CDs shine - portability and durability.

What they need is a program that takes the digital information from a CD and couples it with the analog "data" (for lack of a better term) and combines them for playback. You'd have the best of both worlds!

I know some people are playing their digital music back through tube amps and it warms up the sound a bit too.

ThataintFunky said:

Prince's 80s CD's sound like they were recorded by a Mr. Microphone through a crowded room from a record player with a loose drive belt.

OK - maybe not that bad! More like they had the volume at THREE when it should've been at TEN!

Mindflux said:

For me, digital music seems to be "good enough" for what I need. It's been so long since I have enjoyed a good LP that I don't really miss it.

I do know LPs are better, but CDs aren't really that bad either. I'm actually straying away from even CDs and loading all of them onto my computer.

If/when LPs make a large-scale comeback, I will probably go out and buy my favorites only.

Hello,

My understanding about CD quality depended on how the music was recorded.
CDs in the early 90's used come with codes AAD, ADD, and DDD to let the consumer know if what the quality of the music was they were purchasing.

A CD that was AAD was music recorded on analog tape made for vinyl records.
The CD quality would just be a copy of that analog tape so alot of Prince's back catalogue is just that, a copy of the tape. I used to wear out the vinyl reccords all through my teenage years and when I got to college and started working I slowly converted my Prince vinyl into CDs expecting a superior sound.
It did not happen. If I had an equalizer maybe I could have forced an enhancement but mostly the limit of the analog recording was all I got. For years I had heard "pops" and "scratches", odd noses I thought over the years were problems with my vinyl, or a bad needle, or a crappy stereo, but the sounds were on the CD too, the bad sound was on the original analog tapes.
The CD is merely a copy of the analog.

At the same time I got a couple of Elton John's CDs and the sound was pristine, amazing on CD. The CDs were considered DDD. The music was recorded digitally and not on analog tape. Digitally recorded music on CD gives the best sound.
Unless the analog is remastered digitally the sound is not better.

Although I have some CDs that were remastered and sometimes I think it hurts the music. An example is the few older songs remastered on Melissa Etheridge's hits CD, I think the original copies of the analog cd cuts were far better than the new mastering, but that is how my ear hears it, some may prefer it.

So a remastered CD may be better for Prince music.

What I wonder is does Prince still record onto analog tape or does he record digitally now? I would think he must have upgraded to digital years ago, but if he is selecting albums mixing older analog songs and new digital song that may explain some inconsitant song qualities on the albums.

Oh well, hope this helps. I have not seen the ADD, DDD code in a while, maybe on some classical cds. And ADD was an analog-to-digital recording.

1987... i purchased Sign O' The Times.

A few years later... I purchased the same album on CD... to my horror... the CD quality sucked so bad.... and to this day I couldn't even listen to it now...

I bought 1980s Prince CDS to preserve the Vinyl catalog.

I recorded the Vinyl catalog (from For You to Lovesexy) onto CDRs and I wished I known this before hand b/c i would had never purchased those 1980s Prince CDS in the first place.
[Edited 9/26/07 15:19pm]

It says right on the cd that the reveal limitations of the original recordings. This is absolutely true. But playing the actual record seems to make those "limitations" go away.

Maybe it's like a guitar amp adds color to the sound of a guitar, so does the needle, turntable, etc. add to the sound of vinyl. Cd players (not stereo systems) pretty much all sound the same to me.

http://answers.google.com...?id=375592



The key to this question is the difference between a digital and an
analog recording. Natural sound is by definition analog.
When a CD recording is created, this analog is sound is digitized. To
do this, they take a lot of snapshots of the analog sound. For a CD
recording they take 44,100 snapshots in a minute. These snapshots are
then converted to digital information with a certain precision. For a
CD recording this precision is 16 bits which means that every one of
the 44,100 snapshots needs to be converted into one of the 65,536
(2^16) possible values.

You can probably see where I am going: by definition a digital
recording doesn't include all the sound information. You could
visualize a CD recording as a really large chest with a lot of
drawers. Because the number of snapshots that are taken are not
infinite (the maximum is 44,100 per minute), the process of taking
snapshots results in the loss of information. Information is further
lost because each of these snapshots must be made to fit in one of the
65,536 drawers of the chest.

A record player which plays LP’s is strictly analog. A vinyl record
has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's
waveform. The record player than transforms this groove to an analogue
sound signal which can be fed into an amplifier.
In this process, no information can be lost. No snapshots need to be
taken and the sound doesn't need be converted to one of the possible
65,536 values. There basically is an infinite number of 'snapshots'
and 'possible values'. Therefore vinyl recording sound richer than CD
recordings (as long as you have a decent vinyl record player).

Be aware that recent DVD Audio players and Super Audio CD players come
closer to vinyl recordings as they have a much larger number of
possible snapshots in one minute (up to 192,000) and because these
snapshots can be converted to a larger number of possible values (up
to 16,777,216 possible values, or 24 bit).



[Edited 9/26/07 15:44pm]

Dewrede said:

A good explanation, but it's not so black & white.

Analog media aren't exactly infinite. A film reel is a bunch of photos strung together, in essence the same concept as a cd. And photos themselves have a grain, the higher the speed number the more evident the grain. I don't know about audio tape specifically, but I assume it has its own limitations.

ok , it is
i did a course sound engineering and my teacher confirmed what i posted

Dewrede said:

what-ever!

precisely

On the old albums that were originally on vinyl, the vinyl sounds much better than the CDs. The sound on the vinyl seems to be much clearer and powerful. The drums and bass seem to beat and vibrate harder. On the CDs, they sound like they were recorded from cassette tapes with the Dolby feature turned on, which makes the music sound blander. The CDs kind of sound like a stereo with the treble turned down.

I asked for the Batman album for my b-day (a couple weeks), so I guess I'll pass my judgement when the time comes.....

all vinyls sound better than digital crap !

Dewrede said:

Ah, nicely explained

vainandy said:

True, CD really doesn't pack the punch vinyl does.

Genesia said:

I have got Technics too and they are the best I think, there are tough that's what I needed.
I mostly hear Prince music on vinyls and not only vinyls have this unique sound but it is true it sounds better too. You can hear the difference.
The sound quality of music on cd is good but in a different way.
Long life to the vinyl!, vinyl is sexy

Suzieq76 said:
I have got Technics too and they are the best I think, there are tough that's what I needed.
[/quote]

Dual or Thorens ????

ThataintFunky said:

Dual or Thorens ????[/quote]

Hmmm.... all I know is that I have 1200MK2 Technics turntables and they work fine! Might upgrade to 1210 soon....

vainandy said:

I think it's that the record players add something to the sound. The original tapes were being recorded to be played on record, so when you transfer them to cd, they're missing the record player aspect.

You can hear what the record player adds by the rumble that occurs when you first put the needle on the record. That's the bass you're talking about.

Mindflux said:

There's at least one record deck which will play vinyl with a laser instead of a stylus...

http://www.elpj.com/



It only costs about $10,000, so start saving now.

Dewrede said:

Rubbish! Your teacher is misguided and I doubt your sound engineering credentials - firstly, because of the answer you put and, secondly, because rather than displaying your own knowledge on the subject, you rooted around on Google and provided someone else's answer - an answer that justifies your own opinion.

Just because this answer appeared on another thread does not make it true - and it isn't true! Yes, there are a finite number of samples, but the reason this number was picked (44,100 per second) is because it is more than adequate for vitrually any sound recording. So, whilst the sampling rate information is true, its impact on what is heard is not.

You have also only selected this answer, when there are many to choose from on the thread and the its funny how the others also have arguments for the benefits of cd.

So, you copied someone else and you were very selective in what you chose. I find it incredible how people are so ready to accept the first thing they read and take it as the truth - you should research your subject, if you have any interest in it, instead of regurgitating something you read somewhere.

It has already been said that this is subjective and if people prefer the sound of vinyl, then that is down to them. And there are so many things that affect the sound you hear (how it was recorded, mixed, converted, the equipment you play it on, where you play it etc) - but again, as said before, if you compare like-for-like, cd will outperform vinyl to the average listener. Its only once you start spending thousands of your hard earned that the differences diminish - but most people don't spend that sort of money on hi-fi. However, and it is scientifically proven - the sound you hear on vinly IS coloured and distorted, whereas digital faithfully reproduces the intended sound. If this is not true, then why have the major (and minor) studios upgraded to digital?

Mindflux said:

I thought that sampling rate was picked because of something to do with VHS? I'm too tired to Google.

CD's sound better if the master tape was EQ'd for the clean digital medium. Vinyl masters are EQ'd all wonky to fit and work with vinyl issues with the bass and the needle, etc. Viynl actually has less range and includes extra noise from the physics of the medium. When you play a vinyl master on vinyl it does sound great but...

Prince's older albums (before Diamonds and Pearls) were all transferred stupidly from vinyl EQ masters instead of new digital EQ masters.

If you compare a new cd remaster to a vinyl version of the same album, you WILL FIND THE CD SOUNDS BETTER! But not with old Prince albums.