[Prev][Index][Thread]
Re: Thank God for COMPACT DISC!!!!
In article <409e3s$rpn@mars.earthlink.net>, rheard@earthlink.net (Ryan
Heard) wrote:
> I dunno... this whole vinyl revival thing kinda bugs me. I mean first
>off... the fact that the album has cool artwork won't save it if it
>sucks... second it really bums me out when I put on my dad's Simon &
>Garfunkle: live in central park and it sounds like shit because it's
>old. This is one of the reasons im a firm digital believer.
>non-degradation is a big reason I prefer CD over tape or vinyl. Plus
>with CD you get the true sound... the way the artist intended. I
>think it's lame how artists achieve their 'sound' through analog tape
>saturation... well.. i dunno... i just don't care for it personally...
>i mean... if you have a certain sound in mind coming from your amp,
>why let the medium fuck with your tone when it doesn't have to? it
>only deviates from what the artist intended. anyways... one plus for
>vinyl... it's cheap... it's great for artists just starting and it's a
>format cheapies like me can conform to. anyways... my $.02.
- - -
I've never heard a CD deliver the kind of sound you can get from an analog
LP. A well-recorded analog LP contains far more musical information than a
digital CD, which is a processed sampling of the original sound.
But here's the catch: the kind of sound I'm talking about comes across
only when the LP is played on a high-end turntable that costs several
thousand dollars. For most of us who have maybe $500 or less to invest in
that part of a system, CDs work better. A good CD on a $400 player will
sound better for longer than an LP played on a $400 turntable. Were money
no object, I'd go for LPs. But money for stereo equipment, it appears,
will always be in short supply for me.
--
Dale Keiger
dek@resource.ca.jhu.edu
References: