What would improve CD’s

Joren wrote: Some things are nice, but the only way to make CD's REALLY BETTER, is to make them cheaper! No, I'm not kidding. I don't want to pay 20 euros for a CD... that's just rediculous...

I'm with you on that! New CD's are waaay too expencive. Thank God for secondhand shops. They're pretty much as good as new, and about 50% cheaper! (If not more)

Although it's very expensive, the poor sound of cd's is the first problem!!!

When you have a real hifi-system with a good CD and a good vinyl, and when you compare an original vinyl to the latest CD edition, the CD is unbearable...

Very debatable. I read somewhere if there was more than 15 minutes a side of a 12" vinyl disc, then the analogue signal derived from the mechanical movement of a stylus would increasingly get attenuated, i.e. sound quality is sacrificed. Therefore long albums (e.g. many of the Genesis early releases) were compressed with the loss of both upper and lower frequencies - it was a revelation to hear the trembly crispness of the cymbals on those Genesis albums, when first released on CD, (previously clipped for the vinyl releases). However, without remastering what  often had been clipped for vinyl release and then put back in the mix  came too much to the front on CD. The unmastered CD Jean Luc Ponty Enigmatic Oceans, has too much cymbal up front to my ears.

Then how good or bad was the pressing technology - in my experience of the late 60's, Decca and Deram never seem to bothered with QC of pop and rock albums (all seem to be concentrated into their classic labels) and the surface noise of their LPs could be dreadful. Faster the vinyl discs were moulded the greater the risk than they would warp - polycarbonate used for CDs is a much more superior material and more than adequate for the job. Add to that the amount of reused vinyl going into the each disc and therefore a big risk of crud affect surface/play quality. And then the damage from stylus wear, dust pick-up and the crap recommended to clean discs (which added rather than took away surface contamination) all added to vinyl disc deterioration. Find Todd Rundgren's Initiation album on vinyl, and there is a clear recommendation on the sleeve advising you to copy the disc on to cassette or reel to reel before a stylus caused too much surface damage - there is approx. 30 minutes a side on that record.

Final point, when first introduced a CD production line could have up to 80% rejection rate (explaining to a limited extent the price difference with vinyl in the mid 60's - but there was also the massive Sony/Phillips patent royalty element). However, within 5 years of CD mass production, with improvements in clean room technology, rejection rates were lower than those vinyl pressings ever achieved. The technology had got so reliable that CDs with a Beethoven symphony were being made and given away at plastics exhibitions (i.e. away from the controlled environment of a factory) from the beginning of the 90's. In 1995, I was told by the MD of Nimbus Records, then contracted to EMI pressed up the remastered Floyd catalogue on CD, that the cost per CD fully packaged with insert card and all, was 55p per disc - it is cheaper now.

Moreover, a real good CD player is very very expensive (at least 15000 dollars,

no joking)...

Ditto audiophile decks and styluses. And I sometimes wonder if difference in performance (whether comparing CD players or comparing decks and styluses) can only be detected using electronic equipment (e.g. an oscilloscope)

 BTW anybody forked out for one of these laser based decks (cheapest I've seen here is 3 grand), said to eliminate surface wear - I would be concerned by surface radiation damage of the vinyl. As a professional materials engineer I have long thought that the vinyl chloride/vinyl acetate copolymer used for LPs, to be a poor materials selection - I know of a much better material with much better reproduction and wear properties.