Vinyl vs. CD

Cd for listening, Vynil for decoration and nostalgia 

CDS!

el böthy wrote: Cd for listening, Vynil for decoration and nostalgia

I like vinyl, but prefer CD ... better sound, better reliability. 

I prefer the sound (in most cases) and over-all presence of vinyl records. Cover art becomes more than just a coloured piece of paper inside the CD case. I buy CDs aswell though, because they're far more practical. Takes up less space, and can be listened to on convenient portable CD players while one is travelling or going for a walk. Some remastered CDs sound better than the original vinyl.

Vinyl has a beautiful, functionalist design (it has the size it needs), I collect and play them. I think I hear 'that sound' too.

If its not a special issue/collectors item, CD design has stayed the same, ugly, unpractical, breakable-plastic-sh*tty way for over 20 years. I rip them, hide them in a closet and play the files insted. 

Digital (CD) sounds awful (limited in bandwidth, dynamic, low/high, detail/transprency , lack of precense, narrow bi-dimensional imaging compared to "3D" analog, is boring and flat and breaks the ears) but is convenient.

But soon, CD will probably and unfortunatly disapear cause most of you are on MP3 and so only very low quality
digital will be available. Thanks guys!

oliverstoned wrote: Digital (CD) (limited in bandwidth, dynamic, low/high,

    
I know that you are always complaining of being "got at" Oliver but what you have just written above is patently untrue.

CD's have a higher bandwidth (difference between lowest and highest frequency reproduced) than any domestic analogue medium ever produced and 16 bit digital audio has a higher dynamic range (difference between quietest and loudest sound) than vinyl or any analogue tape can achieve. Those are undisputable FACTS.

That doesn't mean that you can't prefer the sound of vinyl to CD, many people do, but making statements like the above just make the rest of your arguements look stupid. It's like claiming that a 747 can fly faster than a Concorde.

^ not just on paper - it just sounds good, so people don't notice it.

Why is it so bad to admit that CD is technically superior to analog media? That doesn't mean that you can't still prefer vinyl.

To be precise, i prefer tubes in the mid/highs and solid state in the low, cause tubes are always a little "round" in the low and lacks the punch that very good solid state offer in the low. That's why i'm a bi-amplification's adept. Now, if i have to have only one amp, it must be tubes, as mid-highs is the most important and good low is the ultimate "luxury".

This said, if you compare a good turntable to a good Cd on a good system, you'll understand all i said. I'm talking about the listening experience, the result, and not the theory.

Compared to analog, digital is limited in bandwidth as a solidstate is limited in the highs compared to a tube.

A good tuner or tapedeck limited at 16khz reproduces a far more realistic trumpet i.e, with much more matter, detail and emotion, DYNAMIC, image and precense, than a CD player going at 20 khz but with info missing, RESULTING IN A THIN, HARSH, COLD and EDGY SOUND; and i'm talking about huge Cd setups that you've maybe never heard in your life, nothing to do with the "little" integrated Studers CDs you'll find in studio.

I don't care about the theory.

Moreover, i'm comparing a 1000€ tapedeck, tuner or turntable to a 10 000€ digital setup, so it proves the
absolute SUPERIORITY of analog over digital.