Opus-the-Penguin t1_j21wf37 wrote
u/scavengercat has blocked me so I can't respond directly. If anyone was following along, here's one article from a 1986 issue of Stereo Review that substantiates my recollection that CDs were presented as superior audio and that's why people bought them:
You'll have to scroll down to page 88 (or type 88 in the page selector) and look for the paragraph that begins: "And besides, whatever their original source, CD's simply sound better. Bob Ludwig of MasterDisk Corporation, who has mastered literally thousands of LP's, tells why."
So again, we didn't buy multi-hundred dollar CD players and buy CDs that cost almost twice as much as LPs or cassettes because it was convenient. That's a ludicrous and delusional assertion. We bought them because the sound was noticeably superior.
If anyone would care to pass this link on to u/scavengercat, I'm sure they'd be happy to learn.
Dry-Accountant3055 t1_j23zgl8 wrote
Hey there. I'm just going to respectfully play devil's advocate: why then did all those first generation CDs get remastered 10-15 years later? (Because the technology took time to perfect. I think this is a completely subjective argument as I still enjoy CDs and Records)
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j24ggdb wrote
That's one reason, and I agree. Sound engineers learned things as they went along that allowed them to more effectively exploit CD technology. There were a few CDs I bought in those early days that were just done wrong and were unpleasant to listen to. But even the ones that were done well might have benefited from a second look. My point is not that the CDs produced in the 80s were as good as they could be. I'm just saying they were good enough to be obviously superior to LPs, even to the casual listener. The article I link to explains why.
galvanizedrocknroll t1_j24y6xh wrote
"obviously superior" is the subjective part. Nobody is agreeing that the Columbia Dylan CDs or Costello CDs from the 80's sound superior to a clean vinyl record. However the reissued later versions might be. (probably are) The exception may be in Classical which benefit from the reduction in the "warm tones" of vinyl. If you had the Bill the Cat flexi disc you would see that warm tone matters
galvanizedrocknroll t1_j24yuax wrote
"obviously superior" is the subjective part. Nobody is agreeing that the Columbia Dylan CDs or Costello CDs from the 80's sound superior to a clean vinyl record. However the reissued later versions might be. (probably are) The exception may be in Classical which benefit from the reduction in the "warm tones" of vinyl. If you had the Bill the Cat flexi disc you would see that warm tone matters.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j25a9d7 wrote
> "obviously superior" is the subjective part.
Of course. And what I'm saying is that almost all of us heard it that way. No one's saying there weren't examples of poor CD transfers.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments