Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale
From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Vinyl vs. CD recordings
Message-ID: <3050@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Sep-84 14:56:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.3050
Posted: Sat Sep  1 14:56:30 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Sep-84 07:37:55 EDT
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 24

All of the comments I've seen regarding analogue recordings sounding
better than CD's refer to particular analogue discs which sound much
better than anything that person has heard on a CD.  The point, of course,
is to demonstrate that the analogue system is still superior in some
fundamental way.

I'd like to ask a different question:  How do they perform on average?
That is, do CD's generally sound better or worse than analogue counterparts?
(This may be impossible to judge "objectively", since there is seldom a
full-analogue and full-digital recording of the same thing available.)

My point of view is this:  I don't make recordings, and I don't have any
influence on anyone who does.  For me, proving that analogue methods are
still capable of better sound than digital is pretty useless if, in fact,
there are only a few analogue recordings good enough for there to be
a difference.  Particularly since I seldom listen to classical music.

I would guess that, even if CD's were uniformly worse than the very best
analogue recordings, that CD's could very well be almost always better
than the usual vinyl pressing of a pop/rock/new-wave disc.

But I don't have a CD player to make comparisons.  Has anyone done this?
What do you think?  Are CD's usually better than vinyl, or usually worse?
If better, is the price difference in the media worth it?