From: ttak@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Why switch to CD?
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:43:27 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <5OCT199216563919@deimos.ucc.umass.edu> twright@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (TODD E WRIGHT) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.084101.10082@bsu-ucs.uucp>, 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes...
>>I think I'm one of the last non-CD owners. And I'm finding that state a little
>>frustrating but the thought of changing it not attractive enough outweigh the
>>frustration.
>> 
>>The problem is that recordings I'd like to own I can't buy because I don't
>>have a CD player.I could correct that by buying one, but every time I think of
>>doing so I compare the prices of CDs and cassettes and decide that I still
>>don't really want to do that.    (I'm probably not as poor as I am tight.)  
>> 
>>The question is, "What are the advantages of getting into the CD market?
>> 
>>As I see it, there are two advantages:
>> 
>>1.  CD sound quality is better than tape or LP.
>> 
>>2.  An increasing number of good recordings will be available only on CD.

>Another advantage to CDs is durability. If you take good care of a CD
>they can last you a lifetime, but cassettes wear out if you listen to
>them over and over, stick a magnet on them, accidentally tape over them,
>feed them into an evil machine, break the tape, etc.  CDs have superior 
>sound quality and will last forever with minimum care. 

Excuse me! But I must hold the analog flame high up on my soap-box.

CD's do not inherently sound "better" than LP's, countless examples can
be cited pro LP or pro CD, but "sound quality" should not be an issue here.
I own a $500 class turntable, carefully set-up running some interesting
home-brew tube amplification. THis drives a set of Magnepans (MG-Ic's).
This system is an inexpensive taste of the "high-end," not a $50,000
esoteric system.

If your LP players sounds horrendous, you'd better fix that lest you
trash (or continue trashing) the LP's that you currently own.

To answer some questions :

Case 1 : LP sound quality is better than CD sound quality -
   comparing $500 clas playback equipment, the difference is moderate but
   noticable. The CD player does not have as well defined imaging or
   as smooth a treble when playing near identical recordings.

   I prefer analog recordings to digital. This is largely moot given the
   current state of the industry, but mint used records are inexpensive!

   "Digital Remastering" does not necessarily mean better. Usually it
   turns a muddy analog recording into an equalized muddy digital remastering.

   Post 1950 recording technology is pretty good, surely all microphones
   are coloured and some more than others. But less processing is usually
   better - digital "remastering" is processing, just as "electronically
   enhanced for stereo".

Case 2: CD's last longer than LP's - media permanence. The media may be
   permanent (the jury is still out in my book) but are the players going
   to be around? Frankly, I don't see too many functioning 1985 vintage
   CD players as of this writing, the transports seem to have gotten flakey.


   10 years after the CD is obsolete, can we still play the old technology?
   Think about the state of BetaMax video tapes in 1992!
   
   I have modern equipment that can play 78's - I can listen (and *do*
   listen) to original pressings dating back to the first decade of this
   century. Surely 78's are delicate, but media permanence is not a problem!

Conclusion : the music is worth the media, no matter how good or bad the
   media is. If you are interested in post 1985 issues, you must purchase
   either a CD or Cassette. There are very few people who have been agressive
   as I in seeking that last of the LP pressings.



tim