From: jwlr@okeeffe.cc.rochester.edu (James Willer)
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: switching from vinyl to cd
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:41:34 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

bad@pismo.sw.stratus.com (Bruce Dumes) writes:

>I was trying to keep my mouth shut, but I feel compelled to respond.. 

As do I.

>The following comments are, of course, all IMHO.

Same here.

>CDs are not "closer to what they sounded like when they were playing the
>music."  They are not "like it was supposed to sound".  These have been
>digitized which changes the sound, whether you like CDs or not.  Some
>people like digital sound, some don't.  But analog is not the same as
>digital, and it doesn't sound the same.

Granted, no-one in the '60s were recording music with the intention
of making CD quality reproduction. It just wasn't possible to imagine.
Of course, GM & the Fabs *were* comitted (usually) to making the best
sounding recordings they could with the equiptment available. (GM more
than the Fabs, I suspect ...)

>The CDs are impressive.  You can hear little things that you didn't hear
>as well in the albums.  This is because digital sound is different.  However
>interesting these new sounds might be, it does not necessarily make the
>music better, and it is *not* what the Beatles intended.  They never heard
>these digitized when they were recording them.

You are entitled to prefer analog sound, but unless you have a D/A
converter with very bad filtering, digital is usually much clearer
than analog. Yes, the difference can be jarring if you're used to
analog.

The average listener will probably not notice the difference, and those
of us who wish to listen with more attention detail can.

>Added to this is the fact that George Martin remixed two of the albums
>for CDs.  I have a real problem with this, personally.  This is *obviously*
>not the sound that the Beatles intended for us to hear, unless you subscribe
>to the theory that George Martin *was* the Beatles.

Technicality time!  First, the Boys paid absolutely no mind to the mixing
of those two albums in the first place (I'm assuming you mean the earliest
ones)!
Second, GM said he made a great effort to fight the urge to "fix"
some of the "mistakes" that were in the originals.

>Vinyl doesn't *have* to have pops and scratches.  You have to take care
>of them.  You have to take care of CDs, too, or they die fast.  And when
>a CD dies, it is completely useless.  You can at least still listen to
>a record with pops.

Vinyl doesn't *have* to have pops and scratches, but it usually *does*.
Vinyl albums degrade to some small degree everytime you drag that diamond
needle across them!  If you take care of your CDs with the *minimum* amount
of care that vinyl requires (ie, don't leave them in direct sunlight,
don't use them for air-hockey pucks, don't drag nails across them)
they stand a very good chance of outlasting any vinyl.

Yes, you can still listen to a record with pops and scratches, but how
well can you *enjoy* it??

>To me, digitized analog recordings remind me of the expression about
>not seeing the forest for the trees.  Digitized sound makes it even easier
>to see the trees, but you lose even more of the forest.  I can hear more
>little details in the CDs, but the original vinyl is, to me, much more
>musical.

If an artist paints a picture of the forest with lots of tiny detail
in the trees, I would prefer to be able to see it. That way one has
a choice of looking at the overall picture or examining the minute
details.  To you vinyl is more musical, to me vinyl is more compressed
and restrictive.

>This doesn't even start to address the fact that both Sony and Phillips
>have gone on record as saying that the current CD technology has inherent
>flaws, but their brand new CDs (at $25 a piece!) will fix all those problems.

So the fact that technology advances rapidly in today's world should not
mean that 15 year old CD tech can be improved upon?  How well would
your computer stand up against one on the market 10 years ago?

>Please pardon my bluntness, but screw them!  They are playing the music
>buying public like a violin, and the people just keep on giving them their
>money.  The record manufactures stopped vinyl because CDs are cheaper to
>produce and they can sell them for more money.  

CDs are cheaper to make than vinyl?? (BWaaahaaahaaahaaahaa!!!)(sorry, I
just had to laugh!)

>If anyone would like to discuss this more, please e-mail me.

ooops. (however, as long as it contains the GM/Beatles ref, I
think posting is valid)

				James Willer
[any opinions above are already registered with the federal government]