From: kwan@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Yik-Yin Edwin Kwan)
Subject: Re: CD's .vs. LP's (Re: Neighbor's loud stereo
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 03:56:45 GMT

In article <pXG=pAB@engin.umich.edu> hpang@engin.umich.edu (Ho Sun Pang) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>
>The point here is NOT whether the human ears could distinguish between the
>continous analog signals and the discrete digital signals.
>

So what's the point?

>
>Well, our focus is the QUALITY, right?  So again, CD is economically superior
>than LP.
>

If you compare a HK$700,000 turntable with a $5,000 CD player, using 
a CD remastered from analog tape, and the same software in LP, the
result should be clear.

>
>There were actually 3 blind tests being carried out in HK when CD was 1st
>introduced in 1983.  In each session, a group of about 100 music lovers (most
>of them have fancy Hi-Fis, of course), "test-hear" 20 classical titles, each
>title being played in random order behind a screen so you couldn't tell which 
>is from CD and which is from LP.  The tests results were LP is better *even*
>*though* CD has less background noise.  I'd guess they are talking about the 

This is exactly what happened in the tests, I suppose.  And today a $5,000
CD player should be better than those Philips players in 1983.  More, 
those audiophiles were so used to the LP sound in those days, that
they thought the CD sound was "harsh".  It's totally a question of
personal favor; some people define good quality as the kind of sound
from LP's.  It's like people in the Tang dynasty thought fat women were
beautiful.  Notice I am not saying that all fat women are ugly.  What
other people think is their own business.

The CD vs LP argument has been going on for years in the rec.audio groups.
In my opinion, which one is better has nothing to do with science.  If
you like LP's, spend some spare time cleaning and maintaining them, buy
an expensive head (if you have enough money), and enjoy!  If you like
CD's, wipe them clean once in a while, and buy a reliable player.  Spend
more time enjoying your music instead of arguing!

>WARMTH and subtle NAUNCES of the sounds.  You know, to test a real Hi-Fi you 
>don't play Sandy Lam, Billy Joe or Sting, you play a Beethoven's Ninth 
>symphony or Mahler's Ninth Symphony (which are among some classical works that 
>could push even the best Hi-Fi equipments to their limits easily).
>

Here comes something which makes me unpleasant.  First of all, not all
proclaimed "sky disc"'s are classical.  At least there was one by
Police.  And many jazz albums are popular choices for testing too.  One
of them is Jazz at the Pawnshop, LP era Sweden "sky disc".  An example
of a pop "sky disc" is Jennifer Warnes's Famous Blue Raincoat, and if
you don't mind, Dire Strait's Money for Nothing.

The meaning of pushing a Hi-Fi equipment to its limit is unclear.  If 
you only test a Hi-Fi setup for its output dynamic range, it is not 
only an incomplete test, it is also a sick behavior; imagine someone
buys a 1812 Overture and only listens to those several minutes with
the cannon sound.

Again, arguing which is better between CD and LP is a waste of time.
This topic should belong to rec.audio.  I see tomatoes and eggs
already...

Sorry folks!

--
       (
       ))
      (  )	
     /     \            Yik-Yin Edwin Kwan
    (       )           kwan@ecn.purdue.edu
    /        \
   (   ^   ^  )         " Take me with you!
  /            )   ....   I would like to immigrate! "
 (       O      )
  \__         _/        (C) 1991 Edwin Kwan
     ~~-----~~