Most CD's are poorly done, opposed to most LP's (vinyl) which seem to have been more carefully taken care of.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. That turntable/cartridge combination is fine for DJ-ing, but it's very unsatisfactory for quality audio reproduction. I'm surprised digital didn't sound better than analog EVERY time.
It was a "vinyl versus digital" test. A vinyl was playing back. The line out of the ampli was directed into the DAT deck, 48 kHz 16 bits. The ampli vinyl input (pure analog) was compared to the DAT input (digitized to 48 kHz 16 bits).
Not suggesting it means anything, but it's interesting that people who consistently feel vinyl sounds better have high-end setups, and those who prefer digital generally compare using an inexpensive (or even cheap plastic) turntable. Good analog equipment can be very expensive, bad analog playback equipment abounds...
I have heard this argument alot. Its true that vinyl has distortions however it has a wider frequency range. CD's however are able to play higher frequencys that vinyl can't however vinyl reaches lower frequencys that CD's can't. when people compare the clarity they are listining to the distortions in the vinyl during the gaps they arent noticing the wider frequency range. if your music preferance is mostly high's then cd's are obviusly better but if you want a wider frequency range with thump vinyl is still #1 IMHO I think that this argument is basically the resault of skilless wanbee DJ's who want to be cool using beat matching programs.
vinyl reaches lower frequencys that CD's can't.
What any particular system can retrieve from the LP is dependent primarily upon the phono cartridge and, to a lesser extent, upon the phono preamp.
music these days is over processed and too clinical, hopefully one day they will combine the best elements of both )
I have looked at lots of technical comparisons between both CD and LP media and I feel that the real issue is the way the music is edited and mixed. I have many examples of “original” or so called “re-mastered” recordings on CD that don’t sound original at all and perhaps far from it to be sure. The low end of these so-called CD “remasters” can sound fuzzy and exaggerated, the brass is often be too harsh and muddled, the violins appear too sweet. My overwhelming preference is to do my own digitizing of vinyl and burn it to CD. In that way I get the best of both worlds. I get a very true and original rendition of the vinyl with no loss of quality and sometimes even an improvement. And believe it, the cost of good digitizing is not that much.The undisputed convenience of CD and IPOD is undeniable, where I can take it anywhere and play it anywhere. Imagine walking around with a bunch of records, let alone allowing those magnificent beauties to be played of somebody’s half assed TT. No chance my friend. The “original” original recorded music is probably kept on several very high quality 30 IPS real-to-real tapes in a guarded and hermetically controlled vault somewhere. The recordings were made on several individual tracks from mikes placed in different locations. Editors go in and re-mix the tracks nowadays and produce new and so-called “improved” copies, which don’t often resemble the familiar stuff we have known and loved in years past.
I think the difference is the mastering as well. Same with SACD, all the SACD I own sound very good to superb, and I'm sure the mastering has at least as much to do with it as the DSD format.To me CD and vinyl is the same, they can both sound good if properly mastered. Sadly these days contemporary rock and pop albums usually aren't mastered well to CD.