Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
I've got a few minutes to play. So for the umpeenth time although I don't know why.

Rubish, pure rubbish. (Like that English kid? For the rest of you, that's Brit lingo for; I think DMK's full of xxxx.) That's what I think of your posting.

OK one by one.

1. RBCD adds no audible distortion and makes no compromises. The listening confirms the measurements. No harmonic or intermodulation distortion. No hum or noise. No wow, flutter or rumble. No tape hiss or other random noise. No dynamic compression. Total channel separation.

2. Musical instruments sound clear and accurate. The entire audible range is covered. From the deepest bass of the largest pipe organs to the highest overtones of violins, piccolos, triangles. Piano notes and all percussions instruments have a clean sharp attack. Sibilant sounds of the human voice are clear and distinct even in mass choral works. The sound of massive orchestras are faithfully reproduced while small intimate ensembles like string quartets allow you to pick out every instrument and yet hear their integration. Dixieland jazz bands especially benefit when well recorded. The cd system mercilessly reveals the shortcomings of poor recordings and inferior sound systems, especially the shrill sound of so called audiophile speakers and the muted treble of vacuum tube amplifiers. On excellent equipment, massed violins sound sweet and silky while cymbals have a distinct metallic crash.

3.The lack of dynamic compression of cds is taken by some people to be some sort of compression in a confused and incorrect evaluation of what they are hearing. Since compression makes the softer parts of music louder, lack of compression restores them to their true relative loudness. As a result, softer parts are softer and reverberation at the end of each musical phrase is lower. CDs are a truer recording of a musical event usually lacking the tweaking and manipulation needed to compress vinyl into its restricted frequency and dynamic capabilities. CDs do not have the boomy muffled quality of vinyl records. There is no acoustic feedback, no pops and clicks, no distortion due to mistracking, no wear, and with reasonable care they last for a very long time sounding exactly like new after countless plays.

4. CDs can be poorly made just as vinyl. Careless remastering of pop vinyl recordings whose master tapes have deteriorated over the intervening decades since they were recorded and whose producers don't care about quality because they have a captive audience which buys these recordings out of nostalgia will surely sound awful. But even old classical recordings made in the 1960s and 1970s sound more brilliant and cleaner than they ever did on vinyl, especially when produced by people who care about quality such as Deutche Grammaphone.

5. I is a pleasure to be able to hear for the first time the full dynamic range of music. The quietest passages without background hiss or noise against a dead silent background and the loudest crecendos without distortion or compression and all on the same recording. Going back to analog playback after hearing music this way is unthinkable.

6. "The Biggie" purchasing the same recording on cd that I owned on vinyl brings new life to it. No recording can ever make one believe to any extent) that they are sitting in the venue, listening live. That is well beyond the current state of the art. What cds can do is make listening to fine recordings played over fine equipment much more enjoyable.

I use my ears to make my decisions, I have excellent equipment, I've heard lots of live music in my life, and DMK knows exactly why I like cds. Simply because they sound better. But I don't rule the world. The market decided who the winner was to be. And it made up its mind a long time ago that vinyl would become increasingly rare until it was all but extinct. The number of new vinyl discs being cut worldwide today is nearly zilch. In 50 years, we will look at vinyl phonograph records the same way we see shellac 78s and wax cylinders. An interesting historical artifact but laughable as a viable medium for recording and playback of high fidelity sound. Come to think of it, you don't have to wait 50 years. That's the way most people feel about it right now today.
Not worthless in the sense that these aren't your honest feelings but worthless in the spirit that DMK posted - all of this is opinion, at least as far as sound and our posts are not going to change anything. I won't go over your objections point by point - again, because it's simply my opinion against yours - but I do have a couple of points to make.

First, if you truly believe that no recording or system can transport you to the live venue to any extent, your equipment is far from "excellent" and it's time to trade it in. Or perhaps it's your music software. Try some vinyl. CD's don't do it for me very often, either. I find it interesting that the people that are never fooled into thinking they're hearing live music are always digiphiles.

The market, the market, the market - do you believe the market on everything or just on CD's? I've said it before - since the market has embraced fast food hamburgers, does that make them better than homemade? For a so called scientist to follow the polls or the whims of the marketplace would seem to me to be the antithesis of your education. I think you're attributing a sophistication to the market that just doesn't exist. I think it's pure laziness in not taking care of their vinyl that put CD's where they are - that and the convenience issue. Vinyl sounds better but requires care - cars run better when they have oil in them but gosh, what a pain!

In 50 years, we will still be playing LP's. On the other hand, CD's will be a historical artifact as we'll be getting all our new music downloaded to our computer hard drives. Since we've been moving away from good sound towards convenience, this is the next logical step. But those who appreciate good sound will still have and play their vinyl. Count on it!