Are records really better than CD's?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Comparing a live performance to a playback system, there is only one presentation that is closer to being there. I suppose that you could argue that one system gets closer one way and another system gets closer another way. However, I don't disagree with you that different presentations can be very good. I like dipoles and speakers with a tall vertical waveform such as line arrays. I suppose that how the music gets presented isn't important to me as long as the image is disassociated with the actual speakers.

If jazz and classical is not high on your list, then throw out your live performance comparison. These are the only two genres that do not require a P.A system in a acoustical environment. Also if you are using a live comparison, then where you sit in the venue determines your live perspective. In any auditorium, where you sit determines your acoustical perspective, and not all halls or performance spaces are the same.

No doubt, and I've been to some of these sites selling Hi-Rez files, but for the most part, it's not the kind of music I prefer. Jazz and classical are low on my list of desirable recordings. Below that is RAP and much mainstream pop music of today, I do have an interest in New Age, but a little goes a long way. I do love vocals, but much of what is available on these better formats is not to my liking. For instance, Diana Krall, a real favorite of many, just doesn't do it for me. Truthfully I can't put my finger on what I like and what I do really like can come from many different genres. Usually it will be only one song from the mix.

If you don't know what you like, then how can you search for quality sources of anything? Jazz and Classical are the most supported genres of high resolution audio, so you are essential searching for a needle in a hay stack, with filter applied to that search even further.

I was implying that it was a state of the art turntable without equal. I don't know anything about your CD player and never alluded to it. I assume you have much better equipment than a simple CD player.

A state of the art turntable is not without equal when the medium itself is already compromised in terms of accuracy and transparency. That is a fact, and if you choose to ignore that, then your opinion is already compromised.

Everything has distortion. Your microphones, your speakers, your electronics, you name it and it has it. You can even say that speaker presentation that we referred to above can be considered a form of distortion, although it is not normally referred to in such a way. The fact is that if you compare two different speakers with different presentations and they are both equal in sound quality, what would you call the effect that makes them sound different? For sure, I wouldn't call it accuracy.

If you would call it accuracy, then your comments on vinyl are official negated. The best mastering and pressing engineers I know have stated that vinyl is the least accurate playback system there is, even though it is probably the most euphoric and pleasing format.

It's an odd thing... When I listen to live music, it's not a boring neutral sound. It's vibrant and tactile. CD's, at least the ones, I've had do not convey that vibrancy of being live whereas vinyl does get closer. Keep in mind that I've not heard all the CD players so I cannot say that it's not capable of being vibrant or that Hi-Rez recordings are better or worse than vinyl. I assume that Hi-Rez will (or does) close the gap and exceed vinyl in every way.

Then all one can conclude is you don't have a very good digital playback system.

I have to be frank with you about my conclusions about CD players. Most mainstream CD players were meant to replace peoples record players and average stereos. It does this very well and the improvement has been tremendous. They are not a replacement for a higher end audio system with vinyl. This in no way implies that the higher end CD players aren't vinyls equal in one way or another. I am not making a blanket statement that vinyl is without equal, but average CD players do not surpass a decent turntable system.

You continually mention CD over and over again, and that is hardly the best digital presentation you can compare against vinyl.

I don't find any of this to be true. When I play my favorite CD and record of the same recording, they sound almost alike. Where they differ is that I hear more detail, less blurring, and sound closer to what I've heard live which, I believe, is a product of having more detail.. So far this has held true for all copies that I have in both formats. I assume that eventually, I will find, in some cases, the opposite to be true since others have had that experience.

If you don't have a high quality digital source, then your comparison is already flawed.

It all boils down to this... Vinyl is not perfect, digital is not perfect, electronics are not perfect, audio transducers are not perfect, the recording process is not perfect, and our hearing is not perfect (or the same). Throw in all the abnormalities of room reflections and what you have is a cornucopia of imperfections that distort, in one way or another, what we hear. Why argue which one is more imperfect? Perhaps in the future, audio systems will improve to a point as to make the best of today sound like a gramophone in comparison.

I can just see your skirming right now, you are now reaching for points that discredit everything, and that shows the weakness of your prevous points. Not one thing in the statement degates the fact that vinyl is a imperfect medium for accuracy and neutrality. The room could be perfect, and it would still expose the coloration of the vinyl format as a playback system.

People used to argue the same way over video and standard definition and then HD came along and blew it away, but it isn't stopping there. Higher definition formats are in the making and 3D transcends it all. Still, technology marches on to improve the state of the art of today.

Hi-rez audio formats are a step in the right direction, but it is only a step, which brings us a little closer to live. It cannot be considered the final solution to bridge the gap between live versus recorded.

How could you even make the last statement without any experience with high resolution audio? 24/96khz and 24/192khz audio far more than bridges any gap, most believe that is an overkill for the human ears - and yet it is out there.

I would rather have formats that exceed the capabilites of my ear in terms of frequency, transparency, and resolution, than one that sugar and spices it to death.