Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
I am sick of this pointless debate.
Most audiophiles' record collections include LPs <I>and</I> CDs, but one format invariably is played more than the other. In yours, which one is it, and by how much?
Although I do buy some CD's on occasion, I am continually searching out sources for used LP's, buying them for a buck or 2, then taking them home to listen. Regardless of the noise free sound of CD's, LP's are still easier to take. sound closer to the real thing, etc.
I use CDs for my most of my listening. The convenience of the CD gives it an edge when I just want something to listen to. But when I want to do some Deep listening. when I want to feel the organics, the roundness, the riches of music it has to be an album for that. CDs have been much improved over the years but, they still lag behind. As long as we have people in the music busz that know the cd is perfect yet it will get better. I just hope thier is enough of them to make the diffents.
I am slowly going back to vinyl for the simple reason that CD prices will not be going down. I will not pay $18 plus tax for a crummy CD when I can get a good LP for $5 or less. And there is a limitless supply of vinyl, so I will never be without. I am doing more than complaining; I am voting with my wallet. When the new formats take hold, maybe I'll start collecting CDs. I doubt it.
I've heard vinyl, and I'll admit it has some sonic advantages. I was exposed to high-end at a strictly digital stereo store, however. I spent my hard-earned coin of the realm on a transport and D/A converter and never looked back. The way products are improving every year, whatever disposable income I have goes into upgrading my digital front-end.
CDs require low maintenance, sound is acceptable, and CD players do not require the time-consuming calibration good turntables need. Also, CD sound offers no scratches, pops, or the need to flip sides. The over 300 albums I have collected are still well stored in case I change my mind in the future.
I took my albums to college. My Thorens bounces like a ball at the smallest bounces, and once or twice a year I have to shell out big bucks for a new cartridge. On top of that, the tunes last 20 minutes, require major cleaning before use, and require constant mechanical attention. I'm not getting rid of vinyl, and I'm not blind to CD's flaws, but LPs have their own, and severe, disadvantages. So I really hope the 24/96 debate is settled before someone convinces the masses that MPEG is the way to listen.
My audio system is build around CD play only, since only a few years ago I serieusly began thinking of 'assembling' a system that would please my ears. After a few years of disappointing buys I finally have put a system together that sings as it should. For me the most important component is the source, but the real source is the quality of electricity that has to feed the components. Much attention to this juice quality is needed before any component can function at its best. Having heard analog music at an audio exhibition, I must admit that it imnpressed me, although it should have sound perfect since it was run on mega bucks equipment. However, since the CD sound quality and CD players are getting better and better, I do not feel compelled at all to include analog recordings and equipment in my system. This for the first reason of the enormous costs it will bring, and secondly for the additional space it would need. This is of course personal, and there is for me no such thing as denying the truth about the sound quality of analog. Although the journey to sound perfection is as limitless as human evolution itself, I am pretty satisfied with what I hear from my present system which is within my personal financial limits and space available.
There are certain types of music (like jazz) that just don't sound right to me on CD. For more contemporary styles, like techno and acid country house music, the CDs will do just fine. But give me a good analog recording anyday if you are talking acoustic instruments.