Opus-the-Penguin t1_j20q8t9 wrote
Reply to comment by scavengercat in Wiil CD's make a comeback like Vinyl? by trukises
Welp, you know more than all the pro audio engineers who contributed to extensive articles on the subject then. You know more than the so-called "golden ears" of the recording industry who listened and compared in carefully engineered rooms to get the full effect. And of course you know more than all of us who listened to a CD after having only heard LPs and instantly heard the difference.
scavengercat t1_j20rh1o wrote
Yes I do. You don't know what you're talking about. I've worked with top, top recording, mixing and mastering engineers across the country since the late '90s. I know what the fuck I'm talking about here. You do not.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j20u4xf wrote
I'm just telling you why everyone switched to CDs in the 80s. It was the sound quality. All the audio engineers at the time agreed. Every article said so. But most importantly, we HEARD it. Once you heard a CD, there was no going back to LP. Convenience had NOTHING to do with it. Zero. Zip. We switched because we couldn't imagine going back to the LP's inferior sound. A lot of us bought albums on CD that we already owned on LP. It was worth it.
scavengercat t1_j211263 wrote
You are incorrect, again. That's NOT why people switched to CDs - length of storage was a much bigger driver. You just don't know what you're talking about here. LPs in no way have an inferior sound, the technology of CDs requires audio data to be removed for 44.1 audio. Please understand that as an audio professional, this is just wildly wrong info you keep providing.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j21216r wrote
I don't know if you're an audio professional or not, but you're wrong. People did not switch to CDs so they could have both sides of an album on one CD. That is not why CDs were called "audio crack" and "the silver drug". That is not what the announcers on the classical stations talked about with awe in their voices. That was not what Charlie who ran the classical department at Tower Records talked about. That was not what the articles in Stereo Review and High Fidelity talked about. They all talked about the SOUND. The superior SOUND. And we heard it. So we paid almost twice as much for CDs as we would for an LP. Not so we wouldn't have to flip Abbey Road over in order to hear "Here Comes the Sun". I'm not making this up. I'm telling you what actually happened in the 80s and what we all said and heard.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j219d5x wrote
I wonder if Elton John or Jeff Lynne or Geddy Lee ever thought that there would be people in the future arguing on the internet and making this big of a deal. Lol.
Back in the 70s, everyone was listening to AM Radio and everyone was happy and didn't give a shxt.
When we focus ~too much~ on this idea of "perfect" we miss the point -- the point is to just enjoy the music.
Rush & Queen & ELO & Elton John all sound the same on CD as it does on Vinyl, and they would probably be ashamed of us for arguing so aggressively over this shxt.
Who the bloody hell cares that CD is 16bit & 44khz. I don't hear whatever alleged difference the Canine-Eared audiophile snobs are hearing.
And if I want that "Warmth" that CD sound supposedly lacks (it's really just extra Midrange Presence & Harmonic Distortion), I can ~add~ it myself, using RC20 VST.
Radio Stations used to use Harmonic Exciters, like the Aphex Aural Exciter -- to make the music they broadcast sound more lively....
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j21a976 wrote
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_j21btiz wrote
Ya know what I wish???? I wish that Sony wouldn't have kept ATRAC & the Mini-Disc Technology all to themselves.
It was a brilliant concept -- take a tiny version of a CD and stuff it inside a plastic casing with a little sliding window just like a Floppy Disk. That way the surface of the Disc doesn't have to be handled by human hands (unless you move the window aside and do it on purpose). Such a change could have worked out great for the entire Record Industry.
And the ATRAC Format itself was very interesting. But like anything Sony ever does, they wanted to keep it just for themselves.
They doomed this neat idea to failure by being too selfish with it. Mini-Disc could have revolutionized the entire market.
scavengercat t1_j217mu3 wrote
Nope. Nope. I'm not wrong in any way on this. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about here. I don't give a shit if you believe me, this is for anyone reading the thread, so they can see there's pushback to your fundamental misunderstanding of what you're talking about here. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j219dl4 wrote
You can say that all you want. I lived through it. I remember it. Ask anyone who was at least 18 in 1987.
scavengercat t1_j21b9uk wrote
I lived through it, too. That's meaningless. Living through it doesn't automatically make you an expert. I grew up on 8 tracks and LPs.
Opus-the-Penguin t1_j21r30u wrote
I didn't say I'm an expert. I said I remember the time well and the articles I read and the comments of the classical announcers and Charlie at Tower Records and everyone else. You can't hand wave that away by claiming to be an expert. If you have an article from a technical magazine from the time period claiming that CDs are inferior audio quality but people buy them because they're convenient, bring it on. You don't. That wasn't what happened.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments