On 25/01/08, Roger and Allison Kulp wrote:
> There will always be a new generation of record/CD collectors,who will
> discover the good stuff they were not around for,be it from the
> 1970s,or the 1920s.Usually about the time they hit their twenties.Yes
> vinyl is better than CDs,I have a record collection that is slowly
> edging up towards 20,000 pieces,byt nary a single CD. But I can
> appreciate what those who make high end equipment have done to inprove
> the playback of an essentially flawed format.
If you don't listen to CDs, you may not be in a good position to say
flatly that "vinyl is better".
Some recordings are better on vinyl, because they have been badly
transferred to CD from analog. Some CDs were recorded digitally in the early
days of digital recording, and sound nasty.
Others are better on CD because they have been carefully transferred from
studio master tapes, while the LPs were made from second or third generation
tapes and sloppily pressed.
I suggest that Mosaic's CDs, for example, are generally better than the
LP versions. So are the RCA Living Presence SACD issues. So are the
recent DSD transfers of Columbia recordings from the 80s, such as
[log in to unmask]