cd VS record myth explained within!

Sep 16, 2007 at 10:22 PM Post #16 of 96
Quote:

Originally Posted by Herandu /img/forum/go_quote.gif
They are too valuable to be treated in such a manner. And not everything that shines is gold.


I guess I didn't value my albums very much...in 1985 when I bought my first CDP my vinyl was boxed up never to be played again. SQ improvement was so very obvious.

For the record I've never hung a CD from my mirror
tongue.gif
 
Sep 16, 2007 at 11:21 PM Post #17 of 96
Quote:

Originally Posted by GreatDane /img/forum/go_quote.gif
SQ improvement was so very obvious.


I'd disagree if it wasn't for the fact that my vinyl rig isn't as 'static'-free as CDs. But musically speaking, I think vinyl is superior to CDs. Technically, a normal CD can only fit 20-20kHz, while the potential of a vinyl is almost unlimited. It is only limited by the depth of the groove in the record and the pickup used.
 
Sep 17, 2007 at 1:02 AM Post #18 of 96
This is the greatest scientific discovery until there is a unified theory for normal physics an quantum physics.
 
Sep 17, 2007 at 9:22 AM Post #19 of 96
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikongod /img/forum/go_quote.gif
NO not even close! the average adult can hold a CD by its edges with one hand! try that with a record, you just have to use 2 hands.


This is strictly incorrect. In 1979, my brother destroyed my Video Killed the Radio Star record in a mutual fit of rage. After that, the record quite easily fitted in the palm of one hand. Well, the bits I could retrieve anyway...
 
Sep 17, 2007 at 10:36 AM Post #21 of 96
There is no question that CD is superior to vinyl, given the application. I don't have to stop in the act of whatever I am doing in bed or on the floor after every 15 minutes odd.... I can take the full hour giving my companion a hard time. So c-dee for me...
 
Sep 17, 2007 at 5:35 PM Post #22 of 96
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindless /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Technically, a normal CD can only fit 20-20kHz, while the potential of a vinyl is almost unlimited.


The only thing above 20kHz on an LP is surface noise. When cutting the lacquer, it was standard practice to roll off the highs.

See ya
Steve
 
Sep 17, 2007 at 5:37 PM Post #23 of 96
Quote:

Originally Posted by ADD /img/forum/go_quote.gif
This is strictly incorrect. In 1979, my brother destroyed my Video Killed the Radio Star record in a mutual fit of rage. After that, the record quite easily fitted in the palm of one hand. Well, the bits I could retrieve anyway...


Your brother has good taste in music.

See ya
Steve
 
Sep 17, 2007 at 5:42 PM Post #24 of 96
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The only thing above 20kHz on an LP is surface noise. When cutting the lacquer, it was standard practice to roll off the highs.


ah the "Fallacy" of repetition
evil_smiley.gif
 
Sep 19, 2007 at 1:39 AM Post #27 of 96
9" ????

Was it Blackoak Arkansas and then Aerosmith who sung of playin' their BIG 10"......Records ????

Certainly double entendre Rock song titles will never be named after the CeeDee ... I do believe it sounds as though your online "Hotties" may very well be onto something BIG here
wink.gif
 
Sep 19, 2007 at 4:19 AM Post #28 of 96
That was Bull Moose Jackson.

See ya
Steve
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top