CD playback...

... is underrated.

Last couple of days I've been mainly playing selected tracks from various artists. Usually it's vinyl that takes the limelight. No remastered CDs as some can sound cold, just the original recorded ones.: it sounds natural, dynamic and just very enjoyable. These are the following albums I've played.

Tracy Chapman -- self-titled first album
Radiohead -- The Bends
Crowded House -- Woodface
Best of Northern Soul -- compilation

Currently playing:

Del Amitri -- Hatful of Rain (best of)

Many people on here, myself included, laud the virtues of vinyl playback, but not having played any CDs for a while, they are very good sounding. And given current prices of new and used CDs, they are great value for money.
 
Last edited:

skinnypuppy71

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2021
413
275
2,270
Visit site
Still.....loving playing and buying both formats. Although I've just revisited vinyl at the beginning of the year after selling all of it four years ago. so have put more funds into the vinyl setup ( and records) than the digital side of things, achieving great sound on digital and cd's doesn't have to cost the earth these days either, but vinyl's a different beast altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: plastic penguin
Yeah, understand the foibles of vinyl. But with the advent of streaming/downloading and so-called vinyl revival, CDs seem to have become the poor relation.

I haven't done any direct comparison with black, spinny stuff purely because of very few of the albums on both formats
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gray

Freddy

Well-known member
BANNED
May 18, 2022
862
185
570
Visit site
Given the chance, vinyl can sound fantastic - but CD doesn't need such expense to sound as good.

As for High Resolution....
How many people can tell when they're listening above 16/44.1?
If High Res was as good as the early hype said, people wouldn't need to visually confirm their bitrate would they?
For me High Resolution can sound a bit too much eg Guns N Roses Appetitite for Destruction Blu-ray in the deluxe package everything is just louder I am pretty sure not clearer. I don’t listen to it now, just keep with Apple streaming, CDs and cheap Spotify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gray
For me High Resolution can sound a bit too much eg Guns N Roses Appetitite for Destruction Blu-ray in the deluxe package everything is just louder I am pretty sure not clearer. I don’t listen to it now, just keep with Apple streaming, CDs and cheap Spotify.
There's no way anything on blu ray is going to be better than red book CD quality.
Streamed quality is another matter.
Ultimately it will depend on how you have set up your system and where the money went....
 

Freddy

Well-known member
BANNED
May 18, 2022
862
185
570
Visit site
There's no way anything on blu ray is going to be better than red book CD quality.
Streamed quality is another matter.
Ultimately it will depend on how you have set up your system and where the money went....
Well, it was originally a CD but for the deluxe package it got made into a Blu-Ray Audio disc - pretty sure it’s high resolution master audio recording and it’s just in your face recording.

In the product description it states what it is:


One customer review on Amazon reckons it adds more spectrum than the CD.
 

manicm

Well-known member
CD has never died actually. Sales declined dramatically but in 2021, while vinyl brought in more revenue, in the US CD was still the best selling physical medium in volume. And this is according to RIAA.
 

Friesiansam

Well-known member
Given the chance, vinyl can sound fantastic - but CD doesn't need such expense to sound as good.

As for High Resolution....
How many people can tell when they're listening above 16/44.1?
If High Res was as good as the early hype said, people wouldn't need to visually confirm their bitrate would they?
I have tried high res on my Pathos DAC/headamp and, really not sure it sounded any better. I also think some people don't realise just how much information can be extracted from a standard CD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gray and WayneKerr
There's no way anything on blu ray is going to be better than red book CD quality.
Streamed quality is another matter.
Ultimately it will depend on how you have set up your system and where the money went....
So true. Most of my money went on vinyl, whereas the CDP was bargain bucket from a auction site. Quality of a decent table does shine through for a die-hard like me.

Due to personal issues with Mrs. P the enthusiasm for hi-fi has drained. Not great with recent expensive speakers, but CDs are convenient compared to the pampering vinyl needs.

But pleasantly surprised by the sheer quality of CD on a cheap as chips player.
 

WayneKerr

Well-known member
Agree regarding remastered CDs, I much prefer un-tinkered originals. I like to be in control of the volume setting of my music.

I've said it many times but since I got the Marantz pair two years ago my turntable has seen no action at all, CD or streamed rips sound so damned good. I could do a direct comparison as I do have original LPs and CDs from the same artist.

Hi-res, in my opinion, a complete waste of hard-earned cash, just another ploy to get you to spend your money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gray and Freddy
Well, it was originally a CD but for the deluxe package it got made into a Blu-Ray Audio disc - pretty sure it’s high resolution master audio recording and it’s just in your face recording.

In the product description it states what it is:


One customer review on Amazon reckons it adds more spectrum than the CD.

i see, understood.
blu ray audio quite is different to a soundtrack of a film recorded on a blu ray disc
quite often with these the volume base level is higher than normal but it also depends on the output line level of whatever you are playing them on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freddy

treesey

Well-known member
Agree regarding remastered CDs, I much prefer un-tinkered originals. I like to be in control of the volume setting of my music.

Whoa :D as always - 'it depends'.

Among my huge and frankly bizarre diversity of music lies stuff from the 1970s. Which I listened to, avidly, at the time. Some of the recordings then produced were.... awful. And then later translated that awfulness accurately onto CD.
A proper remaster by someone who knows what they are doing is well worth getting.
Example - the Steven Wilson (2015-on) reworks of Yes (progrock darlings) are a revelation.
The remasters (and done in SACD) of the Carpenters sell for three figures 2nd-hand not just because they are rare - they sound... 'better'.
But as always - the ears of the beholder and all that ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Al ears

skinnypuppy71

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2021
413
275
2,270
Visit site
Going slightly off topic,but still in keeping with the theme....I'm a bit perplexed as to why speaker manufacturers seen to chase extended frequency ranges, when pretty much all of us top out at 18 kHz or less , I can't hear past 12 my self. Just wondering if speaker manufacturing / performance would be easier /better even less expensive if manufacturers tweeter designs didn't chase or feel the need for such high frequency ranges....or am I dumb and the higher frequency ranges are just a natural phenomenon in tweeter design.
 

jjbomber

Well-known member
Going slightly off topic,but still in keeping with the theme....I'm a bit perplexed as to why speaker manufacturers seen to chase extended frequency ranges, when pretty much all of us top out at 18 kHz or less , I can't hear past 12 my self. Just wondering if speaker manufacturing / performance would be easier /better even less expensive if manufacturers tweeter designs didn't chase or feel the need for such high frequency ranges....or am I dumb and the higher frequency ranges are just a natural phenomenon in tweeter design.
But your puppy can hear it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: skinnypuppy71
Going slightly off topic,but still in keeping with the theme....I'm a bit perplexed as to why speaker manufacturers seen to chase extended frequency ranges, when pretty much all of us top out at 18 kHz or less , I can't hear past 12 my self. Just wondering if speaker manufacturing / performance would be easier /better even less expensive if manufacturers tweeter designs didn't chase or feel the need for such high frequency ranges....or am I dumb and the higher frequency ranges are just a natural phenomenon in tweeter design.
It’s certainly not a natural phenomenon, more a deliberate design choice. I think that sometimes the numbers are confusing - for example, 20kHz is only an octave above 10kHz, and you can hear 12kHz. (I can’t even hear that these days, as a pure tone!) So tweeters extending to 20 or beyond isn’t a bad decision at all, and arguably necessary to preserve the harmonics and overtones present in all musical instruments.

The skill is in getting the tweeter’s own resonance well beyond the audio band, and away from signals that might exaggerate it. When I first bought Hifi we were lucky to get a cartridge to reach 18kHz, and FM radio cut off at15kHz, so the demands were slightly different. CD stretched that beyond 20kHz, and no self-respecting manufacturer wouldn’t want to reproduce that.

What’s more apparent these days is that some designs are deliberately voiced to emphasise the high harmonics. That can wow us as ‘open and extended’ or grate if it seems to make less than ideal sources sound harsh or distorted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al ears

matthewpianist

Well-known member
I love vinyl (and I have a Rega turntable as well as the TEAC - both are very good), but CD is by far my main format. I have a huge collection of them, and have always liked it as a format since getting to know it as a teenager far too many years ago!

I've been through a fair few players over the years (as the longer standing members here will likely recall), and I currently own a choice of four - Denon DCD1600NE, Rega Apollo-R, Rotel CD11 Tribute and Sony CDP-770. Contrary to popular belief, there is a difference in the sound of each and this comes through whichever amp I'm using - actually the little Sansui seems to be the most transparent of all, surprisingly. The Denon is a SACD player and I have quite a few Chandos CD/SACD discs. I can hear a difference switching between the layers but I don't think it's one worth getting worked up about and I can happily live with the standard CD sound.

As for remasters, it really does depend on the material and the person doing the remaster. Steven Wilson's remasters of albums by Jethro Tull, King Crimson etc. are very sensitively done, but I have heard some that are a definite backwards step from the original CD.
 
Some of my remastered CDs are fine. It does exactly what says on the tin, so the advert goes. The soundstage is cleaner, extra detail etc etc. However, there are others in my collection that unhinges my system: way too compressed, closer to a poor MP3 file.

Why do they do it? They must test these CDs on a 2 channel set-up before making large runs of the stuff.

Perhaps, also, the hi-fi mags don't help. I wonder if these music production companies pander to the so-called 'user needs? Any review you read about any component, it's always "great detail, wonderful clarity..." or "not as detailed as rivals" blah blah blah....
 
  • Like
Reactions: manicm and Dom

manicm

Well-known member
Some of my remastered CDs are fine. It does exactly what says on the tin, so the advert goes. The soundstage is cleaner, extra detail etc etc. However, there are others in my collection that unhinges my system: way too compressed, closer to a poor MP3 file.

Why do they do it? They must test these CDs on a 2 channel set-up before making large runs of the stuff.

Perhaps, also, the hi-fi mags don't help. I wonder if these music production companies pander to the so-called 'user needs? Any review you read about any component, it's always "great detail, wonderful clarity..." or "not as detailed as rivals" blah blah blah....

I got the remastered Year Of The Cat by Al Stewart, and the title track is completely destroyed. Pity as the CD package itself is great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dom

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts