[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:02:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

I don't claim any authority. My opinion is my opinion. But my opinion
is based on extensive comparisons. I base my opinion on how digital
releases sound by playing them on my system.

And on the result of those comparisons, I concur. CD rarely sounds as good
as it could or should sound and in instances where a CD and a vinyl release
of the same title exist, the LP usually sounds better, as I said before. It
shouldn't. CD is a vastly superior medium for music and if a technically
inferior and obsolete format is producing results that are superior to the
newer, technically better format, then the reasons for the former's
superiority over the latter must lie elsewhere.

The facts seem to be that in spite of the CD's superior dynamic range over
vinyl, most CD releases still have, for the most part, no more dynamic range
than a good vinyl pressing (and from what I'm hearing, often a good deal
less). Hard limiting and strong compression has a lot to do with this, but my
question is that if CD doesn't need the compression and limiting like vinyl
does, then why do CD mastering facilities employ it at all (much less as
heavily as they seem to)? And in light of the advances in modern electronics
and signal processing, why is it that so many CDs sound as shrill and as
distorted as they do? If CD has a frequency response that is flat to below 20
Hz, why do most CDs not have as good bass as did the LP of the same title,
even when said LP was cut perhaps as much as 30, 40, or 50 years ago (and I
guarantee you that recently remastered LPs have more/better bass than usually
do the CDs of the same title)?