I think a lot of the trouble these days is that folks just can't honestly tell the difference, or that the minute difference that is percieved doesn't bother people at all.

I know that they're up to 196 bit digital recording these days in some good studios, as opposed to the 48 that had been used in the past. So I'm sure that playback will increase in resolution in time

Besides most amplifiers can't handle the reproduction of the ultra-high frequencies anyway so it's not worth pursuing them onto the CD

If you here the difference then it's your gain when you do , but your loss when you don't

At least you found out what that little red light on your CD player's for

Most people don't listen to music on equipment where you'd even notice the difference, I don't think. I certainly don't. CDs are fine for the vast majority - indeed a lot are prepared to put up with the inferior quality of MP3s or MiniDiscs.

I can't think how to word this without it making me sound like i'm trolling the thread.

I can't tell the difference at all, the only difference i can tell is where the treble is really really messed up when you put a CD onto an MD, and that is about it.

I would love to think that i could tell the difference (this would mean i had an excuse to buy a new gizmo) but i'm afraid i can't

---

by FiveByFive
and most albums are longer than 50 minutes nowadays.

---

I've always thought this was merely a record company ploy to stop us recording albums onto C90 cassettes. Or at least it was, until people (other than me) stopped using tape and started burning CDs or copying MP3s. I really don't think cutting albums down to 45-50 mins max is necessarily a bad thing. Might force certain artists into doing some quality control.

Or send us back to the bad old days of double release triple album releases a la GnR or Prince...

Wiggy, unless you have state of the art equipment you aren't likely to notice the difference. However, if you were sat in a room that was optimised accoustically, with all the trimmings (gold cables et al), I promise you would hear it.

However, personally, I'm a lo-fi kinda a guy. Don't get me wrong, if i had the disposable income I'd have the latest in Home Movie equipment - with the biggest .. darn .. widescreen TV you've ever seen, all hooked up to the latest dolby pro-logic (or whatever) surround sound system which in turn would be hooked up to my CD, record, tape player and whatever else caught my interest. But I don't. I have a second hand tv from the eighties - no remote, no teletext. I have a third hand ex-rental video an ex gave me when we split up, also from the eighties. Slightly more with the times I have a CD/tape/radio player I bought at the beginning of the nineties. And at some point while moving I lost my record player. Will have to replace that at some point I guess. And it all does me fine. Leaving me lots of dosh to spend elsewhere.

It's just a case of personal priorities.

I like records. Not cos they sound better, but cos they're fun.

You get to drop a needle onto a spinning bit of plastic. Plus you get silly picture discs that you can watch go round & round.

The sheer fact of holding a piece if 12" vinyl gives me so much more satisfaction than holding a CD.

I dunno, I own about 400 CDs & 150 records. I'm happy with both, I don't need to make a decision between them.

... what Tycho said!

But then I'm just an old codger who loves the smell of vinyl, likes making mix tapes and has never 'burned' a CD in my life...

Now pass me pipe and slippers, old boy!

I like this 'new fangled' stuff purely for teh conveinience value. Portable Minidisc players are tiny and will fit in my handbag, Its easy to dump an extra track onto a MD in the middle rather than having to re-record like you would on a tape. I like that you can use a remote control to skip tracks on a CD (I'm lazy, getting up to shift the needle is just wrong!!!) it goes on and on... Then of course there's teh all important... CDs are better coz they is pretty and shiny and small and stuff

... What Sydney said!