«

>====================
>Not really.........vinyl has a wider frequency range than CD
>=====================

Not exactly.

Vinyl's high frequency is rolled off at about 15-16 KHz. When in the process
of making the pressing dies, attempting to record the mother at frequencies
higher than the rolloff will overheat the cutter head of the lathe.

>=======================
>Bass response on vinyl is virtually unlimited.
>I have a Saint Saens #3 that has the 16 hz organ notes on it.
>=======================

It is limited, again to practical considerations. While you can record low
frequency levels of the kind you specify on LP, the groove would need more
space between itself at that instant in order to accomodate those low
frequencies. This costs you in recording time. CD, on the other hand, allows
bass ranges all the way down to 5 Hz with no compromise on runtimes with
uniform and stable dynamic response.

Now, with these points said, vinyl is still a great musical medium. But,
saying that it is more accurate than Compact Disc is completely and totally
wrong from an engineering and scientific standpoint. - Reinhart

"Richard C." <post-> wrote in message
news:40152b33$0$172$. ..
>
> "Tony Pearce" <> wrote in message
> news:40149fca$0$18299$ u...
> :
> : >Digital is
> : > only a sampling, and not everything is there.

> : But **FAR** more than can be recorded to vinyl thankfully.

> ====================
> Not really.........vinyl has a wider frequency range than CD
> =====================

NO, and digital sampling rates up to 192kHz now cater for dogs, dolphins and
even bats.
Not to mention the whales and elephants that vinyl can't manage at the low
end either!

> : >There is a website that
> : > even shows how the peaks are flattened on sounds.
> :
> : Yep, over compression is far too common, but not even necessary with CD,
as
> : it is with vinyl.

> ======================
> Most vinyl is not compressed at all.
> ======================

All vinyl is compressed, unlike CD which need not be.

> : >I guess that is why they amplify the bass so much on CDs,
> : > because the low notes sample better, and they boom out the lacking
> : > highs.

> : No, it's because the bass reponse is not limited like it is with vinyl.

> =======================
> Bass response on vinyl is virtually unlimited.
> I have a Saint Saens #3 that has the 16 hz organ notes on it.
> =======================

Bass response on CD *IS* almost unlimited (<1 Hz no probem) On vinyl 16 Hz
is WAYYYY down if the playing time is more than a couple of minutes per LP.
Even then problems arise due to cartridge inabilty to track large low
frequency signals, tone arm resonance, TT rumble, and floor vibration.
Better do some more homework!

> : You really seem to be extremely technologically ignorant. But as long as
> : you're happy, then good luck with the vinyl, tapes and floppies
> ==================
> Vinyl, yes. Tapes (except DAT) and floppies, no.

Well DAT is digital, but suffers from the usual tape handling problems.
Which is why it will soon be obsolete too, like the rest of your preferred
media choices

TonyP.

(aniram) wrote in message news:< om>...

> Will in the future be a CD disk that can store data/audio on both
> sides?

What would be the point? CD is dead.

Asking them to improve it would be like asking them to improve VHS.
Sure it's still around, but it ain't going anywhere.

-Eric

Eric R. wrote on [29 Jan 2004 11:12:04 -0800]:
> (aniram) wrote in message news:< om>...
>
>> Will in the future be a CD disk that can store data/audio on both
>> sides?
>
> What would be the point? CD is dead.
>
> Asking them to improve it would be like asking them to improve VHS.
> Sure it's still around, but it ain't going anywhere.

DVHS?

>> Will in the future be a CD disk that can store data/audio on both
>> sides?
>
>What would be the point? CD is dead.
>

CD is dead in terms of developing more uses out of it ... or is it?

In terms of being useful, it's far from dead. - Reinhart

Do you have a portable DVD player (as cheap as a CD player) that can
play CD music?
This is my point!
I don't even know if you can save wav files in a DVD ? DVD recorder is
still expensive in comparison to CD-R

If you can pack 200 songs of MP3 music in a CD. Then a double sided CD
disk will hold 400 songs. And you can still play it in your portable
CD/MP3 player.. which is now only cost less than $50.

(Eric R.) wrote in message news:<. com>...
> (aniram) wrote in message news:< om>...
>
> > Will in the future be a CD disk that can store data/audio on both
> > sides?
>
> What would be the point? CD is dead.
>
> Asking them to improve it would be like asking them to improve VHS.
> Sure it's still around, but it ain't going anywhere.
>
> -Eric

And what about the iPod? 10,000 songs and you can erase and modify your
mp3 list at will. CD is done. CD will get cheaper and cheaper, but it
will remain one sided from here on in.

CD

aniram wrote:

> Do you have a portable DVD player (as cheap as a CD player) that can
> play CD music?
> This is my point!
> I don't even know if you can save wav files in a DVD ? DVD recorder is
> still expensive in comparison to CD-R
>
> If you can pack 200 songs of MP3 music in a CD. Then a double sided CD
> disk will hold 400 songs. And you can still play it in your portable
> CD/MP3 player.. which is now only cost less than $50.
>
> (Eric R.) wrote in message news:<. com>...
>
>> (aniram) wrote in message news:< om>...
>>
>>
>>>Will in the future be a CD disk that can store data/audio on both
>>>sides?
>>
>>What would be the point? CD is dead.
>>
>>Asking them to improve it would be like asking them to improve VHS.
>>Sure it's still around, but it ain't going anywhere.
>>
>>-Eric

Justin wrote:

>>
>> Asking them to improve it would be like asking them to improve VHS.
>> Sure it's still around, but it ain't going anywhere.
>
> DVHS?

Naa, ADAts are past it.


geoff

Codifus <> wrote in
news:_liSb.41464$ et:

> And what about the iPod? 10,000 songs and you can erase and modify
> your mp3 list at will. CD is done. CD will get cheaper and cheaper,
> but it will remain one sided from here on in.
>
> CD

What about it?

iPod is expensive, Mac is expensive, I said Mac is done!

Lawrence Leung

>And what about the iPod? 10,000 songs and you can erase and modify your
>mp3 list at will. CD is done. CD will get cheaper and cheaper, but it
>will remain one sided from here on in.

An iPod will work with both MacOS and Windows.

But, iPod equipment is expensive.

Plus, MP3 is lossy compression. While you can get excellent results with
compression, it will technically always fall short of the original uncompressed
PCM source.

You can write uncompressed PCM on an iPod, but that will take up more space:
approximately ten times as much if you figure that 1 minute of stereo 128kbps
MP3 is about 1 megabyte while 1 minute of stereo PCM is about 10 megabytes.

In terms of having an audio source for a good hi-fi system, which would you
take:

A Parasound CD player or an iPod? - Reinhart