The are CDs THAT much better quality thread: Are CDs that much better quality? - General Discussion

steve_ludwig · 29-06-2007, 11:29

Recorded some stuff onto tape yesterday. Listening in car (yes I know I am so behind having only a tape player in my car...yawn), I thought it sounded pretty good.

Have we been conned by the pretty silvery disks that cost loads...are they really that much better and why is it that a tiny scratch affects a cd so much and yet a tape will always play no matter what.

Thank you and good night

starsailor · 29-06-2007, 11:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_ludwig

Recorded some stuff onto tape yesterday. Listening in car (yes I know I am so behind having only a tape player in my car...yawn), I thought it sounded pretty good.

Have we been conned by the pretty silvery disks that cost loads...are they really that much better and why is it that a tiny scratch affects a cd so much and yet a tape will always play no matter what.

Thank you and good night

What is this, 1990?

You won't find much difference in quality in a car stero between a tape and a CD...a proper Hi-Fi maybe....

Besides which CD's are on their way out anyway.

29-06-2007, 11:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by starsailor

What is this, 1990?

You won't find much difference in quality in a car stero between a tape and a CD...a proper Hi-Fi maybe....

Besides which CD's are on their way out anyway.

Agreed... it all depends on the quality of your sound system...

Are CD's on the way out? What's replacing them? Not downloads surely? I can believe that is the case for the singles market but not for albums I don't think...

James2001 · 29-06-2007, 11:37

One thing that is true is that CDs are better quality than downloads, using lossy compression at pathetic bitrates. Why aren't download sites offering us a lossless option?

aquazi · 29-06-2007, 11:38

personally i never really found much difference in quality between a decent cassette player with dolby and a CD.. but a Cd is more convenient in the way you can skip forward and backwards in tracks instantly.

Also i would have thought that nowadays CD's would be cheaper than cassettes....

And as starsailor points our CD's are declining in sales now.. so a more modern comparison would be CD's and MP3's

Fuzzy Warbles · 29-06-2007, 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_ludwig

Recorded some stuff onto tape yesterday. Listening in car (yes I know I am so behind having only a tape player in my car...yawn), I thought it sounded pretty good.

Have we been conned by the pretty silvery disks that cost loads...are they really that much better and why is it that a tiny scratch affects a cd so much and yet a tape will always play no matter what.

Thank you and good night

I have a double deck boom box (haha) that I bought back in 1988, it was relatively expensive back then (£150).
Occasionally I have a listen to it and I find it is as good if not better than some quality cd players.

I remember when cd first came out and everyone was going on about how indestructible they were ....what a load of crap that turned out to be.

But still, tapes used to get chewed up from time to time so its a difficult call.

29-06-2007, 11:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by James2001

One thing that is true is that CDs are better quality than downloads, using lossy compression at pathetic bitrates. Why aren't download sites offering us a lossless option?

Most people wouldn't want them anyway, would they? The files would be too big and take up too much space further limiting the amount of tracks you could keep at any one time...

jackthom · 29-06-2007, 11:44

I'd say it depends hugely on the audio equipment being used to compare the two.
With a half decent HiFi system the reduction in noise and distortion plus the improvement in frequency response of CD makes it far better than cassette IMHO.

Neck_Romancer · 29-06-2007, 11:46

I recently hooked up a cassette to my amp so I could go back through my old tapes of 10-15 years ago.

Holy moly what an awful sound. It's like listening to music from under water. Terrible.

Vinyl however still sounds awsome on a decent set up

James2001 · 29-06-2007, 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookends

Most people wouldn't want them anyway, would they? The files would be too big and take up too much space further limiting the amount of tracks you could keep at any one time...

There's still plenty of people that want it. I'm certainly not prepared to put up with 128kbps. Considering what they charge, they should be offering better quality.

29-06-2007, 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackthom

I'd say it depends hugely on the audio equipment being used to compare the two.
With a half decent HiFi system the reduction in noise and distortion plus the improvement in frequency response of CD makes it far better than cassette IMHO.

Plus the quality of the actual speakers (as opposed to the player) makes a difference...

...so I'm told anyway... unless that was just a ruse by the OH to talk me into paying a fricking fortune for a set of speakers.

29-06-2007, 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by James2001

There's still plenty of people that want it. I'm certainly not prepared to put up with 128kbps.

You see, I normally only download in order for it to go straight onto my ipod anyway... which I rarely connect into the sound system and normally just use with headphones so it really doesn't make that much of a difference... I would have thought that most (although obviously not everyone) are like me in that respect?

I usually buy CDs and then rip them anyway so I have the option of ripping a better quality copy but I still keep it at 128kpbs in order to keep the file size down.

Hathor · 29-06-2007, 11:53

I think people who can't tell the difference have cheap (sub £1,000) audio systems.

To say that CD's are easily destroyed is also false. I have CD's over 15 years old with not a blemish on them. They work fine.

starsailor · 29-06-2007, 11:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by James2001

There's still plenty of people that want it. I'm certainly not prepared to put up with 128kbps. Considering what they charge, they should be offering better quality.

But, if you're listening it via an MP3 player, car or even home computer with cheap speakers, the loss in quality isn't that noticeable, and the pluses to MP3s, (storage, and ease of use) easily outweigh that.

Hathor · 29-06-2007, 11:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookends

Plus the quality of the actual speakers (as opposed to the player) makes a difference...

...so I'm told anyway... unless that was just a ruse by the OH to talk me into paying a fricking fortune for a set of speakers.

How much is a fortune?

James2001 · 29-06-2007, 11:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by starsailor

But, if you're listening it via an MP3 player, car or even home computer with cheap speakers, the loss in quality isn't that noticeable, and the pluses to MP3s, (storage, and ease of use) easily outweigh that.

Not everyone wants to listen through an MP3 player, and even then I can still hear the difference. If they're pushing downalods as the future, they should make an effort- at least offer several different options for different prices. Then people listening though tinny earphones can buy the shite quality ones, and those who want CD quality can also do so.

29-06-2007, 11:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hathor

How much is a fortune?

Well over £1000... and they're massive as well... bloody taken over the lounge they have.

Hathor · 29-06-2007, 11:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by James2001

Not everyone wants to listen through an MP3 player, and even then I can still hear the difference. If they're pushing downalods as the future, they should make an effort- at least offer several different options for different prices. Then people listening though tinny earphones can buy the shite quality ones, and those who want CD quality can also do so.

I completely agree with you. There should be lossless versions available for playing on proper equipment.

Hathor · 29-06-2007, 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookends

Well over £1000...

That is quite an amount, just for speakers. I hope they sound good!

29-06-2007, 12:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hathor

That is quite an amount, just for speakers. I hope they sound good!

Tbf... they do... when set up correctly... the set-up/options on the actual system confuse me though... and we've got so many things connected to it that sometimes he has to start swapping cables at the back if we want to play a DVD and it's been connected to something else before... it's all too complicated for me...

diablo · 29-06-2007, 13:46

It is often difficult to tell the difference between a CD and a good cassette recording, even on excellent equipment.

With pre-recorded tapes however, it should be easy to tell. When making the things they used to record at several times playing speed onto poor quality tape. Same thing applied to VHS pre-recorded stuff. Absolutely awful quality.

Gilbertoo · 29-06-2007, 13:56

aren't old masters of many 60's, 70's & 80's bands tape-based (reel to reel, DAT, etc.?)?

29-06-2007, 14:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilbertoo

aren't old masters of many 60's, 70's & 80's bands tape-based (reel to reel, DAT, etc.?)?

I think so...

Sometimes they release digitally re-mastered versions of old albums... where quality of the CD copy is improved upon with new digital sound technology so that it matches (or comes closer to matching) the quality of a recently recorded CD...

diablo · 29-06-2007, 14:15

Studio tape recordings were made at 15 or 30 inches per second on wide tape. Whereas compact cassette uses very narrow tape at 1 7/8 inches per second.

It is amazing that cassettes ever sounded as good as they did - a process of continuous improvement I suppose.

JD! · 29-06-2007, 14:56

OP, which do you prefer to watch movies on - VHS or BETAMax?

29-06-2007, 11:29	#1
steve_ludwig Banned User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: In a Cottage in Herefordshire Services: BT Broadband, Freeview, Vodafone, www.digitalspUD.co.uk Posts: 2,627 Blog Entries: 3	The are CDs THAT much better quality thread: Are CDs that much better quality? Recorded some stuff onto tape yesterday. Listening in car (yes I know I am so behind having only a tape player in my car...yawn), I thought it sounded pretty good. Have we been conned by the pretty silvery disks that cost loads...are they really that much better and why is it that a tiny scratch affects a cd so much and yet a tape will always play no matter what. Thank you and good night

29-06-2007, 11:37	#4
James2001 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Mansfield Services: Non-CWC NTL Home Digital v5.32, 128kbps broadband and Nokia Mediamaster FTA Posts: 18,823	One thing that is true is that CDs are better quality than downloads, using lossy compression at pathetic bitrates. Why aren't download sites offering us a lossless option?

29-06-2007, 11:38	#5
aquazi Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Derby ♂ Services: LG DVR, Plusnet 8MB BB, Ipod Nano, Dell XPS, Wii, PS3 Posts: 1,114	personally i never really found much difference in quality between a decent cassette player with dolby and a CD.. but a Cd is more convenient in the way you can skip forward and backwards in tracks instantly. Also i would have thought that nowadays CD's would be cheaper than cassettes.... And as starsailor points our CD's are declining in sales now.. so a more modern comparison would be CD's and MP3's

29-06-2007, 11:44	#8
jackthom Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Gender: Male Location: Cold North Umbria Services: Six Monthly Posts: 2,053	I'd say it depends hugely on the audio equipment being used to compare the two. With a half decent HiFi system the reduction in noise and distortion plus the improvement in frequency response of CD makes it far better than cassette IMHO.

29-06-2007, 11:46	#9
Neck_Romancer Forum Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Lost in a forest. Services: Eb Major, C Major, G Major. Posts: 9,624 Blog Entries: 3	I recently hooked up a cassette to my amp so I could go back through my old tapes of 10-15 years ago. Holy moly what an awful sound. It's like listening to music from under water. Terrible. Vinyl however still sounds awsome on a decent set up

29-06-2007, 11:53	#13
Hathor Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Babylon and Ting Services: I reject your reality, and substitute my own! Posts: 8,941	I think people who can't tell the difference have cheap (sub £1,000) audio systems. To say that CD's are easily destroyed is also false. I have CD's over 15 years old with not a blemish on them. They work fine.

29-06-2007, 13:46	#21
diablo Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Fylde Coast Services: Can provide any services you wish for a certain fee . . . . Posts: 6,565	It is often difficult to tell the difference between a CD and a good cassette recording, even on excellent equipment. With pre-recorded tapes however, it should be easy to tell. When making the things they used to record at several times playing speed onto poor quality tape. Same thing applied to VHS pre-recorded stuff. Absolutely awful quality.

29-06-2007, 13:56	#22
Gilbertoo Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,722	aren't old masters of many 60's, 70's & 80's bands tape-based (reel to reel, DAT, etc.?)?

29-06-2007, 14:15	#24
diablo Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Fylde Coast Services: Can provide any services you wish for a certain fee . . . . Posts: 6,565	Studio tape recordings were made at 15 or 30 inches per second on wide tape. Whereas compact cassette uses very narrow tape at 1 7/8 inches per second. It is amazing that cassettes ever sounded as good as they did - a process of continuous improvement I suppose.

29-06-2007, 14:56	#25
JD! Banned User Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Liverpool Bay Area Services: Sky Posts: 42	OP, which do you prefer to watch movies on - VHS or BETAMax?