Do cd's store a more exact copy of sound than LP's

16/44.1 is frought with problems too great to get into on this forum. The biggest problem outside of error correction is it assumes that sounds outside the 20-20,000 Hz range does not affect audible sound. It does, and that is why CDs sound thin and lifeless.

I know the CD proponants will take exception to this but the medium is fatally flawed. SACD has much more potential, but there will be the learning curve with it just like redbook CD. Early digital recordings sounded dismal. In the last twenty years recording studio engineers have learned to use the format so new recordings are listenable.

LPs do not have these limitations. The frequency response is not unlimited, but it is far greater than CD, or digital formats.

The fact that SACD became a reality is an admission that CD was a flawed format.

Let the fireworks begin!!!

I'm no engineer but, seems to me since analog is continuous and CDs are based on sampling the CDs can't be a more exact copy.

Nrchy,

While i woul disagree that all cd's sound lifeless, i will agree that sonic information outside the human hearing range does effect the way you hear the frequencys within the range.

As to weather or not CD's are a more exact copy...

I would be very hesitant to agree with that statement. Mainly for the pure fact that digital is nothing more than a "Representation" of analog. Break a signwave into digital and it goes from a smooth wave to a step-ladder look. Im sure logic processors might to a great job to smooth that wave out, it doesent garauntee it will be an exact replication of the origional wave.

Ive always wondered personally about Records and how exact they are as well. Do records erode from too much use? if so, then a record will be the best copy, untill it gets played too many times.
Dont know much about records, so i guess i better keep my nose outta that.

It only takes a small understanding of digital and analog, PCM and TDM to understand that digital can never theretically reach the resolution of analog. However digital takes a hell of alot less bandwidth and can sound extremly close to analog.
I guess it is the smallest of nuances that are left out.
as well as a large inaudible frequency range that really DOES matter

Great care must be taken with each to get anything thats even close to the real thing. I have listened to great recordings on tape, vinyl and cd and doubt I could ever pick a clear winner in my mind. If you like vinyl..go for vinyl and don't even worry what someone else thinks is best.

This forum along with all the others I visit have a constant stream of threads from people asking: Whats The Best? Well, the best is what YOU like IMO.

Dave

As with most engineering problems the answer does not lie in the underlying theory, but in the ability to best implement an approximation to the theory. These threads always get caught up in various misunderstandings of Nyquists sampling theory, quantization noise etc etc. I believe that the theories don't help us to explain whether redbook CD is better or worse than LP, since implementation of digital systems introduces errors (jitter being the main one) that are not accounted for by the simple theoretical models.

A sampled and quantized signal can IN THEORY exactly represent a bandlimited, limited dynamic range analog waveform, such that there would be absolutely no difference between the reconstructed analog waveform and the original waveform.

So, that said, I firmly believe that, in theory redbook CD can more accurately represent the sound of the master tape, since it has better linearity, dynamic range, signal to noise, channel separation etc etc etc than vinyl. Whether this is borne out in practise or not depends on many many real world variables, such as the quality of the ADCs and DACs, the mastering, the levels of jitter in recording, mastering, playback etc, anti-aliasing filter in the ADC, the implementation of a reconstruction filter.

However, those who write that digital can never be as good as analog because the digital signal looks like a little staircase (quantization noise is the technical term) are missing the point. Don't look to the theory ... look to the implementation.