All I want is better performance from CD, but I am getting really confused.
I keep getting people saying in a rather patronising tone, "well if you like the Naim sound, you'd better stay with Naim".
I don't like the Naim sound. I do like music. Frankly, I find the whole thing bewildering. I have a CD3 and find it good but a bit lacking in realism when compared to my record player.
I tried an Arcam CD72 because a local dealer raves about it; I thought it was better in some ways than the CD3 (detail, very clean sound) but worse in others (sounded more like hi-fi, less sense of being there). So I tried an Arcam FMJ CD23 thinking that it might bridge the gap. Frankly, I didn't think it was any better than the CD72. Why not? Duff model? Duff ears? Mystic Naim synergy working against it? I don't know, I'm just a listener.
If there is a "Naim sound" then logically I should ditch the whole lot and get something more neutral. I would do it too, if convinced that it would be beneficial. But I don't really believe it, the only reason I purchased Naim gear was because it sounds to my ears more the way that live performances sound - although there is still a *big* gap.
Tim
Posted on: 22 February 2002 by Peter Stockwell
Oh no, not that again. I was sceptic about CD but finally went 100% CD in 1988, but came back to LP in 1996. With recent upgrades to my system, in particular the separate mains spur, I'm finding more enjoyment than ever from CDs. New releases on CD sound spectacular to me, although I admist I listen to very little classical music. I've bought some fine recordings recently, that swing and sound believably real. To echo Roy & TC's point about what master was used, I'm finding that modern re releases on CD from original master tapes beat nth genration LPs easily. To echo Paul B's point of organic sound, there's something more coherent in LP reproduction compared with any CD reproduction that I've heard. Mind you when I'm grooving to Ella & Louis I don't pay much attention to that
.
Peter
Posted on: 23 February 2002 by Tim
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Tibbs.:
The resulting CD, when played back on my CDX, sounds uncannily like the original vinyl.
Mr Tibbs
I've conducted similar experiments, but using DAT rather than CD. My results differ though. Although a DAT recording from vinyl sounds very similar tonally, the sense of space and realism disappears, or at least is much diminished. I can only conclude that despite its flaws the vinyl medium preserves something that CD or DAT loses.
Having said that, I willingly agree that nothing can make up for a poor master. Certainly I've got CDs that sound better than the same recording on vinyl, because a better master was used. The reverse is true as well; in some cases, perhaps the best master was lost or damaged. This stuff is nothing to do with vinyl vs CD; unfortunately, it means we can never truly compare like with like. Same goes for SACD and DVDA of course.
