CD vs Vinyl sound

hearingimpared

heiney9 wrote: »

In the end it really comes down to the transfer and the mastering. Whether is was done 15-20-30 years ago or today. I've heard many great sounding redbook cd's and I've heard some horrible vinyl.

I see a trend, and I tend to do this myself, looking for older "original" cd releases of stuff if there are one or multiple re-masters available today. I prefer the noisier original Led Zeppelin cd pressings to anything that has been offered thus far. By "cleaning" them up and making them "modern" they have ruined them............that goes for most of the current LZ vinyl offerings as well.
My point is.............that there is a lot at play not just the cd vs vinyl debate. Many, many other factors influence the final product and there can be stars and duds in all mediums.

H9

:eek::eek::eek:Brock, have you heard the Classic Records 200 gm pressing rereleases of the the LZ studio LP? They are nothing short of spectacular. I've never heard LZ so good and so real.:)

hearingimpared

Cpyder wrote: »

Heiney, please stop spewing your pro-analog, anti-science drivel. Someone might read your posts and assume them to be factual. You do not need infinite sampling rates to reproduce an analog signal perfectly. There are a million reasons why you can't reproduce any signal with 100% accuracy, but your unfounded belief about needing infinite sampling points just isn't true.

If your misconception is true, then why can no one tell the difference between CD and DVD-A. DVD-A can have 4X the sampling rate, yet sound the same to any listener compared to CD. Because most frequencies on a CD are already over specified. Adding more samples does not improve the sound quality. Extra samples are just redundant. There are reasons to oversample, but it's not a technological pursuit to sample at infinity.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98537

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

Um . . . yeah, Okay kid!:rolleyes:

"No one can tell the difference"

Where do you get this stuff kiddo. The difference in SQ between a redbook CD and DVD-A is almost night and day. I've heard it. I've experienced the difference on a high end rig at our friend's house in Georgia at a little thing called PolkFest. I'll reiterate, you CANNOT take an and anolog signal, i.e. sine wave, chop it up into a square wave of 1's & 0's and bring it back to its original state. . . case closed.

Cpyder

hearingimpared wrote: »

Um . . . yeah, Okay kid!:rolleyes:

Where do you get this stuff kiddo. The difference in SQ between a redbook CD and DVD-A is almost night and day. I've heard it. I've experienced the difference on a high end rig at our friend's house in Georgia at a little thing called PolkFest. I'll reiterate, you CANNOT take an and anolog signal, i.e. sine wave, chop it up into a square wave of 1's & 0's and bring it back to its original state. . . case closed.

I'll believe you, but I want to see someone actually do it. Link me to a source where people differentiate between a DVD-A and its down-sampled CD equivalent. (Or CD version if the mastering is the same. A lot of times the two formats are mastered different, although I'm sure you know this.)

Hawkeye

As of today, I prefer the sound of a CD over vinyl. I don't have a TT on the caliber of my DAC/Transport so my opinion may not hold any water. Perhaps if I had a 5-10K TT my opinion would be the other way, who knows? I do have a vinyl copy and a XRCD of the same album and the CD is much more pleasing to the ear than the TT.

Gordon

hearingimpared

Cpyder wrote: »

I'll believe you, but I want to see someone actually do it. Link me to a source where people differentiate between a DVD-A and its down-sampled CD equivalent. (Or CD version if the mastering is the same. A lot of times the two formats are mastered different, although I'm sure you know this.)

Cpyder, pal 'o' mine, don't you know by now that I don't need to read about such things when I can experience it myself. If you believe me bud, then believe. If not find what you want on the internet to affirm or discredit what I've experienced and stated. I love your lust for information but I gotta tell you, reading about it and experiencing it are worlds apart.:)

I'm sure there are some crappy DVD-A mastered discs just as I am positive that there are some spectacularly mastered and sounding CDs. I have quite a few that WOW me every time I listen to them and have to make sure my TT isn't what is being used for the playback of what I am listening to.;)

Bernal

The best thing I read on the subject:

http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-cd-dvd-a-sacd-part-1

"...Dynamic Comparison of CD, DVD-A, SACD - Part 1
Slashdot It!
by Chris Tham — last modified July 23, 2009

Recently I bought an Audiotrak Prodigy 7.1 soundcard for my HTPC. This is a soundcard based on the Via Envy24HT "Vinyl Audio" controller and a Wolfson WM8770 CODEC supporting 96/24 A/D converters with 102dB dynamic range, and 8 channels of 192/24 D/A converters with 106dB dynamic range.

I also have a very old copy of Cool Edit lying around, and I thought it might be interesting to record and compare CD, DVD-A and SACD (2 channel only) versions of Diana Krall's The Look Of Love (Verve) to see if I can gain any insights on the relative performance of each version in terms of dynamics and ultrasonic frequency content.

Why that particular album? Well, "jimby" from Universal Music assures me that The Look Of Love was entirely recorded, mixed and mastered using analog equipment, and this is one of the few titles that are duplicated across all three consumer audio delivery formats. I did not want to use a recording that was originally recorded in either DSD or PCM as that would favour one format over the other. Also, I have been told the DVD-A and SACD were transferred off the same analog master, with as much commonality in the transfer chain as possible.

I recorded the title track from the album ( The Look Of Love ) three times on separate wave files at the 96/24 sample rate, which Cool Edit then upconverted to 32-bit floating point representation. The CD version was recorded based on the analog outputs from my Sony SCD-XA777ES SACD/CD player, through the pre-amp section of my Denon AVC-A1SE+ amplifier. The DVD-A version (Group 2: 2 channel) was taken from the analog outputs from my Panasonic DVD-RP82 DVD Audio/Video player (also going through the amp), and finally the SACD 2-channel version was also taken from the Sony SCD-XA777ES analog outputs (via the amp).

I also "normalized" each wave file so that the highest peak in the signal corresponds to the maximum amplitude that can be represented using PCM. I also ripped the CD version of the track digitally using Exact Audio Copy , and then upsampled this to 96kHz 32-bit floating point using Cool Edit. Using Cool Edit, I was able to compare the waveforms of all four wave files, and do the spectral plot of the frequency distribution of each wave file, as well as at a particular point in time within the track.

The "Sound" of "Silence"
This is a frequency analysis of the "silent" bit at the beginning of the track just before the music starts on the Exact Audio Copy rip:



As you can see, there is no such thing as "absolute silence", even on a digital rip off the CD. Note, though, that there is a cliff drop at around 22kHz. Note also the rising noise below 1kHz and the "hump" around 20kHz. This is same bit, but as played back by the SCD-XA777ES via the analog outputs:



The Sony played back the "silence" reasonably well. including the rise at the bottom end and the hump around 20kHz. However, note that additional ultrasonic noise between 20-40kHz has now crept in at around -108dB. This is probably a combination of noise generated by the player, the amplifier and the A/D accuracy of the Prodigy sound card. Note that the plots never look identical because I can't guarantee that I am sampling the exact same point in time for each wave file. The three wave files are not perfectly "synchronized" to the extent that 4:29 on one wave is exactly the same point in the music as 4:29 in another file. I have tried to synchronize them by eye, but only to the nearest 0.01 second.

This is the results from the DVD-A version:



As you can see, the PCM playback is very faithful, but minus the hump around 20kHz, so arguably more accurate than the CD version.

This is the results from the SACD:



Note the absence of the hump around 20kHz, but the "rising noise floor" characteristic of DSD asserts itself for frequencies above 20kHz, taking the noise floor all the way up to around -72db (which is still very quiet, if you have ears that can hear that high). There has been various comments made that the DSD rising noise floor starts as low as 5kHz, based on published results in Stereophile magazine, but as you can see I was not able to replicate those results and DSD behaved as per spec.


Dynamic Comparison of CD, DVD-A, SACD - Part 1 - page 2
Slashdot It!
by Chris Tham — last modified July 23, 2009
Spectral Views

These are plots of the "density" of frequency content across the 0-48kHz spectrum. The brighter the colour, the greater the amount of frequency content at any point in the graph.

First of all, the EAC rip:



Note the total absence of any frequencies above 22kHz, as to be expected given the 44.1kHz sampling rate.

Now, this is the same CD track but as played by the Sony and captured using the Prodigy:



Interestingly, various points in the track are "corrupted" by high frequency "spikes". I am not sure what is generating this noise, but it could be a combination of the player, the amplifier and the sound card.

Here is a frequency analysis at 4:29 into the track (at the point represented by the yellow dotted line in the graph above):



Notice, again, the severe drop off above 22kHz. In comparison, the EAC rip at around the same point is similar, but without the ultrasonic noise:



It looks like Sony has opted for a gentler filter roll off (probably achieved using upsampling).

By comparison, this is the spectral analysis for the DVD-A:



Note that we have true frequency content above 22kHz all the way up to around 36kHz. The spikes above 36kHz are probably the same "noise" found on the CD version, although I cannot confirm that. The purple horizontal lines around 36kHz is probably the analog tape bias.

The frequency analysis around 4:29 for PCM looks like this:



Again, this confirms the presence of real musical content above 20kHz, but dropping off fairly significantly past 30kHz. I suspect there is no real usable musical information above 30kHz.

In comparison, this is how DSD looked like:



As you can see, DSD is almost as good as PCM in capturing ultrasonic frequencies, but at the cost of higher ultrasonic noise (note the purple specks above 35kHz).

Frequency analysis at 4:29 :



As you can see, DSD offers a response very similar to PCM except for the overlay of the ultrasonic noise above 30kHz.

Dynamics/Compression Comparison
Comparing the wave files between 2:50-4:50 yielded a surprise. I put the CD, DVD-A and SACD versions side by side and you could really see the difference

The CD is the most "compressed" (average signal amplitude higher in comparison to the peak) and DSD the "least" compressed. This means that if you adjust the relative levels of the three recordings such that the relative "energy" across all three are approximately the same, then the peaks and transients in SACD will be "higher" over DVD-A, which in turn will be higher than CD.

The differences are hard to see on this web page because I have shrunk the waveforms, but on Cool Edit they were quite obvious, and represents around a 2-3dB difference, which is significant enough to be audible. This difference was also noted empirically by me during recording, as I had to lower the gain for the CD and increase the gain for SACD.

If this difference is "real", as opposed to an anomaly in my equipment, then it could explain why some people don't like SACD compared to CD or DVD-A. The slightly lowered sound levels, if not compensated during the listening process, will cause SACD not to sound "as good" compared to CD or DVD-A.

The better dynamic performance of SACD would also explain why some people prefer SACD, as they probably notice the slightly higher dynamics.

The results are interesting indeed, even though I would caution against over-generalizing them into conclusions about each format. Remember that the results may not be applicable beyond a single title and the constraints of my equipment........
....

Bernal

The best thing I read on the subject:

http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4

"....Dynamic Comparison of LPs vs CDs - Part 4

Slashdot It!
by Chris Tham — last modified September 02, 2004
Yes, you have heard all the arguments before, and you are probably sick and tired of it. LP vs digital is a "religious war" that has been played out by various audiophiles ever since the CD format was introduced in the early 1980s.

"Vinylphiles" claim that CDs do not sound as good as LPs, period. CDs appear to sound "harsh", " unlistenable ", "lacking in dynamics", plus a myriad of other "faults." Some vinylphiles even extend this to all digital formats, including the new Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio high resolution formats, whereas others believe the higher resolution formats either equal or at least get closer to the "superior" sound of LP.

"Digiphiles" on the other hand laugh at LP's pitiful dynamic range, surface noise, pop and crackle, harmonic distortion, and various other limitations to do with the ability of either the cutting head to master difficult signals onto disc, and the ability of stylii to track them without "jumping."

So, are there any evidence to support these claims? Can both parties be right? I was interested to find out if there are any objective evidence that I can gather using my sound card ( Audiotrak Prodigy 7.1 ) and my very old copy of Cool Edit.

I am particularly intrigued by vinylphile claims that LPs mastered from a digital recording sound better than that exact same digital recording on CD. Plus, recording an LP onto CD yields most of the benefits of the original LP, and still sound better than the commercially pressed CD.

The Approach
I took a few albums from my personal collection that I have on both LP and at least one digital format (CD, SACD, or DVD-A).

I selected the following songs from the following albums:

Main Titles from the original motion picture soundtrack to Chariots of Fire ( Vangelis )
LP ( Polydor 2383 602) 1981 Australian PolyGram pressing, purchased second hand
CD ( Polydor 800 020-2) 1984 Polyram made in Germany , purchased new
Mick's Blessings from Caf

TNRabbit

EXCELLENT post, Bernal~

nooshinjohn

hearingimpared wrote: »

Um . . . yeah, Okay kid!:rolleyes:

Where do you get this stuff kiddo. The difference in SQ between a redbook CD and DVD-A is almost night and day. I've heard it. I've experienced the difference on a high end rig at our friend's house in Georgia at a little thing called PolkFest. I'll reiterate, you CANNOT take an and anolog signal, i.e. sine wave, chop it up into a square wave of 1's & 0's and bring it back to its original state. . . case closed.

There is a reason he is on my list.... thanks for reminding me.:D

jaxwired

Seems like vinyl people always want to bash CD people. If you like vinyl, good for you. I've compared CD recordings to the vinyl version of the same recordings and I don't feel like I'm missing much if anything sticking with CD. To be honest, I felt the CD version sounded better. I preferred the slightly more forward, less warm sound. But regardless of the sound quality of vinyl, it's very possible to get superb sound from redbook CDs. The convenience of the CD over vinyl is more than enough reason for me to stick with CD.
The other issue is that digital music is the future and delivery mechanisms for digital music is going to just keep getting better. The music server/streamers of the future will offer unlimited selection and convenience. You will miss all that with vinyl. For me to ignore digital and use vinyl, the difference would have to be way way more obvious than it actually is.

mdaudioguy

Out of curiousity... Is there a frequency limitation to either format, or are both capable of reproducing all sound within the range of human hearing?

Montoya

I usually buy good albums on cd but my favorites always get purchased on vinyl it's a big audible upgrade in my opinion. But this is what I hear on my rig everyones is different and tuned to user preference. Also vinyl can be bought for a really low amount of coin.

steveinaz

Cpyder wrote: »

I'll believe you, but I want to see someone actually do it. Link me to a source where people differentiate between a DVD-A and its down-sampled CD equivalent. (Or CD version if the mastering is the same. A lot of times the two formats are mastered different, although I'm sure you know this.)

You know, I can't golf worth a ****--and watching someone else golf really well, isn't gonna change my game a bit.

steveinaz

jaxwired wrote: »

Seems like vinyl people always want to bash CD people. If you like vinyl, good for you. I've compared CD recordings to the vinyl version of the same recordings and I don't feel like I'm missing much if anything sticking with CD.

Jax
I think it's being mis-interpreted as "bashing." It's really anger that CD's aren't engineered to the level they could be. I've heard enough wonderfully recorded CD's to know that good 'ol 16 bit Redbook is capable of some real magic, when done right.

Back when SACD was introduced, many people here felt I was bashing the format---I wasn't bashing, I was pissed that the ball was fumbled at the 1 yard line by Sony, and SACD was forever relegated as a "niche" source material. I whole-heartedly wanted it to succeed, and still do. But SACD won't get a commitment out of me, until Sony fully commits to SACD; you want me to replace my 27yr old CD collection?, you better show me something.

steveinaz

This much I can tell you, I had turntables loooong before my first 8-track, cassette deck, reel-to-reel, and CD player; and albums consistently out-performed at a much higher percentage, in regards to my collection. I rarely remember saying "man that album was recorded poorly"--in fact, I can't ever remember saying that....

headrott

mdaudioguy wrote: »

Out of curiousity... Is there a frequency limitation to either format, or are both capable of reproducing all sound within the range of human hearing?

CDs have a maximum frequency range of 20Khz. This is the "maximum" range of human hearing. the problem is that some people can hear higher frequencies than others. Some people may be able to hear to 22Khz, etc.

TTs can vary depending on what stylus, tone arm, etc. you are using. But, it can potentially be higher than CD.

Greg

dkg999

I miss 8 track tapes The sound of "Baby I'm a Wanting You" or "Sylvia's Mother" coming from Craig 6x9's in the rear deck of a '70 Torino was simply mesmerizing, and I never wondered about sampling or compression. Times were better then :rolleyes:

hearingimpared

steveinaz wrote: »

Jax
I think it's being mis-interpreted as "bashing." It's really anger that CD's aren't engineered to the level they could be. I've heard enough wonderfully recorded CD's to know that good 'ol 16 bit Redbook is capable of some real magic, when done right.

Back when SACD was introduced, many people here felt I was bashing the format---I wasn't bashing, I was pissed that the ball was fumbled at the 1 yard line by Sony, and SACD was forever relegated as a "niche" source material. I whole-heartedly wanted it to succeed, and still do. But SACD won't get a commitment out of me, until Sony fully commits to SACD; you want me to replace my 27yr old CD collection?, you better show me something.

Hear, hear!!! Great point Steve.

SACD vs vinyl . .. . hmmm sometimes I say WOW SACD sounds as good as if not better than vinyl, other times I think the opposite. The point here is they both sound great and really very similar but they do sound different.

Just a small example, SACD gives more weight to the music. Vinyl gives a more airy, open naturalness to the music. IMHO of course. YMMV.

They both beat MOST redbook and I say most because I have some superb sounding CDs. I've heard an number of gold CDs from Jesse and they are outstanding but you can't deny the fact that most CDs pale in comparison SQ wise when compared to SACD & Vinyl.

hearingimpared

dkg999 wrote: »

I miss 8 track tapes The sound of "Baby I'm a Wanting You" or "Sylvia's Mother" coming from Craig 6x9's in the rear deck of a '70 Torino was simply mesmerizing, and I never wondered about sampling or compression. Times were better then :rolleyes:

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! You're a riot Doug!

steveinaz

Hell yeah, hearing Boston's "Hitchin a ride" slowly fade during that awesome guitar riff, so it could change to the next track...those were the days men. Your buddy would say "man your speakers are distortin'..." and I'd say "yeah, aint it GREAT!"

Cpyder

mdaudioguy wrote: »

Out of curiousity... Is there a frequency limitation to either format, or are both capable of reproducing all sound within the range of human hearing?

Yes. There are limits. For digital audio, the upper frequency limit is half the sampling rate. (See: Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem) So, Redbook Audio (aka. CDs) has an upper frequency limit of 22.05kHz since it's sampling rate is 44,100 Hz. DVD-A could have an upper limit of 96kHz, since it's sampling rate can be as high as 196kHz. Of course, the frequencies near the upper limit will roll off sharply due to the use of low pass filters when the audio was mixed and mastered to be put on CD. Without these low pass filters, you would get a fair amount of aliasing.

The frequency of records can vary a lot based on several factors, such as materials of construction, physical limitations of the hardware used for playback, and how many times a record has been played for example. Frequencies up to 122kHz have been reproduced experimentally with records. But you won't find this with your everyday records. A more realistic frequency response for commercial records is around 30Hz - 20 kHz +/- 3dB. I'm not sure of an absolute limit. Records don't need sharp roll-off filters like CDs because they are immune to aliasing distortion. Records can have much higher frequencies recorded on them compared to Redbook Audio's 22.05kHz, but every time you play back a record, the upper frequency response will diminish. This is unavoidable due to the needle actually touching the record and shaving off a slight amount on each play. According to Wikipedia, "The RIAA has suggested the following acceptable losses: down to 20 kHz after one play, 18 kHz after three plays, 17 kHz after five, 16 kHz after eight, 14 kHz after fifteen, 13 kHz after twenty five, 10 kHz after thirty five, and 8 kHz after eighty plays." However, with nice equipment and proper usage, you should be able to get a lot more plays out of your records before these losses are realized. But it will happen eventually. The question is when.

For more reading pertaining to this forum topic, here is some good information.

Fongolio

I have Donald Fagen's Morph The Cat in three different format's: LP, DVDA, CD. I also have a vinyl rip on cd of the LP. It was ripped on a VPI Scoutmaster TT with a Terminator 2 linear tracking arm with Audio-Technica AT33PTG cart(not my setup). It was ripped at 192/24 and dithered to 44.1/16. To my ears the order of preference is vinyl, vinyl rip, DVDA, CD. Now this is completely subjective of course and I have to say the differences are extremely minimal as this was a superbly recorded album, but my ears still like the vinyl above all. I'm not at all a vinyl snob and use my cdp almost as much as my TT but only because of convenience. One example of a preference for cd over vinyl though is Jennifer Warnes Famous Blue Raincoat 25th anniversary cd over the original vinyl. There is a vinyl version of the 25th anniversary remaster but I haven't heard it.

I just wish the comments to advocates on both sides didn't have to be so derogatory at times. Can't we just say we disagree?

Danny Tse

steveinaz wrote: »

But SACD won't get a commitment out of me, until Sony fully commits to SACD; you want me to replace my 27yr old CD collection?, you better show me something.

Rumor is building on the 'net about a possible hybrid SHM-CD/SACD release of the following title in June....in Japan only....

Marvin Gaye - What's Going On
Allman Brothers Band - Live Fillmore East
Velvet Underground - The Velvet Underground and Nico
Police - Synchronicity
Steely Dan - Aja
Derek & the Dominos - Layla
The Who - Who's Next
The Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong - Ella and Louis
Sarah Vaughan - Sarah Vaughan with Clifford Brown

They will be very limited in quantity and very expensive. Pre-orders being taken at HMV Jp

polkfan38

+1 for Aja! Anyway, great debate here. It sounds like it all comes down to personal preferance.
One question however. What is a "redbook" CD?

polkfan38

mhardy6647 wrote: »

I love the rig! What year is that Marantz CD player?

Cpyder

polkfan38 wrote: »

+1 for Aja! Anyway, great debate here. It sounds like it all comes down to personal preferance.
One question however. What is a "redbook" CD?

It's just the standard for normal, everyday CDs - the specifications for compact discs decided upon by Philips and Sony in 1980. The format of the data on a CD is CDDA (Compact Disc Digital Audio).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(audio_Compact_Disc_standard)

cnh

Just to review what many of us KNOW.

CD
Format 16 bit PCM
Sampling frequency 44.1 kHz
Dynamic range 96 dB
Frequency range 20 Hz – 20 kHz
Disc capacity 700 MB

SACD
1 bit Direct Digital Stream
Sampling frequency 2882.4kHz
Dynamic Range 120 db
Frequency range 20Hz-50kHz
Disc capacity 7.95 GB

(source Wikipedia--frequency ranges are approximate)

We could also reproduce the somewhat higher than CD rates for DVD-Audio here...but, all things BEING EQUAL, and assuming a superior recording of both the Redbook and the SACD...

WHICH DO YOU THINK WOULD SOUND BETTER? Analog is, of course another story. And I agree with Brock and others above. You are essentially reassembling a continous analog wave when you digitally record something. Why else do manufacturers like Onkyo and Denon tout such things as VLSC and Advanced Alpha 24 processing, etc. These are algorithms that approximate analog waveforms and smooth out the digital wave facsimile.

cnh

mhardy6647

polkfan38 wrote: »

I love the rig! What year is that Marantz CD player?

No idea; found it at the dump last week. It's pretty old (and very cheesy - the post was meant ironically!); it works though. Model number is CD-40 (but there was another, nicer, later Marantz single CDP called "CD-40" as well).

The STA-52 it sits astride was also a dump find.

In terms of CD, vinyl, tape, hi-res digital, lo-res digital, etc... it's all good. It's all good.

SCompRacer

polkfan38 wrote: »

It sounds like it all comes down to personal preferance.

In a subjective hobby, most definitely. Opinions are great, but the best course of action is to listen and decide for yourself.

I grew up with vinyl and was never out of it. I like my digital too. Most folks that come over prefer the vinyl.

hearingimpared

Fongolio wrote: »

I have Donald Fagen's Morph The Cat in three different format's: LP, DVDA, CD. I also have a vinyl rip on cd of the LP. It was ripped on a VPI Scoutmaster TT with a Terminator 2 linear tracking arm with Audio-Technica AT33PTG cart(not my setup). It was ripped at 192/24 and dithered to 44.1/16. To my ears the order of preference is vinyl, vinyl rip, DVDA, CD. Now this is completely subjective of course and I have to say the differences are extremely minimal as this was a superbly recorded album, but my ears still like the vinyl above all. I'm not at all a vinyl snob and use my cdp almost as much as my TT but only because of convenience. One example of a preference for cd over vinyl though is Jennifer Warnes Famous Blue Raincoat 25th anniversary cd over the original vinyl. There is a vinyl version of the 25th anniversary remaster but I haven't heard it.

I just wish the comments to advocates on both sides didn't have to be so derogatory at times. Can't we just say we disagree?

Kelvin, "Morph the Cat" and "Blue Raincoat" would sound great even if they were etched on a record for a Victrola! LOL!

I have the vinyl version of the 25th anniversary (Thanks Richie, SCompRacer) Jennifer Warnes "Famous Blue Raincoat." It is done on virgin vinyl at 45 rpm and is spectacular. I would imagine it would sound wonderful on CD too.