When CDs first came onto the market in 1982 .......

Everyone was "blown away" with the perceived clarity of sound.
…
Is this on the money or am I mistaken ... ??

My advisor in 80’s said, “this technology is immature, I would stick with a TT for now.”

And it seems like he was correct, as the amount of things one needs to stream or do digital is still resulting in new equipment that is coming out to “Fix” things everywhere in the chain.

When they (CDs) work they sound good, and when they don’t then we have skips and drop outs.
But they did likely blow away things at the lower end… but less so at the upper end.

IMO

For me the reliable lack of surface noise was the standout feature, perhaps that is the same as the perceived clarity you mention but I also recently read that the usable dynamic range was much better, which matches my recollection of those first CDs. The soft passages could be much quieter which was not always a good thing  for all people.

The Jurassic era introduction of music presented on silver spinner discs had its appeal in ease of use and portability that was a welcome step-up to cassette tapes. Six disc CD changers flooded the markets and car audio. Vinyl strengths and warts continues even today.

I would not characterize the early cd audio presentation as anything close to “mind blowing” . Many recordings were comparably a step-down to early 9o’s DDD offerings discussed below and a further step-down from today’’s digital mastering.

So, because they were originally analog remastered digitally, there was a new creation that was “bright”. This “brightness” was perceived as a welcome positive result unleashed in the flood of low-fi and mid-fi audio, …. Not a positive for that era of hi-fi. Ergo, not “mind blowing” IMO.

IGNORING the impact of cheap 80’s cd player warts…. When you listen to music on CDs from the 80s, you have to realize that there are three stages to the production process: the recording, the mixing, and the final production master.

Take a look at the SPARS code on the disc in question. There are three letters - how is it recorded, how is it mixed, and how is it mastered? A or D? This is analog recorded and mixed, and digitally mastered. The first were AAD.

Most music CDs from the 80s are just like this, sliding to being ADD (analog recorded, digitally mixed and digitally mastered). It’s only in the very late 80s and 90s that we have finally have full digital that can expose every detail arguably better than vinyl, and without the surface noise in vinyl or cassette..

( The evolution of DACs is another issue excluded herein )

So, the quality of the music that you’re hearing on CD from the 80s is very highly dependent on how it was recorded, and produced.

- If it’s fully digitally recorded, chances are it’s gonna arguably be welcomed and can “impress” .

- If it’s an analog recording, but digitally mastered, then it depends on if you’re listening to 1980s grade analog to digital, or something that’s been re-mastered using modern DSP technology.

TAKEAWAY IMO

- Not “mind blowing” in any sense over quality vinyl played on high-end hi-fi of that era .

- revolutionary in utility for sure , especially in low-fi or mid-fi systems

- it progressed over time from a more forward / brighter audio presentation starting with the AAD mastering until it was fully smoothed out progressively in late 80’s or early 90’s with full digital DDD recordings.

You're mistaken. 

CDs were mastered with an audio stream turned up to 1.2v (?) whereas all analog recordings (vinyl, tape etc.) had been mastered using an analog audio stream of 0.8v

Is this on the money or am I mistaken ... ??

I remember when they came out. I had strong beginnings of a high end system. I was also in search of detail and slam. I had a AR turntable… considered good at the time, but nothing like a real audiphile table. Serface noise was always notable.

I bought a Nakamichi CD player… somewhere in here. I was really delighted. I got dead quiet background, slam and more details. But there was something missing. I still played a lot of vinyl. But I traveled a lot, so that this replaced my 2 briefcases of cassette tapes I traveled with.

Your impressions at that time depends on your associted equipment and what you were searching for. Most people then did not have $10K in their system like I did. But I was pretty clueless on “natural sound” at that time. I wanted volume and slam.  I got it… but I pursued vinyl and better analog as my primary listening medium… well until my digital end equaled it in sound quality… a couple years ago.

I found that Nakamichi CD player in my storage room last year. I hooked it up for fun… that was a very high end CD player for it’s time. I cringed… unplugged it… took it upstairs and threw it in the garbage. I would never want any music reproduced so badly… tinny, hard, unmusical.

For me it was no clicks, pops or overall record noise from worn records. Sold 90% of my records. Still sad about that.

@ghdprentice - I loved my Nak tape deck and when they came out with a CD player I grabbed whatever cash I had and drove to the nearest dealer. The sales guy said don’t buy it, I was not going to listen to him until he actually compared it to a Rotel. Night and day. I brought the Rotel and had it till it died about 3 years ago. I totally agree with you, the Nak CD player was horrible.

Also had an AR table. But lusted for an Empire.

LOL 

@deadhead1000 I gave away a vinyl collection I started in the sixth grade(American beauty G D ) first record ,because of the wonder technology of the cd. Just one of many of my Duh! Moments.

Don’t think you are correct.

My experience. I had a consumer rig then. I bought an $80 no-name cd player and it was a huge upgrade to my consumer turntable and tape deck.  Never boght another piece of vinyl.

Jerry

Sony had a Presentation in some large room/auditorium in San Diego. I remember attending (mid 80s) and listening to their CDs. Somehow, the music skipped and people just freaked out: "It skipped! It skipped!". Hilarious! 

I loved Cds for their immortality, play time and lack of ticks and pops. Thank you Lord!

@bikeboy52 I feel your pain man. When I was living in NYC in the late 1980s and my roommate was moving out he asked repeatedly for all my vinyl cause we’d gotten caught up in the CD thing. For some reason I had the fortitude to say no and thank the audio Gods I did cause I’m reviving my analog system and those records would probably all be in a landfill now. To answer the OP’s question, yeah there were immediate benefits to CDs. They were much easier to play, had no pops or clicks and required no cleaning, and they sounded more dynamic with more and cleaner treble that was initially really intoxicating. Then reality set in that, as my system got better the “perfect sound forever” just left me cold and sounded overly processed or sterile. In the early 90s I bought a DBX CD player from Crazy Eddie’s that had some settings to hide some of the warts, but it was just a bandaid for what was then just bad DDD recording or bad digital transfer. Thankfully at that time I went back to business school and of necessity separated myself from audio for about 10 years. But then I got back into audio in a big way and started writing reviews where, you know what? — digital got some religion and realized some of its sins (I’m looking at you jitter) and things got a lot better. I remember reviewing an Ayre CD player and a Bel Canto DAC and thinking — “yeah, this is real music again.” So there was hope for the future. Not going any further here, but between better digital technology and high-quality streaming I think we’ve finally got something here. So the initial, yet severely flawed, initial medium has finally matured into a real rival to vinyl sonically while adding extreme convenience and accessibility to worlds of music in the mix. What a great time to be an audiophile!

I started off with a pretty decent TT, so it was not really a fair comparison.
But all the CD players sounded OK.

My first player was a Sony CDP 101.   It sounded like crap compared to today's players.    I remember for about 4 months I could barely find any titles I liked.   

That player was $1000 in late 1982/1983......  I think I paid $600 as an open box unit at Manufacturer 's Marketplace in W Roxbury MA.    That was a great place that had some pretty good brands that were overstocked / c,osed out.   It was like a dream being in that place as a 15 year old kid.   I purchased quite a few things there with my paper route money

On some of those first CD’s the (cheap) record companies just pressed the vinyl master onto the cd. Those did not sound good. 

It’s seems a bit later than 82 but yeah it was awesome. But everything was when you are young. I was an early adopter I think. I remember it being some sort of int unit by Mitsubishi. Me and the gang blown away. To be able to go direct to any track we wanted was the greatest invention since the microwave.

I forget what it was called with cassettes but on better decks you could do extreme fast forward and listen for a break in the sound and stop and you should be at the next track. It took a good finger to get it right. And if you wanted three songs forward trying to listen for three breaks (silence) while fast forwarding. Ugh

CD changed everything for ease of use. Don’t think I was even worried about sound quality. It was too cool to care.

Ah the 80s. What a blast.

Some early CD just sounded horrible. I still loved them because I didn‘t listen to the sound much. As much as some remasters are bad in their own respect, in some cases they were just neccessary. I‘m glad I didn‘t have to fully go through the early stages of the medium and only joined in the early 90s.

One example:

I heard the first CD player on the market for the USA in '82. This was the Hitachi vertical-loader. Retail price $1K. Not many CDs available then. I was not tempted to sell my TT! I didn't buy my first CD until the Fall of '91. I bought my first player the following Summer in '92 - a cheap Technics. Sounded OK! Not tempted to sell my TTs. I was busy buying brand-new LPs at bargain prices as music retailers were dumping them to add space for more CDs. The reason I held off buying CD players was because I didn't think the first few generations sounded good. By the 90's they were at least listenable!

@ozymandias_ 

You are mistaken.  Increased dynamic range, clarity, blacker backgrounds, lack or surface noise, no dust bunnies in the styli, no warped lps (the vinyl quality of the era was particularly bad).  I couldn’t wait to switch to digital 

CD's when first introduced may have been marketed as perfect sound forever, remember searching for those rare DDD recordings? I did and suspect most others did too. Why did CD's take over the market, because most vinyl record producers were cranking out piss poor quality product, I was on average returning 1 out of 4 LPs for pressing defects, warps, clicks and pops!  No such problems with the new technology. I attribute the sound issues of brightness and sterility to be the fact that the DACs were still immature technology. Some of those early CDs sound pretty good on more modern players we have today. Another feature that early CD players had that I DO miss and aided in the acceptance was the convenience of the "music calendar" and programing the tracks in whatever order you wanted!    

Everyone here makes some valid points, in favour or not, the truth is it was cool back then getting people to a new era. The other truth is that some of the best ones were made between very late 80's to late 90's, many lasting till today, with a very energetic and fresh sound, a virtue that was lost later in favour of bland and rather controlled performances. I got my first two CD players mid 90's and the only thing I regret from that era is not buying half of the titles in vinyl.

Flim & The BBs -- Tricycle.

It was the first recording (for me) that truly delivered the promise of digital sound.  It also served another purpose of scaring the ever-loving %^@* out of me at the same time.

And, oh those Monster CD Sound Rings that arrived a few years later.  (Just don't use them in your slot-loaded CD player).

@akg_ca Well done, sir.

I bought a new Linn turntable when CDs came out in order to preserve my investment in records and not have to replace many of them.

To me CD playback was more user friendly than vinyl, however with a well set up budget however high end TT vinyl sounded better. I still own the Sonograph SG3 with Sumiko tonearm TT that I used back at that time. 

Now I am totally digital. Playing CDs via transport.  

I remember the moment well. I was working in a wholesale/retail record store, which had a separate classical store. If you were reading the audio magazines at the time, you already knew that something big was coming - the CD. Since the classical world was really into clean audio, this new form of technology was being promoted to benefit classical music fans in a big way. This classical music store put its first CD player on display, and urged and encouraged classical music customers to audition it with their small selection of classical CD’s. The CD player was the Philips CD100, and it was the first CD player I ever heard, however, the first CD I listened to on the CD player was Joni Mitchell’s Court and Spark. The minute I heard the audio of this CD through headphones, I knew this was a monumental step in audio. To me, the audio was nothing but mind-blowing.

To this day, I am still a fan of CD’s, and don’t mind saying that I play them regularly. It is with my CD players that I discovered how big of a difference different RCA interconnects can make.

Philips CD100 (Vintage)

I attribute the sound issues of brightness and sterility to be the fact that the DACs were still immature technology. Some of those early CDs sound pretty good on more modern players we have today.

True, but it was immature process as well.  Some records, used to make CDs had wrong frequency correction - intended for LPs. In addition many records got digitized with less than perfect A/D clock producing jitter, that cannot be removed.  The only way to remove it is to digitize again, if analog tapes still exist.   

As for different volume - I suspect that "volume wars" were a necessity, since CDs were, because of size, widely used in boom boxes, cars etc. where full dynamics of recordings were not welcomed (buzzing speakers).   Same way TV sound is horribly compressed since most of people used tiny TV's speakers.

SACD, intended for better reproduction, had ability to bring back full original dynamics, but greed pretty much killed the project.  Todays LPs also carry this promise, but world also seems to go in the opposite direction with more people listening to MP3s.

My first experience with CD’s was somewhere around the mid 80’s when I purchased my first CD player by Sony and I thought it sounded great mainly due to the clarity of the format and lack of the background noise inherent in records that could have been cared for better at the time. Party’s and beach cottages made it difficult to keep records in perfect condition.

While still listening to LP records I started to purchase a lot of the records I had from the 60’s, 70’s and more current in the CD format and didn’t slow down for about 15 years when I turned back to buying LP’s almost exclusively. I don’t think I ever thought that CD’s sounded better than LP’s but enjoyed the ease of the format and new releases were not as readily available on LP’s during that period.

Fast forward to today and I find my original AAD CD’s to sound better and warmer than the CD’s that recorded originally in the 90’s and early 2000's in ADD formats and of course the compression of the Loudness Wars didn’t help the sound of the format. Although Dire Straits Brothers in Arms in DDD was phenomenal. While listening to LP’s is my desired format I still enjoy listening to the old AAD CD’s and MFSL and Analog Productions has done a great job on their remastered Hybrid SACD’s.

I enjoy it all.

I was attracted to CD’s and digital because wow from analogue drove me nuts. Underwater pianos were particularly nausea-inducing. Sour violin sections drove me a bit over the edge, too. The trouble was, those first CDs just didn’t have good enough tone. Too much bass. Too much treble. Not enough midrange.

@tgilb I always thought of “Brothers in Arms” as the poster child for what was wrong with early digital recordings, but now as I’m using an R2R DAC I’m gonna pull that back out and see how it sounds now.  Of course I can always stream it on Qobuz, but I’m curious to see how the CD holds up now with better DAC technology. 

@soix   All I can say is one man's trash is another man's treasure. We all have different sounding systems and we all hear things differently and I'm not saying Brother's early DDD CD sounds better than the MFSL 45 RPM Remaster. My original AAD copy of Communique sounds pretty good also and I have early LP pressings  of most of the Dire Straits albums that sound fantastic.

the phillips and sony machines were the first i'd heard late '82/early '83 at Pacific Stereo. i liked the sound of the phillips better [warmer] but the sony had real alphanumeric display while the phillips just had red LED lights. 

Sting, “The Dream of The Blue Turtles” was my first CD. Still own the CD but both the Yamaha CDX1 and Technics SLD1 are long gone. The Yamaha died, the Technics I gave to a friend and I bet still playing today. My system back then was a college system that was mediocre at best so I couldn’t tell the difference but I knew CD’s were here to stay. Progressed to better CDP’s over the years and wasn’t until a few years ago I bought a new table. Both the table and CDP sit as most my listening is streaming. 
 

What I do recall was at our house parties in college, CD’s we’re definitely more convenient. Hands down, more convenient.

I remember Dire Straits CDs sounded good. The rest, not so much.  Also remember CDs were more expensive than I liked.

My father had a nice mid fi system from Lafayette(rumored to made my luxman) in college and grad school a techniqs receiver and turntable.  The tt was plastic, p mount direct drive and was no where near the Pickering on dads.  Early cd was a hitachi from circuit city and wqs disappointingly bright and sterile.  First job led to first high end system. Nakamichi cdp stasis amp and pre amp.  Better but still not musical.  On a chance experience in a dimly lit reference room I heard the sound I craved, a spectral two box system at over 10k.  The salesperson  was amused when I said that is the first digital I can listen to.  It was a rega p3 and dynavector 10x 4  total 800 dollars. 

Sony’s CD-1 was the first CD player on the market...not much larger than the cd itself...I believe it was $300 .....used it for a few years and then upgraded when the market got flooded with cd players from every brand imaginable.....gave it to my nephew a few years later...Wonder if it’s worth anything today. CD’s had more slam than vinyl then and that extra bass really impressed alot of people. Cartridges today are so refined and inproved over the carts of the 70’s-80’s, that they are superior in their Musicality to many of today’s cd players.

It is a pity that it were so easy to compress digital audio files (loudness war) in a computer and then supply that to the CD pressing plants.

So most of the source material were therefore having lower dynamic range on the CD then on the LP.

That killed the superior CD and other formats that come along.

The LP is a physical copy protection when it is so bad so we can not get back what went in no matter it is coming from ANY TT and disregarding price no object. We will and can not get exactly the same signal what went to the cutting head on the lathe.

In computer science we can call LP for a lossy format (as MP3 were a example of a lossy format) and therefore a good copy protection. Record labels can and will supply source material to the LP pressing plants that is not as heavy compressed when nobody can do a one to one copy of a LP (that’s why there is in "Dynamic range DB" are LP releases that has a greater dynamic range than the digital counterparts it shows us that the record labels have NOT supplied the same source material).

Additional each step in the LP production process can only loose fidelity. Some few examples:

• Cutting head can not increase fidelity
• Plating of a father can not increase fidelity
• Plating of a moto can not increase fidelity
• Plating of a son (stamper) can not increase fidelity
• Vinyl formula can not increase fidelity
• Eccentricity (center hole not 100% center of the Grove) can not increase fidelity
• Wear of stampers first pressing is not the same as the last pressing from the same stamper. The same goes for later sons from the same mother is not the same as the first son. And of course the same goes for from father to the first and last mother.. can not increase fidelity just more or less bad.
• Then we have ALL the issues with playback when there is NOT any in the whole world of TT frontend that sounds the same when there is no defined reference playback. But that is logical when the final LP record is so far from what actually went into the cutting head. So it makes not more of a sense that the end user will anyway tweak the sound to their subjective liking. And that is probably a strength of the format. But has nothing to do with HiFi in short.

But I love my LP playback system when the same album will not sound exactly the same for each playback. And it is relieving experience in this digital world there computers can play back tracks over and over again until we get mad of it’s precision when it time after time always sounds exactly the same and without any variation whatsoever.

But it is of course a strength also depending on what someone wants to achieve.

Quad DSD CD's and the rigs to play them. That's what I am hoping gets to be ubiquitous and more affordable.

However CD density would have to go way up.

I think people were "blown away" by three things.  First, the lack of surface noise; second, the extended play time and not having to flip the record to the second side to hear a whole album; and third, doing away with the customary cleaning ritual needed before listening to music.   

Those seemed to be the primary advantages for CD at that time.  The simple utility of the media and ease of use were what convinced me to change from vinyl to CD.  I still have a Thorens TD 165 turntable in a box somewhere with a Stanton 990 cartridge on it.  Haven't seen it or used it for at least 35 years and don't care.

I got back into vinyl a couple of years ago, and I started with an inexpensive Project turntable. It sounded surprisingly good, except it had surface noise and a lot of static. I then upgraded to a Mofi Ultradeck and what a difference, no surface noise and a lot less static. Except for an occasional pop or tick, it is very quiet. It's like listening to a cd, but with that beautiful analogue sound. Needless to say, I am really enjoying it, but I still like my CDs and SACDs too. I think the Pink Floyd Analogue Productions SACDs are Fabulous.

I remember fighting it.  I remember seeing the CD's n the window of my LP store and convinced myself that was software, not music, and belonged in a computer shop - not a music store.  I went years ignoring the CD until a girlfriend bought me a Yamaha CD player and a CD (U2- Joshua Tree).  I had the album and remembered playing the CD and how it sounded like pure crap, and she loved it.  So I smiled and thanked her.  As much as I probably have a thousand CDs, I never really cared for the format.  It was born out of convenience, not sound quality.  My turntable blows away any digital I have ever heard.  Don't get me started on 15ips tape.  

when CD's were first introduced I bought a CD player, probably not very expensive, a few CD's and immediately began scouring ALL the used record stores in Western Washington (Seattle and north) in fear that vinyl would 'disappear'

for once I got it right !  I was able to load my vinyl collection with hundreds of mint, original issue records that reside in my collection to this day. I thought CD's sounded shrill, thin, harsh and in no way comparable to my vinyl playback system

over many years and many CD players later, as technology progressed, CD's became acceptable to me and now both formats are part of my total collection of physical format music reproduction - new and different is not always better, IMHO

The more recently recorded and mastered CD's from artists like Deuter do not sound "loudness war" compressed to me. I have heard that the commercial CD burns now do not engage in such travesty to the extent they that they used to.

As far as I know the dominance of streaming ended the loudness war as we knew it. Spotify, Amazon etc let their own algorythms adjust the loudness (and whatnot) after they were uploaded. That’s why we rarely have to adjust the volume when listening to streamed music. LUFS - a more psychoacoustic way of measuring perceived loudness - is what counts now. I am not an expert and can’t say how a LUFS-oriented mixing/mastering approach affects dynamics but from what I read it does not make overcompressed and turned up to the max mixes and masters as neccessary as before.

There is a good article in Wikipedia. Just plug in Loudness War in their search field.

It mainly occurred in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. It was not a good time for CD sound quality and I can usually pick up on it pretty easily when listening to CD’s from that era.