Bob Reynolds: I adamantly believe that transports have a sound of their own. Whether or not they are discernable has to do with how different they sound and / or the resolution of the rest of the system and / or one's hearing acuity.
My Brother and i have conducted testing using several different transports. Some of the differences were not only quite audible, but quite staggering as far as how different the same discs sounded with the transports being the only variable. We were even using impedance matched cabling, so RF based digital reflections that cause jitter were taken out of the picture.
There was something else that we both learned while doing this. The primary sonic characteristic that we heard from each of the players ( when being used as a player ) were also prominent when using them strictly as a transport. When a machine sounded warm and round as a player, it also sounded warm and round as a transport, etc...
As such, the only logical thing to surmise from all of this was that the transport mechanism, laser assembly, power supply circuitry, digital correction circuitry, etc... contributes a LOT more of what we hear than what most people think. Sean
> |
Here's a simple task that most everyone with a stand alone CD burner or computer based burner can do. That is, if they have the desire and means to do so.
Take an analogue source, record it onto a CD and then compare the original analogue source to the digital "cloned" recording using the same playback equipment. If you can't hear the difference between the original and the "digital clone", you better check into the office of an audiologist for a very thorough exam. You are either going deaf and / or are thoroughly lacking in listening skills.
Until one has done something like this, making comments about this subject is useless and a waste of everyone's time. Anybody that has done something like this will know why older analogue recordings pretty much HAVE TO BE remastered when released on CD. That is, they have to apply TONS of equilization in order to get something that even remotely resembles the "natural" tonal balance that was lost when converting to digital. Sean
>
PS... making digital to digital copies typically results in excellent copies. When going from analogue to digital, even using the shortest and purest path possible, it all goes to hell. |
I'm comparing apples to apples here. In the tests that i performed, i used live analogue recordings that i had made. These recordings had no form of compression, equalization, etc.. performed on them. I then converted them over to CD via an audio based digital recorder that i have. The end results were that the digital "clones" weren't clones of the original analogue signal at all, but bad recordings that barely resembled the originals in terms of tonal balance.
Using this same digital recorder, i've made very good "dubs" of other digital recordings. As such, the losses incurred going from analogue to digital are FAR more severe than when working strictly within the digital domain. This is probably why so many of the early "AAD" discs sounded SOOO bad. That is, they were recorded and mastered in analogue form, but sold as recordings in digital form.
Given that i've had similar results using other digital based recording devices that i have access to, i know these results to be both consistent and repeatable. This is why i said what i did above i.e. others can find out for themselves by performing just such a test. Sean
> |
Onhwy: The digital recorder that i was using was a stand alone TDK CD-R Audio burner. I purchased this unit based on the reputation that the TDK computer based burners had at the time i.e. as being the best and most reliable at the time for pennies on the dollar. Most of this had to do with their software, which included specific "tricks" to minimize errors, data correction and "glitching" due to a lack of buffering.
From what i can remember, i think that the ADC's and DAC's in this unit were made by AKM, which is the brand that Shadorne mentioned above. I would have to pull this unit apart to make sure, which i will do if you guys really want me to.
Obviously, this is not a "high tech" or "ultra resolving" unit. Then again, the original analogue tapes were made on a DC powered portable monophonic Marantz unit. Even so, the recordings made on the Marantz unit sound more realistic in terms of tonal balance than the direct feed "dubs" made via the CD burner. As i previously mentioned though, the digital dubs should have simply recorded what was being presented to it, NOT shifted the tonal balance in quite noticeable fashion.
As far as recording using a computer or sound card based device, i wouldn't bother. That's why i bought the stand alone Audio based burner. Sean
> |
The point that i was trying to make was not that digital sucks ( it definitely can ) or that analogue is better ( it definitely can be ), but that i ( and several others ) could hear MASSIVE differences between the two. As i also mentioned, this was not just on one occassion or with the specific gear mentioned. I used that as a reference because it was still fresh in my mind. On top of that, i could easily reproduce those same conditions again using the identical equipment in question. Given that the other gear that i've done this with was not mine, i don't have access to it and / or the specific makes and models.
Please bare in mind that my comments about "digital", at least within the confines of this thread, pertain strictly to "redbook" CD and "redbook" CD standards. I do think that DVD-A and SACD are superior with FAR more potential for better sonics than redbook CD's, but i'm not holding my breath or believing that either will become industry standards. Until something like that happens, i will continue to believe that quality analogue recordings and playback remain the audiophiles "best friend". Sean
> |
Shadorne & El: I know that not ALL "redbook" cd's and / or cd playback systems suck. I have heard very enjoyable redbook based systems and would like to think that i own a couple of them. Having said that, i think that the mass majority of redbook based recordings and playback equipment are FAR below the standards set by "lowly" vintage analogue gear.
For all of the technology that we have invested in digital recording and playback equipment, it sure seems that progress ( if you want to call it that ) is quite limited in both amplitude and scope. That is, one truly has to work hard to seek out and find quality digital recordings and gear that make one WANT to listen to music and be able to do so for extended periods of time without getting "listener fatigue". When is the last time that you heard someone say that about vinyl ???
On the other hand, vinyl may be a pain in the ass and FAR less convenient, but even "reasonable" analogue based front ends can sound SOOO much more musical, it's not funny. I say this for several reasons and it is not just based on the aforementioned story regarding dubbing analogue to digital, etc....
My girlfriend has a CD that she likes to listen to. I have the same recording on LP. Just for fun, i compared the two using my HT system as the reference. Listening to the digital version and then swapping over to the analogue version literally made me laugh out loud. Not only were the sonic differences staggering, but they were so much in favour of the LP that it wasn't funny. Bare in mind that this was with me using a Direct Drive TT with a servo controlled linear tracking tonearm & a cartridge that i had picked up used off of Ebay for under $100 total. This was fed into the ( non-adjustable ) phono stage of my Pre / Pro using the permanently attached "low grade" interconnects that come out of the TT. In other words, this was FAR from "state of the art" vinyl gear / phono stage equipment.
In comparison, the two different digital front ends that i tried this with are both reasonably well respected "universal" players. One could be purchased for appr $100 and the other sold for just under $1000 when they were new. Granted, neither of these are "state of the art", but the sure in the hell "should be" FAR more advanced and "better sounding" than the archaic equipment and technology that went into the analogue playback gear. After all, digital supposedly has no "wow & flutter", "rumble", "anti-skating", "VTA", etc.... to deal with or mess up.
Needless to say, i've always admired certain characteristics of analogue playback and wished that "digital" could come closer in those areas. After experiencing this, it really made me re-assess "redbook" and the so-called "digital technology" behind it. Quite honestly, it really is a joke for the most part. That is, until you get into the highly specialized and "esoteric" gear that even most audiophiles never stumble accross.
Too bad SACD and DVD-A were pretty much "still-born". Even then, we would still be stuck with the "half deaf" moron's recording and mastering most of this stuff, so how much have we REALLY gained ??? No matter what format one prefers, we are still stuck with the limitations of the recording industry "professionals" mucking things up. Sean
>
|
Shadorne: Out of all of the recordings sold om a day, what percentage of them do you think come from those labels? Sean
> |
Jason: That's a great idea, but i don't really see too many high visibility performers that would be open to the idea of "strangers" recording their live events. While some artists / groups do allow such things, trying to do so at most events will either get you arrested and / or your gear confiscated.
Other than that, better recordings sound good most anywhere, even on bandwidth & dynamic limited systems. Unfortunately, the recording industry doesn't seem to understand this though and tries to keep throwing "bigger" recordings at us. On top of that, the "high end" audio industry really doesn't have any type of unified voice to speak up with, as we as "audiophiles" can't even agree on what "good" reproduction really is.
When "audiophiles" are buying and recommending speakers that show a frequency response tolerance of +8 /-7 dB's and using amplifiers that have in excess of several percent THD at normal listening levels, i have to wonder if even they desire "purity of reproduction" at all. Talk about sending a "mixed message". How is the average person supposed to know what "sounds good" or "sounds right" when those supposedly devoted to "high fidelity audio reproduction" don't even know what it is??? Sean
> |
I said: "How is the average person supposed to know what "sounds good" or "sounds right" when those supposedly devoted to "high fidelity audio reproduction" don't even know what it is?".
Mlsstl said: "Such touching devotion to the common man! ;-)".
Honestly though, think about it and the specifics of the other things i made mention of before making that statement. If amplitude linearity and low distortion don't really matter, audiophiles using and recommending highly expensive but highly distorted components really have nothing to do with the "high fidelity" reproduction of music. It might be "high end" in terms of cost and so-called "glamour", but it surely isn't "high fidelity" by any means. THAT is what i meant by "audiophilia" sending the general public "mixed signals".
I guess that this boils down to whether one REALLY is a "music lover" or an "audiophile". The distortions ( regardless of types or amplitudes ) don't really matter to the music lover, so long as it "sounds good" to them. On the other hand, the "true" audiophile is more concerned with the purity of signal being reproduced than the actual sonic characteristics of the recording.
Having said that, it is nice when both the recordings and the systems are reasonably "accurate" AND "musical", which is getting to be more rare rather than commonplace. One would think that with the advent of greater technology, just the opposite would be taking place. I say that because the recordings are getting worse, and in order to make them more "listenable", the end user's are resulting to introducing further distortions into the chain. Kind of a band-aid effect, but i guess that if one truly wants to enjoy listening to music, they'll do what they think is necessary.
Too bad none of the schools for recording technology offer some type of class in "audiophilia". Maybe if those going into the industry had a better idea of how good things really could sound without massive signal manipulation on even a decent system, they would better strive to achieve such results. After all, to most folks going into such a field, they have no idea what they are missing. To them ( and the rest of the world ), a "good sounding" system consists of a Pioneer / Sony / Kenwood / JVC / Technics cd player stacked on top of a Pioneer / Sony / Kenwood / JVC / Technics receiver plugged into a $1.99 power strip / surge protector feeding some Bose speakers connected through Monster Cable. This is as good as it gets, right? After all, this is all "brand name" stuff that cost them hundreds of dollars, right???
If we were to change the point of reference for those making the recordings via exposure to better quality gear and system installations, we might be able to change their goals and motivations too.
I wonder if it would be worthwhile for audiophiles, working together as a group both regionally and nationally, to contact local recording schools and studios and work with them on something like this? Just giving them access to a "decent" audiophile grade system on their premises might make for a world of difference. Even our old "junk" properly set up would be a step up from what they are used to using and listening to.
Any thoughts / comments from the peanut gallery??? Sean
> |
Here's an interesting article about the horrid sound of modern digital recordings / CD's that you might want to check out. It's good to see that some folks on the "inside" of the music making / recording industry are noticing what we are too. The fact that Neil Young, Bob Dylan, etc... are speaking out about things like this in such a vocal fashion can only help the cause. Sean > |
Axelfonze: I have been in studios and could sit here and pick apart your response, highlighting tons of flaws that take place in most every session, but that would only create further tension and debate. As a general rule though, i do agree with a lot of what you have said.
With that in mind, it is up to those that are "industry professionals" that still have some form of integrity to do their job as best possible and speak up about the matter. To me, this would mean taking the time to educate the performers, making them aware of the different methods used to make good and / or bad sounding recordings. I can guarantee that most every performer would rather have their records sound as good as possible, even it meant sacrificing some volume. If such weren't the case, we wouldn't have folks like Bob Dylan, Neil Young, etc... making the comments that they are. If we can get the performers educated and involved, it will be hard for the "industry professionals" responsible for this mess to ignore pressure from both sides i.e. the bands and the consumers.
Those in marketing are the idiots responsible for the "volume wars" that the aforementioned article talks about. Getting through to them will be difficult, but we really do need to take steps to see what we can do. While i have a million projects going as it is, i'm going to see what we can do about this. Obviously, this will take a LOT of help from others, both end users and those within the industry. When i get some time and start to make some progress organizing some type of "protest", i'll surely post something here and at AA.
Obviously, this type of protest will meet with some within the recording industry, but my guess is, that most engineers want to be proud of their work and how their work sounds. As such, they might take offense to some of the comments made here and how they are perceived in the future, but the bottom line is that we both strive for the same thing. Good music that is well recorded and well preserved for a long time to come. Sean
>
|
Metralla: You're absolutely right and we need to change that in a very organized, large scale and highly publicized manner. That's what i'm going to try working on sometime shortly. Sean
> |
