Half the information on CDs is analogue

Sdatch,

CD uses Solomon Reed coding to protect data integraty ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed-Solomon_error_correction

This means that small analog imperfections have no influence on how the CD sounds, as the data is completely corrected for errors...

Exlibris,

I am afraid the IAR stuff does not agree at all with mathematics and science.

There are indeed many deficiencies in digital, it is far from perfect;

- proper filtering must be applied in the studio prior to digitizing a signal in order to avoid aliasing (stuff that is not filtered folds in around the Nyquist frequency).

- high out of band noise is common on most DAC's and must be heavily filtered (this is not ideal but generally not a problem for well designed gear with oversampling etc.)

- clock jitter can affect sound particularly if the jitter is not random. (again proper design has corrected this in most, if not all, commonly available gear)

Contrary to IAR, the details in the waveform are NOT lost in digital. In fact they are preserved much much more precisely than analog.....way better S/(THD+N) and way better channel separation.

If you don't believe it then STOP using your COMPUTER now .....becuase it is ALL based on similar technology....your disc drive uses Solomon Reed type algorthims too!!!! Almost all digital technology uses these concepts to make digital copies extremely accurate.....1000's of identical copies can be made with never a single error.

In fact digital is so good that the whole entertainment industry is scared of how downloading and piracy of digital data can undermine the control of legal distribution of high quality music and video.

In fact digital or binary type coding is so good that it forms the basis for all lifeforms that we know of on this planet! Yep, your DNA is basically a digital coded string in the form of a double helix - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_helix

The genetic code consists of three-letter 'words' (termed a codon) formed from a sequence of three nucleotides (e.g. ACT, CAG, TTT). These codons can then be translated with messenger RNA and then transfer RNA, with a codon corresponding to a particular amino acid. There are 64 possible codons (4 bases in 3 places or 4*4*4 possible "digital" states) that encode 20 amino acids. Most amino acids, therefore, have more than one possible codon. There are also three 'stop' or 'nonsense' codons signifying the end of the coding region, namely the UAA, UGA and UAG codons.

DNA does not appear to use Solomon Reed encoding but it is very robust digital code, such that every cell in your body contains the same digital information, which is why cloning is possible....something way scarier than music piracy, IMHO.

Exlibris,

I have found differences in DAC's but these are usually very subtle, most often a slight difference in the treble and often not enough to make me worry that much. The only relatively much larger differences I have come across are all associated with analog gear (particularly mechanical systems that vibrate; such as speakers, listening room and turntable cartridges, and to a lesser extent tube amps, which add a bit of their own nice flavor to the sound).

My comments are relative - no doubt there are differences between CD players and improvements can be had for big $$$ but I would have difficulting in calling these differences "huge".....is there a particular CD player that you have in mind that sounds hugely different from others?

As far as digital sounding so bad...perhaps this is a matter of taste. IMHO, I find digital sounds more accurate and detailed....some might call this harsh and brutal but my perception is that it is more realistic....too each his own. When I used analog I used to buy Japanese pressings because they sounded better but now that I use CD it makes no difference where the CD was pressed (althouogh the quality of recording/mixing and mastering remains very important)

Sean,

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.

By your definition I am deaf and thoroughly lacking in listening skills. I admit that I often can't tell whether my AKM ADC & DAC converters are in the signal path or not. What equipment are you using that you hear such a huge difference....a PC sound card?

Exlibris,

May be your system is very resolving and sensitive to changes. I have never heard the slightest difference in one digital cable from another.

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.

quality analogue recordings and playback remain the audiophiles "best friend".

It is all too clear that your meaning is "redbbook CD digital sucks", even though, in your round about manner, you pretend otherwise.

These beliefs fly in the face of engineering and technical progress. Clearly digital technology is everywhere in every facet of our lives....from cell phones to cars to business systems to most medical equipment in hospitals. If analog was MASSIVELY better then why is digital so pervasive?? Some kind of conspiracy perhaps....I don't think so.

Sean,

I think it is not as bad a picture as you paint....there are some good recording industry people out there...Telarc, Chesky, Naxos, The Mastering Lab....just to name a few of the better known sources of good recordings

Axelfonze,

Your point about the recording/mixing/mastering being important is so true. More important than CD vs Vinyl, IMHO.

For example, Doug Sax masters were good in the days of vinyl (Sheffield labs) and are even better today with digital....

This difference is so big that some remastered CD's are worse than the original vinyl (especially if the CD was mastered to sound loud).

Here is some info on why some CD's sound pretty bad on audiophile systems and lists some that make the "honor roll" for good sound (this does not mean that Redbook is a poor medium but that professionals are deliberately producing compressed material for poor quality systems);

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=93/

Axelfonze,

I totally agree with you. Brave of you to enter the fray. Unfortunately whatever you care to point out will be dismissed as "digital dogma" by many on these forums.

My efforts to explain what is well accepted by most professionals and supported by both science and lab measurements, almost always ends up producing these kind of retorts.

BTW: Both formats can produce excellent sound, IMHO. Digital, if properly used has greater potential. Although the loudness wars have produced some recordings on CD that are worse than what you can find on vinyl.

Exlibris,

Your findings match what Bob Katz widely reports...the DAC is where most subtle differences in digital tend to happen. (Clocking from transport is related but in the end jitter can be controlled at the DAC with appropriate design)

Sean,

Yeah the percentage is small...I grant you that.

Sean,

Interesting article about the compression on modern pop CD's. This matches my experience....it all sounds ok in the car or on a boombox but on my system I hear it for what it is....lots of distortion and monotonously loud and dull sounding.

If you are looking for great examples of a good recording; try Tower of Power Soul Vaccination or George Bensen "On broadway" live...

Perhaps the best way to fight this would be for audiophiles to publish lists of the worst offending crap CD's; giving the artists recognition for their vile sounding work.

Artists like Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Lenny Kravitz, Ricky Martin etc. (all of which I can appreciate muscially but have a track record of putting out badly compressed and distorted CD's)

Axelfonze,

I agree with you that it is the market (cars, iPod's in the gym etc.) that drives the industry to "hot" sounding CD's and nothing to do with the technology or the mastering engineer's abilities. Fortunately movie soundtracks have not headed so relentlessly towards "loudness wars" and many soundtracks for movies sound very good.

Perhaps the only solution for audiophiles to hit back is to complain to the labels, artists and producers...in the end it spells opportunity for a new Telarc, Chesky or a new Sheffield labs etc. to be born out of the "boring monotony of the loudness wars".....may be a new "Axelfonze" label where pop music still has dynamic range? .....much like Starbucks simply offered good coffee at a time where it was becoming almost impossible to find good coffee in much of North America...the rest is history.

Exlibris,

Doug Sax at the Mastering Lab is very good and in very high demand (he has won so many awards). For pop stuff/country, he uses compression like most everyone these days but at least he uses it sparingly. Check him out on Artist Direct and see which albums he is credited with...

A great example of his work is the remastered Toys in the Attic Aerosmith CD or SACD...this album sounds much better than earlier CD versions or greatest hits versions. He founded Sheffield Labs and has a long track illustrous track record of high quality productions.

You haven't lived unless you have laid down flat on the floor and kicked your legs to propel yourself around in circles with an air guitar in your hands and with "Back in Black" playing at 110 decibels (average) and screaming all the time Angus, Angus....

Long live Rock and Roll!

Seriously: Back in Black is a pretty awesome recording....it reminds me of another Aussie band that produced extremely high quality recordings: INXS.

lots of a recording's information isn't on the cd at all. that hasn't changed since the inception of the compact disc. no player retreives missing information...your brain fills that in.....

Yeah TV's and movies are the same....I can never watch a TV or go to a movie because the frame rates are so slow (30 frames per second)....all I see is bunch of independent pictures flashing by....so harsh and unrealistic...my brain tries to fill in the gaps in all that missing information...worse I see all the pixels and know all to well that I am missing information between each pixel on the screen.....it is so frustrating.

...and the Victrola was so good!