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! |
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.....also, the vast majority of music lovers don't even vaguely fit an audiophile's definition of one. its their world..we're just in it......investigate actual sales numbers on hi end recordings if you want to get a wake up call. |
Jason, I've often wondered how to go about making some really fine recordings for my firends and myself. Do you know any resources on the web for amateur recording. I know that Manley makes a nice 8 channel Tube mixing board and I've noticed that many of the recordings of the 1950's and early sixties have the characteristic sound of tube equipment. But that's as far as I've gotten with that idea. Any help from anyone would be appreciated. there's a great discussion board at www.taperssection.com the vast majority of folks over there are only interested in two-channel recordings, and portable gear that can easily be powered at concerts and similar situations. I'm not sure what music (local bands, big acts, your own playing, etc, etc) you are interested in recording, but you'll certainly be able to find a lot of options for portable gear. |
I think Back in Black is one of the best recorded straight-ahead rock albums of all time. Listen to that, then The Darkness' Permission to Land for an example of what overcompression does to a recording. Permission to Land would have been an incredible sounding recording if a little restraint was shown in mastering. |
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. |
By the way, your post is a little elitist and if the 'phd' that you end your ID with stands for what I think it stands for, well, in these circles that's a little elitist as well.
Best regards,
DH
MA, MLS |
Unfortunately 'rock' is catch-all term that covers lots of music. Most of the music that I listen to is very emotionally involving and yes, my system portrays the intent of the musicians.
Sorry, chamber music just doesn't speak to me. Why should it, look who it was written for and by. I live in a huge urban centre in the 21st century; the music I listen to is generally written by people like me. I understand where they are coming from. I have no connection to those who wrote chamber music, nor do I have any connection to the audience they wrote it for.
Enjoy the chamber music and let me enjoy artists like:
Sufjan Stevens
Radiohead
Sun Kil Moon
Beck, etc. |
Exlibris
All this stuff about the superiority of vinyl and tubes over CDs and solid state and it turns out you only listen to rock! Who the hell cares how accurate the audio as long as it blasts you away. Do you ever have any idea what the intent of the musicians and/or producers was at the time of the recording?
Thanks to Axelfonze and a few others, the thread was a worthwhile read. My experience is that there are excellent CDs and SACDs, but then I prefer jazz and chamber music, the likely target for those producing high quality recordings, so my sample may be biased.
db |
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. |
Though I will always purchase the music that I love, regardless of how it is recorded or mastered, I would like to also actively support the labels that do cater to us, and produce the kinds of recordings that we want to hear.
The problem is that I generally only listen to 'rock.' I generally listen to independent bands and solo artists that are 'below the radar'.
I already know about all the small labels that are producing excellent sounding classical, jazz, easy listening, ambient, electronic, and 'world' music.
Does anyone have a list of labels (or mastering engineers) producing excellent sounding CDs from artists in the rock/alt/indie genres?
Thanks. |
Again: If we can get the performers educated and involved, it will be hard for the "industry professionals".... to ignore pressure from both sides i.e. the bands and the consumers. I'd forget consumers and focvus on performers. But then, you'd need stars with considerable commercial clout to set such a trend. I expect the sound engineers will follow and probably crack open a few bottles of champagne while they're at it. So the question is, can we convince say, Madonna, to switch to 0dB fs recordings and talk about it too??? |
Again, most engineers are fighting the same battle that you are Sean. The problem is two fold. For one, most bands attached to labels have little say in how their record sounds, except for the biggest, most established acts. Most people selling tons of records have absolutely no control over their album. At the same time, most people who are making independant recordings and who are not attached to a label only want something to compete with major label recordings. We DO try to educate our clients about good sound. We also get stuck between a rock and a hard place in that if we don't give the client what they want (loud, over compressed recordings), then we will often lose work.
As industry professionals our integrity is to do the job that we are hired to do. If it was purely up to me I would do many things differently with most of the recordings I produce. I also think that most music being produced (alot of the stuff that I work on in fact) is garbage as well, but much of the time it's not my place to comment on that either.
I also believe that the way recordings are produced today suits the way that most people listen to music. Less compression and more dynamic range is going to be bad news for most consumers. The real battle is over the role music place in the marketplace. The advent of the ipod, as well as the convenience of technology has turned music into a background affair. Most peolpe listen to music constantly for most of the day (be it on their ipod, the radio, on tv, in the car, etc), and as a result the meduim is losing its percieved value. We need to get more people actively listening, and going to live shows. Most people don't even listen to whole songs anymore.
The movement you're talking about will only occur if the general public changes their listening habits. Back when people would sit down and listen to an album in its entirety, many more people cared about sound quality than do today. Now the shift has been towards convenience and image, and things won't change until that changes. The vast majority of engineers would love to see a shift towards better recordings, but the market has to change first. Engineers complain about the state of the industry and sound quality more than audiophiles, if that's even possible. For now, we have to meet the demands of the market and our employers. Most of us are having a tough enough time working enough to feed our families. We live in a world where everyone thinks they are an engineer or producer, and budgets are always shrinking. It says alot that videos are more expensive than ever, when recording budgets are a fraction of what they were. The studio where I typically work charges less than similarly equipped studios 30 years ago, not accounting for inflation, and people still aren't exactly beating down the door.
The best thing for audiophiles to do is support the labels that do cater to us, and produce the kinds of recordings that you want to hear. There are lots of recordings produced today that sound better than ever, and we need to make sure that there's enough of a market to keep these people busy. We should also be fighting to get more people interested in music on an active level. If you can get somebody to start listening to music in an active way, and listening to complete albums, then getting them to care about sound quality is sure to follow shortly. |
Jason, I've often wondered how to go about making some really fine recordings for my firends and myself. Do you know any resources on the web for amateur recording. I know that Manley makes a nice 8 channel Tube mixing board and I've noticed that many of the recordings of the 1950's and early sixties have the characteristic sound of tube equipment. But that's as far as I've gotten with that idea. Any help from anyone would be appreciated. |
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
> |
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 There's no pressure from consumers. Regards, |
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
>
|
Very good post Axelfonze. None of these things surprise me - but it's nice to see them so well stated.
Regards, |
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. |
Sean,
What do you think monitoring setups in most studios and recording schools are like? If you think that $3,000-$5,000 nearfield monitors and a pair of expensive mains is akin to bose speakers, then you've obviously never heard a serious studio playback system. A student listening in a highly acoustically treated, specially designed room on dynaudio nearfields and ATC mains has an idea of what good sound is like.
It really gets me angry when over and over again I see a lack of respect on this and other audiophile forums for people in the recording industry. There is a negative (in my opinion) trend towards over compression and SOME poor recording practices, but the problem isn't all the engineers. You would also be SHOCKED to hear how different most recordings sound like before mastering. If anybody is interested I can post a clip of a project I just finished before mastering, and afterward. There's probably a 10-15db difference in percieved loudness, and the difference in dynamic range is huge.
The problem is NOT the engineers (or even the mastering engineers), it's the labels and people's expectations. When someone puts a CD in their car and it's 15db softer than the rest of their CD's, their instant reaction is that it is an inferior product, and that the sound quality is lower than their other CD's. In a short AB test, people almost always prefer the louder, brighter recording.
Another reason for over-compression and a lack of dynamic range is that most people don't just sit and listen to music anymore. They listen in the car, on headphones while commuting, jogging, etc, or in the background. A recording with little dynamic range is ideal for these purposes. I can't listen to classical music in the car because it's either too soft to hear, or it's blowing my ears out. Same goes for listening on the subway or while jogging. Music with too much dynamic range is tougher to listen to in a noisy environment or in the background. Most modern music isn't very dynamic anyway. Trust me, it's not like there's much in the way of dynamic swings in modern pop or rock before it hits mastering.
The problem is also that engineering is an INCREDIBLY competitive field. Most attempting to enter the field today won't be anything more than assistants, interns, or runners for the rest of the decade and beyond. There aren't many jobs for engineers out there, and getting the few that do exist involves mainly luck, but also feeding into exactly the expectations that are there for you. It's probably not too surprising that the goal is almost always "sound like band x", or "just like the break in song y", not "give us the best sound".
So don't be so quick to blame the state of modern recording on some incompetency on the part of engineers. We know what good sound is, even if most of the guys don't have nice playback rigs at home (do you like to bring your work home with you?). Engineers also know about the current state of the recording industry. Engineers are always complaining about over compression and the lack of musicality in modern recordings. Most of the problem is in mastering, and out of the recording/mix engineer's hands, and even then the problem is with the labels and expectations of the public and the guys writing the checks. I have a degree and years of experience in my field. If you think that you can do my job better, please come out to the studio and have a crack at it. You're welcome to try anytime. |
Sean,
Thanks for the link. |
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) |
Sean,
Yeah the percentage is small...I grant you that. |
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 > |
Shadorne: Out of all of the recordings sold om a day, what percentage of them do you think come from those labels? Sean
> |
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 |
Sean writes: Any thoughts / comments from the peanut gallery??? Smile when you say that. Regards, |
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
> |
Now that I'm no longer conceited I'm perfect. :-) |
Exlibris...Thanks for the info.
I also made a mistake once. I thought I was wrong about something, but I wasn't :-) |
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) |
I had mentioned that I would run an experiment to see if the transport and digital cable really matter if you have an excellent clocking device in place right before your DAC.
Well, the "JISCO" is and excellent clocking device and the "Attraction" is an excellent DAC.
The bottom line is that there is very little difference in sound when one uses different transports or different digital cables with the JISCO-enabled Attraction DAC.
I have never, until now, come across a DAC where the transport and cable made next to no difference.
I honestly thought this experiment would once again show a significant difference between different transports and different cables.
I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong.
It isn't the first time I've been wrong about something and it won't be the last.
If I ever happen to come across a cable or a transport that makes any significant difference when paired with the Attraction DAC I will post my findings on the "Is the Altmann Attraction DAC really the best?" thread. |
I don't suppose there is any way for us consumers to undo the damage that is done at the mastering level?
I guess the reason that some of us grasp at staws to get better sound from our systems is because we know that we are stuck with the recording that we've purchased. The only thing we can control is the playback. |
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. |
These types of threads always get me a little riled up because of the amount of misinformation and pure bulls**t that people spew. So that you know where I'm coming from, I'm a full-time recording engineer who uses top-flight digital and analog gear on a daily basis.
To begin with, the difference between a 16-bit, 44.1kHz recording and a 24-bit, 96kHz recording is pretty subtle. Multi-track recording to 24-bit is extremely important because it results in a significantly easier mixing and mastering process and a drastically reduced noise floor, but the difference between a 24-bit stereo file and a 16-bit stereo file is very slight. The S/N ratio of most recording and reproduction gear (including most DACs and especially microphones) barely exceeds that of a redbook CD anyhow, and I challenge anyone to find any recording with more than 96dB of dynamic range (which would be a recording who's loudest passages have an amplitude 2,000,000,000 times greater than the softest). As for higher sample rates, the audible advantage to getting the sample rate above 44.1K is getting the filter (a low-pass filter is involved with all A/D conversion) out of the audible frequency range. Most converters (especially in the pro world) oversample and get the filter out of the audible range anyhow.
The main differences that you are hearing in your SACDs and DVD-As is in the mixing and mastering. Most redbook CDs are compressed to hell (just import a track from a CD into any audio editing program and look at the waveform), meaning limited (read no) dynamic range, not compressed as in MP3s, especially compared to the old analog releases. This is because people expect to put a CD in their car or stereo and have it be as loud as the rest of their CDs. It's also an attempt at having the loudest track on the radio. Most SACDs and DVD-As are mixed and/or mastered with audiophiles in mind, meaning enhanced dynamic range, and a more natural presentation.
As for the poster who said that extreme equalization was needed to make digital recordings sound natural, you actually have it backwards. RIAA equalization was already mentioned as it pertains to LPs, but you might be interested to know that significant equalization is also applied to multitrack analog tape to even out the frequency response. Digital requires no such EQ, and is usually as perfect and natural a representation of the original event as is possible.
Even most engineers that prefer analog tape as a recording medium will admit that the aspects that they like about tape are tape saturation (resulting in natural compression as the tape is driven with a hot signal) and harmonic distortion, two things which make the recording LESS natural.
In short, there's really nothing wrong with redbook as a medium. SACD offers some improvement through DSD, and DVD-A offers slight improvements through higher bit-depths and sample rates (although they are very subtle), but incredible sound is possible via redbook. The problem with most bad sounding recordings is in the mastering (due to *gasp* PUBLIC DEMAND), and somewhat in mixing. Part of what many of you consider the problem to be with most commercial recordings is that realistic and natural reproduction of an acoustic event is NOT the typical goal.
These are just the opinions of someone that works with analog and digital audio of all types all day, every day, and who produces CDs for a living. |
> 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?
Such touching devotion to the common man! ;-)
The real question is why should audio be free of disagreements about the truth of their chosen field when the rest of the world cannot reach agreement on their passions?
I know people who people who don't think some popular comedians are funny. I know people who think the highest rated (and most expensive) restaurant in my city is "so-so." I know others who look at =very= expensive art and state "my kid could do better than that!"
Ultimately music is an emotional experience. The particular brand of speakers you are enamoured with are tops on your list because they do a good job of delivering the audio cues =you= need for your best listening experience. For me and others, they may fall short since we are looking for other triggers.
Similarly, we can be more forgiving of some of a medium's or device's shortcomings than others. The background quiet of digital material is very attractive to some while others don't care that vinyl has an inherently higher noise floor.
Or highs. Not a lot of people are aware that LP records actually lose high frequency response as they wear during play. The RIAA considers it an acceptable standard for the high frequencies on a record to drop to 18 KHz after three plays, 13 KHz after 25 plays and as low as 8 KHz after 80 plays. (However, it should be noted that a properly configured turntable of good quality is not this rough on records but some loss is still occurring due to the physical contact of the stylus with the groove walls.)
That would never be an acceptable standard for digital recordings but is a fact of life in the vinyl world.
The big problem with many music recordings these days is that it is ultimately a business driven by money. The majority of people who buy music are not audiophiles. Record companies want their tracks to stand out on radio play lists and other environments where close listening is not at the forefront. In those cases, dynamic range and a natural sound can kill a song. This is the same as the fast food and restaurant industry pursuing cost efficiencies that are at odds with fine cuisine.
That said, there is still a lot of fine music out there that can be enjoyed in spite of whatever shortcomings we encounter. |
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
> |
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. you really don't think highly of any recording industry "professionals" very much, do you? one thing to keep in mind is that the word "professional" implies that they are paid. The amount that they are paid corresponds to how many albums they can sell. the majority of records out there are not mixed/mastered and marketed towards audiofiles, but rather, they are made to sound decent on a small boombox or in your car. they are not made to sound fantastic on a high-end system and end up sounding like crap on anything else. if all the "professional" audio engineers and professionally made recordings bother you so much, why don't you go and record for yourself. you'd be amazed at the quality you can achieve with a nice stereo pair of mics, a quality pre-amp, an A/D converter, and record at 24/96. no processing, n ocompression, just straight to disc recordings. and then burn your own DVD-A's. that's mostly what I listen to and I've never been happier |
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
>
|
That is one of the 'frustrations' that I alluded to.
I remember dropping $30 to $50 on a few "audiophile" LPs only to find that they sounded awful. |
I like the sound of LPs but there are just too many things about the format that frustrate me.
It is disappointing that Laserdisc didn't catch on. It was certainly the most user-friendly analogue medium and I really think it had the potential to sound better than vinyl.
I'm surprised that someone hasn't invented a new analogue medium since its demise. There has got to be something better than vinyl and magnetic tape.
I think I'll start a new thread. |
Regarding CD vs vinyl...
As one who who has been actively involved in music and audio electronics since the 1960's, I get the impression that many of the modern vinyl adherents seem unaware of just how many medicore and even spectacularly bad LP records have been produced over the years. I can't count the number of just-out-of-the-shrinkwrap records that were full of noise, pops and crackles. It was always tempting for a record pressing plant to extend the life of the stampers too far and/or use lower quality vinyl to save money.
There were also records pressed using distant copies of the master tape instead of an earlier generation. It would sometimes be quite surprising to find the variance in quality between my copy of a record and someone else's.
Of course, I've heard outstanding music from LP recordings, but the shortcuts taken and inherent problems of this system are in their own way the equal of any problems I've seen in the digital arena. |
Shadorne...For many, if not most, applications, a digital implementation is both superior in performance and lower in cost. However, one cannot jump to the conclusion that this is true for every application: eg: audio. (But I do agree with you, mostly).
Sean...Not all Redbook CDs "suck". I have a few that are really superb, as good as most SACD or DVDA. This has mostly to do with the skill and care (not to mention luck) applied to the recording and mixing of the program.
As to vinyl being "better" it all depends on the meaning of "better". (Sorry Bill). If one is distracted by pops, clicks, and surface noise, and annoyed by having to get up halfway through a side to clean a fuzz ball off the stylus it is hard to appreciate the sound. |
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. |
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
> |
Aside from RIAA equalization, lots of tricks are used to make vinyl sound good. The one I like is RCA "Dynagroove". We all know that the contact pressure of the stylus is huge, and vinyl is flexible. RCA figured out that flexure of the vinyl is predictable from the modulation being cut, and developed some kind of secret algorithm to compensate. Of course the cartridge compliance would affect the flexure, so their compensation would only be right for some "average" cartridge. |
> TONS of equilization...
Digital music is not alone in the area of needing special equalization when CD's are produced.
Keep in mind that in the production of all standard vinyl LP records, the RIAA equalization curve has a 40 dB range of boost and cut that is applied to the signal. It is not a straight linear drop.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RIAA-EQ-Curve.svg
In playback of an LP, the phono preamp must apply perfect inverse equalization and also assumes the record production plant equipment perfectly applied the RIAA curve to start with. |
Sean, I don't question your specific results, but do they really warrant the blanket statements you've posted about in this thread and others about analog to digital conversion? |
Shadorne...Me neither. Perhaps we are lucky. They say that having absolute pitch hearing makes a lot of music, which is off key, sound bad. |
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. |
