Analog vs. digital segment on PBS

Albert, do you think the typical CD "quality" we experience is due to the disc itself. I believe I hear a difference when I listen to CD-Rs from standard Redbook CDs using the EAC software, but it is not double blind. Any thoughts?
Tgrisham

In the case of the listening tests I did in New York, the digital master had much higher sampling rates than the consumer CD.

That's probably the biggest difference, or perhaps there are errors that the shiny disc creates while spinning, compared to tape against the playback head?

Another friend of mine was involved in the JVC XRCD project, he too is a recording engineer and audiophile. A few years ago at Stereophile, he and I were having a long conversation and he expressed his frustration that his digital masters sitting on the hard drive were incredibly good, but the VERY FIRST transfer to anywhere else, it moved toward digital nasty.

Note here, perhaps digital on hard drive is converted to analog at the studio for LP's production? If so, this might explain why DSD masters pressed to LP (often) sound better than Redbook.

Maybe this is a clock thing? Maybe the hard drive is more perfect and other formats are required to evolve the sound from that point on?

As for your tests with re-recording CD's, you are possibly getting error correction and that's what you hear. I've heard others say this is possible, many burn a "better" CD after software compares 100 times (or whatever).

You say you did not do double blind, no need, I'll take your word for the results.

I'm an advocate of relaxed listening over double blind. Long term allows you to relax, absorb and learn all at the same time. Double blind tests are like cramming for an exam the night before, instead of studying all semester :^).

I hope Tousana will contribute to this thread again.

Albertporter, first let me say to your friend that is working with the JVC XRCD
project, that those CD's too me are some of the finest CD's made that will play in a standard CD player. I've said before that if all CD's were produced with such care the format would not get bashed so much. The list is long of things that can happen while recording and or mixing to affect the sound of the recording. I don't remember if they touched on the fact in the PBS segment that analog is very forgiving as far as the recorded level is concerned and that some of the warmth that is achieved from analog recording can be caused by the natural compression of the signal as it gets recorded. This happens when the level of the recorded material gets to hot for the tape to handle, but in digital when levels get to hot it is all or nothing. Digital is not a forgiving medium when mistakes are made. If you make it out of the studio with a good mix there are other things that can go wrong between finishing the mix and the actual release of a CD. One of the main things is the mastering of a project where for the last 10 yrs. or so the loudness wars have pretty much ruined the sound of many recordings, in every type of music. This is the phenomenon of everybody wanting their recording to be as loud or louder than the next persons. Loudness = compression = loss of dynamic range (no real difference between the loud and soft passages in the music), which could all lead to possible distortion on the CD itself, or even the distortion of the electronics being used in the playback of the CD.
These are just a few of the the things that must be taken into account to produce a great sounding recording, regardless of it being put on CD or vinyl. There is very long list of things that can go wrong, but I'd need to write a book to explain them.

The results stated at the end of the testing, 20 brief samples/group, if I remember correctly, were: Engineer group correct 55% of the time; Musician group correct 53% of the time -- just slightly above chance, 50%. These percentages seem difficult to interpret or parse. They appeared to be summed for each of the two groups. The difficulty is determining what constituted a correct response in computing the percentages. If a sample were digital and one member of a pair responded digital and the other analog, how would this be counted? For instance: Is this a group miss because there was one correct and one incorrect, or is it two responses, one correct, the other incorrect? Was there a differential between members of each pair in percentages identified correctly (one engineer right 60% and the other 50% = 55% for the engineer group)? If one group member were wrong more than 50% of the time would this be an inverse correlation exceeding chance? (Wrong 65% of the time could be interpreted as being able to differentiate digital and analog even though misidentified; and would negatively affect the reported outcome "correct" statistics.)Was there a difference in identifying digital or analog material correctly?

My experience in reading about these issues is that technical matters about how the testing is done, such as some of the possible problems about the setup and administration of the testing on PBS identified in some of the posts, and how statistics are generated, organized and analyzed are often ignored in favor of a debate among the believers and doubters in each camp. If there are problems in any step of the procedures, the results cannot be meaningfully understood.

Given all of the issues identified in the procedure and the number of Rumsfeldian unknown unknowns can anything be concluded from this segment?

the final absurdity is the amount of money it would take to produce the "best regardless of price" playback equipment for each medium at the PRESENT LEVEL of technology; and then choose at least 100 listeners based on the best random selection process statistically possible. it just might not be worth the time, effort, and cost of such an experiment. some might STILL question the methodology and the meaningfulness of the results. so, like good scientists, the experiment would have to be repeated several times, perhaps even in differing cultures, latitudes, genetic factors, etc.
or you can take my word for it. records on my vpi aries sound good. the same recording on cd on my levinson redbook gear sounds very good also, just slightly different.
i spent more money on the digital equipment, but it is 10X more convenient to use, and is actually superior to the record in certain respects- a little less distortion, tighter, more controlled (but less expansive) bass. records stage better in some instances but not always. my vinyl copy of surrealistic pillow (jeff.airplane) is absolutely AWFUL.
NYPhilharmonic on Columbia-360 is wonderful, but the re-masters are thin and tasteless like diet-cottage cheese.
archiv cd's (trevor pinnock/vivaldi/handel/bach)-no sacd,hdcd, 4D, 20 bit, or 24 bit, sound almost as good as anything out there to my ears. check out the brandenburg concertos on archiv- the ONLY problem with this recording is there is (perhaps) too much information on the disc- Bach went crazy writing a separate part for almost everybody. you'll have no trouble hearing every note on a decent cd player, which might also give you an intense headache. i would LOVE the vinyl copy of this masterpiece as well, but it's torture sorting out all those woodwinds going their separate ways inside of various string parts. i really don't need to challenge my limited intelligence any more than i already have with the digital copy.
well, since i'm not an expert on this subject, my diatribe here amounts to little more than someone at a party who's had too much to drink and won't shut up. until i pass out on the sofa, which is right about now...

Albertporter...About the peak level recorded on a CD...I have a unit in my system (Behringer DEQ2496) that indicates the momentary recorded level, and logs the peak observed during the whole CD. I have adjusted gains in my system so as to maximize the signal as it goes through the DEQ2496, and to my surprise every CD I play hits within a few dB of clipping, but no clipping occurs. The recorded level of the CD is obviouly being carefully set (probably by trial and error) to make best use of the available dynamic range. This is similar to what one does when making a tape recording.