Do you agree?
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
garylkoh
WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Absolutely not. There are bad examples of Redbook CDs but calling it a flawed delivery system and having to voice equipment to sound good with Redbook is IMHO over the top. There are excellent examples of CDs that are superior (to my ears anyway) to the vinyl (the pressings I own anyway). It may just be that there are more flawed CDs.
So Gary you would say flawed in the execution rather than the design,? When you say: "There are excellent examples of CDs that are superior (to my ears anyway) to the vinyl (the pressings I own anyway). It may just be that there are more flawed CDs." Do you mean the cd and vinyl are of the same recording?
garylkoh
WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Yes, it is the execution. I have had a process to re-record store-bought CDs for ages. Almost every CD sounded better after the process. The naysayers usually don't follow every step of my process (I first published the paper 8 years ago and the latest copy is still available on my website) and say that it's nonsense. Winston uses my process for his Ultimate Discs.
Yes, there are CDs that sound better than the vinyl of the same recording. Sometimes it's a bad transfer, other times it may have been recorded for CD, and an LP is subsequently made as an after thought.
I hope Tim doesn't think about reading it, Gary, it pushes all the wrong buttons, I'm afraid. It goes totally against the grain of of digital always being digital so the scientific set will have a hard time with it. Of course, the answer to the dilemma is that the CD reader has an easier time reading the burned CD, less stress on power supplies and less work in the digital circuitry, so less interference being passed into the analogue side of things. A key factor in making digital sound better, and something that the industry still resolutely refuses to properly tacke ...
Frank
Frank
Upon reflection it is even more clear why a burned CDR can be better than a "stamped" original. It's all to do with the centre hole, which on a manufactured CD is extremely unlikely to be 100% in the true centre of the disk, as far as the tracks are concerned. So typically there will be wobble in the tracks and the laser positioning motor will be pulsing back and forth to maintain alignment with the track, all the way through the whole disk.
In the burnt CDR, on the other hand, essentially a perfect alignment of the hole is guaranteed because each is burnt based on the position of its specific hole. So, the CD reader positioning motor only has to worry about a steady outward movement all the while (CDs start from the centre). And again, the better the vibration isolation of the writer, the more truly regular will the spiral of the track be.
The big lesson is, be really nice to the CD reader with your disks by not forcing it to work hard, and it will reward you with better sound ...
Frank
In the burnt CDR, on the other hand, essentially a perfect alignment of the hole is guaranteed because each is burnt based on the position of its specific hole. So, the CD reader positioning motor only has to worry about a steady outward movement all the while (CDs start from the centre). And again, the better the vibration isolation of the writer, the more truly regular will the spiral of the track be.
The big lesson is, be really nice to the CD reader with your disks by not forcing it to work hard, and it will reward you with better sound ...
Frank
I absolutely believe there is a case to be made for lower noise and jitter through minimizing the processes that can generate electronic noise and interference inside a computer. I do, however, think that in all but the most severe cases these problems are insignificant and are solving problems that are insignificant, if audible. I also believe that computer "optimization" the inelegant audiophile solution, is dumb as a stump when a more thorough, simpler and less expensive solution is to galvanically isolate the computer from the DAC and re-clock outside of the computer. And I do precisely that in my system for whatever insignificant to inaudible effect it may have. I'm agnostic. But I still cross myself on the roller coaster
.Tim
Presumably this would be easy to measure - different output from a transport from the off the shelf disc as compared to the copy. Have you ever seen any results from anyone performing this measurement?
No, I haven't unfortunately, and I suspect that the variation will be quite subtle, especially if you only look at the quality of the digital signal itself. I would be just as worried about what the current waveform running up the mains cord to the transport looked like, and whether there was a difference in levels of EMI being emitted by the transport as a whole.
I remember years ago talk going around that it was a big no-no to have 2 CD units running at the same time near one another when trying to assess sound quality. What's that telling us, and are things better now?
Frank
Either that or it's telling us that a lot of big no-nos, then and now, we're as real as the expansion of sound stage one gets from putting Tupelo Honey on his morning cereal.
Tim
I recall the whole"digital makes me weak" juxtaposed against "perfect sound forever" arguments. The fact is bad software is worse than bad hardware. Those first generation digital players have long been tossed on the scrap heap. As Harry Pearson said we lost a generation of music to early digital. As FM tuners got better the music played on it got worse to the point where it is now mostly irrelevant. Bad software lasts forever.
If we can get both sides to put down there weapons we could begin to treat digital like any other media. HP pronounced recently solid state amps at their best are as good as the best tube amps In order for that to happen required the open mind of reviewers, manufacturers and audiophiles. Even Arny Krueger admitted to the early faults of of solid state and digital.
If we can get both sides to put down there weapons we could begin to treat digital like any other media. HP pronounced recently solid state amps at their best are as good as the best tube amps In order for that to happen required the open mind of reviewers, manufacturers and audiophiles. Even Arny Krueger admitted to the early faults of of solid state and digital.
I'm a bit confused. The differences are caused by the shape of the current waveform in the power cord?
I'm not very technical, can you explain what that means and how it happens (serious question)
Sorry to confuse! The trouble with a lot of, in fact most power supplies in audio gear is that the way they operate means that the current being drawn from the mains outlet is not a nice, smooth sine wave as you would see for a radiator or light bulb, but a rather unpleasant looking spike right at the time the voltage waveform reaches a maximum. This in turn means that the mains voltage is not a nice sine wave in itself, but looks, and is, very distorted. And this then does absolutely nothing for making other sensitive equipment in your audio system happy with the power they are being fed. Hence all the paranoia about separate spurs, mains filters, power cords, etc, etc.
So if the CD player is working at a comparatively strenuous level the power needs are more erratic and intense, and the spikiness of the current inflow increases. Making power supplies work in a smooth and non-noisy way is one of the key methods for getting better sound ...
Frank
garylkoh
WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
As with any new technology, there is a learning curve. I don't think that an entire generation of music was lost.
Take a look at the early SoundStream recordings. This was the precursor to CDs, recording at 50kHz sampling rate. Telarc and others made some wonderful LPs from those digital recordings before digital was popular or even acceptable by musicians. If you can find the LP of Carol Rosenberger Water Music - that's one of the best piano recordings on LP I have. The CD pales in comparison. Another example, Oscar Peterson's Nigerian Marketplace. Recorded in 1981 in digital only - absolutely wonderful LP, so-so CD. (interesting fact - both these LPs I mentioned use the Bosendorfer Imperial Grand with the additional five black keys.)
On the other hand, I still can't find a good vinyl of Stevie Ray Vaughan's Couldn't Stand the Weather. The digital (transferred in 1984) was great, but the original vinyl I have is noisy and lacks dynamics. All the reissues I've bought so far have been unconvincing of his truth and intensity.
garylkoh
WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Agreed! Blame the record labels and accountants, not the technology and engineers. Bad milk drives out good.
I don't agree at all. I also don't understand how vinyl is now a "perfect media". From my own experience Vinyl got really good with the Half Speed Masters the early Telarc and direct to disks. I am not saying there wasn't some truely great recordings just that on commercial releases it was hit or miss just like it is today on CD.
Vinyl also suffered from compression, low frequency roll off and just plain horrible mastering. It had it's own little set of issues. I must say though I was late to go over to digital and was originally disapointed with it as I thought the best vinyl was better. I don't fell that way now.
Rob
