Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?
- Thread starter Al M.
- Start date
Tim-You are so wrong. Did you forget that thread that I started many moons ago entitled "It's All a Preference?" Of course it's a preference, but we base our preferences based on how we perceive things to sound. So put that in your pipe and smoke it (assuming it's legal in your state).
I agree and Art Dudley would be the poster child for that movement. Even if Art buys a new component like Shindo, it's made with 50 year old parts. Art doesn't like anything unless it comes from his great-grandparents generation. I for one am not going to argue about or discuss how great 78s sound.
1. Or simply because the mastering engineers who produced the great vinyl recordings knew about their jobs, and even after thirty years of digital most of the sound engineers producing digital recordings are not able to compete with the older generation.
2. Perhaps the new generation of sound engineers do not know about all this stories of the illusion, the enjoyment and the listening pleasure and really believe that the important aspect is just the signal accuracy.
3. Because sound engineers are firm believers in multichannel sound, and only work in stereo (a very limited and outdated format) against their will because it is what the ignorant music market wants. They are not motivated to create great sounding CDs.
4. Because we still have not yet be presented with the full capabilities of CD recordings. We must accept that digital playback is improving with time.
Thanks for clarifying those distinctions. Makes sense now, looked at in this manner.
This whole discussion, as a biproduct, just invalidated the entire "analog can capture nuances that digital can't" argument. Why would anyone listen to vinyl records with 3% THD and -65dB surface noise, versus a clean digital signal?
I agree the idea analog captures things digital can't is invalid.
As to why anyone would listen to 3% THD and -65db surface noise, the answer is it has a different sound than digital. And some prefer that sound. You really have no ground to stand upon insisting someone should not prefer what they do prefer. Now often those with that preference mistake it for superior fidelity which it is not.
Tim,
Anyone individual opinions are a preference - it has been said in this forum several times. However when many people with the same hobby, some of them having exposed their systems and opinions, share the same preference, document it and gain credibility it becomes for these groups a common belief and becomes accepted as so.
I can not understand how people seem to be afraid of the word preference. And the superiority that seems to disturb you so much is not objective, is simply subjective. However if it was studied statistically with proper controlled methods it would become objective within the constrains and restrictions of the study - for example if the preference for LP was established in a clear way but in a population using tube equipment we could not claim a general objective superiority.
My personal hypothesis regarding CD sound quality is the, apparent, market based idea is that "good enough" is adequate for music. Never having recorded and mastered a CD, I assume there is more to it than placing a microphone in a room, and running it through an A/D converter. If there is more to it than that then the cost increases, and the last thing a record company wants is to increase their expense in a market that only wants "good enough".
With that said, I suspect this conversation will soon be moot as technology advances, and high-res files become better, and more accessible. The ironic part is that this is occurring parallel to the vinyl resurgence, which some say is due to a perceived higher level of audio quality in records. Of course, records are still records with all their drawbacks and hassles, and nothing will ever change that. So, at some point as high-res gets even better, and vinyl loses it's perceived advantage, we will start seeing people say "I am tired of the hassle with vinyl", and start abandoning that format by returning to digital.
With that said, I suspect this conversation will soon be moot as technology advances, and high-res files become better, and more accessible. The ironic part is that this is occurring parallel to the vinyl resurgence, which some say is due to a perceived higher level of audio quality in records. Of course, records are still records with all their drawbacks and hassles, and nothing will ever change that. So, at some point as high-res gets even better, and vinyl loses it's perceived advantage, we will start seeing people say "I am tired of the hassle with vinyl", and start abandoning that format by returning to digital.
Very interesting observations.
Mastering and recording are the keys to great sound, regardless of media. One could be surprised on how good properly mastered CD can sound. One of the best examples are the Mercury CD undr Wilma Cozart. If one listens to these with an open mind, one would find that they equal and often surpass the very famous Mercury LPs in more ways than one.
As
Yes, those Mercury CD's are pretty darned good. I or friends owned several of the LP's to compare when those CD's became available. Those early LPs are tough to come by in good condition. Having those on CD is a boon to music lovers.
Tim-You are so wrong. Did you forget that thread that I started many moons ago entitled "It's All a Preference?" Of course it's a preference, but we base our preferences based on how we perceive things to sound. So put that in your pipe and smoke it (assuming it's legal in your state).
I do remember that thread. My pipe, however, will have to blow bubbles, not smoke. I don't live in one of the more progressive states.
Tim
I am actually in general quite happy with recent classical CDs as well, and especially with the way smaller ensembles of 15-20 players are captured on CDs of classical avantgarde.
I think the real problem lies in rock/pop mastering, which often is quite mediocre or even awful; classical and jazz recordings are mostly fine (there are always exceptions of course). In my view in classical recordings mutli-miking is now done quite well most of the time, and soundstage is often rather convincing. I feel that way especially after my latest upgrade to external power supplies for my amps, which eliminates a lot of electronic noise that previously had obscured spatial information from CDs that is now laid out clearly before my ears.
Harry Pearson reported in TheAbsoluteSound site the opinion of Wilma Cozart on the LPs and CDs of these recordings :
" I learned from her experiences with the CD transfers, since I was able to hear some of the comparisons. She insisted that CDs and original LPs represented two different views of the original, that neither was a perfect replica, and that both told different, but equally valid truths about the originals. What I learned from this was to accept digital sound and its possibilities on their own terms and not get caught up with misguided euphonic tube-like colorations that were themselves a distortion of the original."
BTW, it is unfortunate that the article by HP that triggered the recent debate about these matters, concerning British Band Classics in not accessible, as the www.hpsoundings.com site is not currently online.
unfortunately, it's an unusual newly recorded jazz CD that isn't significantly compressed. Perhaps not as much as most pop-rock, but often more than some. ECM is about the only major label where most (but even here not all) of its new releases are free from obvious compression. as with pop-rock, smaller "indie" labels may do better.
That's interesting. It reminds me of the fact that different seats in a hall tell different, but equally valid truths about one and the same concert!
Where in a hall one wants to sit is really a preference after all, and so is the choice of a system, for example when it comes to more upfront or more spatially receded sound.
Both great post, and fascinating to read...I have found that with RBCD, I get lots of selection for music cheap...and most albums continue to come out in RBCD. But I also find that with the recent remasterings of jazz/blues albums, its like hearing these all over again. Analogue Productions is doing great work imho. So are Verve, FIM and others who remaster work from the original analogue tapes. There are even some remasterings of classical pieces which are also great. And with great rbcd mastering and playback, I really just enjoy the music.
I have IMO given you absolute proof.
Delta sigma is simply one end of a continuum of noise-shaped PCM methods. No more, no less. Joe Condon and Jim Candy are gone, sadly, or I would let them lecture you on this subject. Then we could see someone who doesn't actually show any cred beyond harassment attacking the inventors.
IMO, this is not a question of dispute, this is a question of simple, technical fact.
And this does not address the dynamics of LP's vs. CD or anything of the sort, which were discussed in the original text that you chose to falsely dispute on the basis of confused semantics. You are IMO simply engaging in intentional derailing of this thread in order to make false attacks on others.
[Comment deleted, against the TOS of the WBF]
Oh, and the comment to delta mod was directed to Julf, so why are you complaining!
SACD, like other forms of PCM, requires no decoder. Delta mod (be it one bit or otherwise) does require a decoder.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is part of it. There is more, though.
There is a contingent like that, but it goes beyond that, and not just to engineering, there is also a sense in the industry that 'anyone can make a recording, get the cheapest', as well as an idea that it has to be LOUD LOUD LOUD. Engineers who very well know better are being forced to compress the (*&(&* out of their work simply because the industry is demanding loud, distorted sound.
Nope, music production is still stuck in stereo, and the methods used in the few multichannel music recordings almost always ignores understanding first established in the 1930's, sad to say. In particular, there are myths about what to do, or not do, about the center channel, that are quite wrong.
You can easily capture an LP on CD, and have it sound like an LP. That's the easiest way for some products.
We have to remember the unfortunate fact that engineers are not paid to make great recordings. Engineers are paid (but not very well) to make recordings that sell. The record company marketing people are convinced loud and distorted is what sells, so that is what they pay engineers to produce. In the end we get what the marketing people think we want (as usual).
For that, I am thankful, because these owners provide a significant portion of my amplifier repair business traffic. And frankly, I find the vintage gear a lot easier and more rewarding to work on. Amplifiers reached their pinnacle by the mid '80s. After that, it changed over to ugly black molded plastic imported from China, for the most part. Ugh. Said, as I recap a Pioneer SPEC-2 and Pioneer M-22.
Similar threads
