The end of the CD

[microstrip]

We're not arguing against people loving something Francisco, digital or otherwise. The argument is for the differences between the same digital file played back off a production CD in a good transport vs the same file played from a computer. Technically the DAC is seeing the same digits and doing the same conversion in both cases but we know that they sound different, hence preference for one over the other.

david

No one wants to debate preferences, but what can be behind these preferences. And while people avoid related subjects such as digital vinyl or analog rips of their preferred sources we will not advance. The question of CD transport in general versus computer audio is misleading and only spreads confusion - IMHO only some selected transports sound better than digital files. Most of the transports share the same type of sound as computer audio, although some types of computer audio can sound exceptionally nasty.

 

[ddk]

No one wants to debate preferences, but what can be behind these preferences. And while people avoid related subjects such as digital vinyl or analog rips of their preferred sources we will not advance. The question of CD transport in general versus computer audio is misleading and only spreads confusion - IMHO only some selected transports sound better than digital files. Most of the transports share the same type of sound as computer audio, although some types of computer audio can sound exceptionally nasty.

I agree that’s why I attach a quality quantifier when mentioning transports and this is WBF so it should be a given.

david

 

[853guy]

removed, inappropriate language. Other green segments in this post removed for same reason)! This is the most ***argument you've put forward yet nameless 853guy, and there have been many recently! Perspective is yours to change, "Truth" isn't! Unless of course one is a ***! Then again you already posted your declaration of *** with this comment.

"In an area of rapid technological development, it's fairly normal for every new iteration to be claimed superior over its predecessor. Such is progress."

If you have the experience and the insight I'll be happy to discuss the validity of 50 - 70 year old turntable designs and listen to your arguments against them.
david

Hi ddk,

Firstly, sorry you seemed to take offence at my comments. None was intended. I’m trying to say more with less these days, but the internet seems to take more with less as an opening to infer things not intended (i.e. “I have extrapolated many straw men from your argument and am enraged you believe these awful things you didn’t say…”). Again, apologies if you were offended.

Secondly, to try and better attempt to clarify my comments, the title of this thread is “The death of CD”. It’s a statement that will be valued differently depending on the position of the individual and the perception one has relative to their position - which is why this thread is already 220 posts deep.

In post #201 I attached an image I personally find useful when discussing topics of this nature, and indeed almost any topic. In fact, you summed it up eloquently when you said “I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything just sharing where I'm at based on experience and preference; it's my truth and not the ultimate.” Hey, me too…! I believe most of us are.

And that was my point. We all have different perspectives on the merits of CD transports versus file playback relative to our experience and preference. Yours thus far has been underwhelming, and mine was too until I heard a server that really impressed me (the EVO 432).

However, I think it’s also true to say that when we have significant investment or enthusiasm about a particular product/topology/implementation, we tend to articulate our perspective in ways that will sometimes be perceived by those who do not share our perspective as… “hype”. A person who has been working with and building and modifying file-based playback hardware and software for a decade will likely declare a small breakthrough as significant, and perhaps in language that will be perceived as hyperbolic - especially by those that do not share the same position/experience/value.

One guy’s “Hey, we’ve updated our software to v2.01 - it’s awesome!” is another guy’s “Wow, you think that’s progress…?”

My comment re: the American Sound (which I’ve already expressed my appreciation for on rockitman’s thread, and specifically, the motor controller which interests me a lot (1)) was not - not, not, not - to denigrate your achievements. It was to say that after 993 posts, those who are not invested in vinyl playback, or simply do not share enthusiasm for an all-out SOTA implementation of a very old technology, are just as likely to offer up the same conclusions… “Wow, you think that’s progress…?” My own preference remains for a turntable first released in 1954, and I’m convinced there’s still much about that particular design that has validity despite “progress” having been made since.

At the risk of repeating myself and to state the obvious - and I think, right now, I’m not doing any but that - progress will be viewed differently depending on each person’s individual view-point at that moment. One person’s ethernet is another person’s American Sound. That was my point - nothing more, nothing less.

Thirdly, I don’t know you, and you don’t know me (“nameless 853guy”). I’d like to suggest me knowing you personally and you knowing me personally is irrelevant to us discussing this topic - or any topic - here. My observations will always be contextualised and limited solely to my own experience and the way I perceive that experience in time, just like you. I may not have owned anywhere near the number of turntables you have, nor possess your extensive knowledge of them, but I hope that you’d consider a simple exchange in perspectives sufficient without needing to be personalised and turned into a pissing contest. That I personally don’t believe in “experts” as I’ve already stated doesn’t mean I can’t learn something from someone of lesser experience - indeed, my children teach my valuable and profound lessons about life every day. I mean, some days, my cat does.

Have a great weekend,

853guy


(1) http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...table-Argh-!!!&p=470088&viewfull=1#post470088

 

[andromedaaudio]

Digital is a result of the changing society , fast /convenient easy to use , it was never developed with quality as a goal , it was first mass media then accepted by audiophile manufacturers , with 3 tower dacs -100 K transports .
So i think the future of digital will be focused on where it is strongest , convenience so i think CD will go , with may be some protest here and there ,streaming is just more covenient .
No need to go to a shop , and easy and more choice no storage brittle plastic box issues , i love you tube .
If audiophile manufacturers were seriously interested in soundquality , they would have developed a state of the art tapemachine already and may be improve tape itself, put more researchmoney in that.
I think thats where storagemedium improvements can be made

 

[andromedaaudio]

All storage mediums are a spin off of reel to reel tape , they still master from R2R new CD s .

R 2R Tape expensive medium
Lp cheaper
Cassete tape cheaper probably
Cd s cheaper
Internet streaming the cheapest of the cheap , hard to improve on that in a cost perspective , so probably to stay forever since there is no interest in developing another medium , although there is an LP revival .
I think they should develop a small r2 r version tapemachine as a new medium with mass produced small reels which can take at least 45 min of music for people who want that warm natural sound.
From a technical perspective i like the predictabilty of R2R , to get a turntable arm to sound good takes much more experience know how care and also money

 

[Al M.]

Digital is a result of the changing society , fast /convenient easy to use , it was never developed with quality as a goal

That is highly debatable. If you look at the early history of digital recording, sound engineers were seriously and honestly looking for something better because they were frustrated by the limitations of tape machines. They started out with 13 bit and a sampling frequency below 40 kHz. Later 16 bit was praised as a gold standard, and 50 kHz sampling was adopted (Telarc). At that time, very many people praised the Telarc digital recordings.

The 44.1 kHz standard of CD rather than a 50 kHz standard was adopted as a compromise because of digital recording/transfer on videotape, but as far as I know it was not widely assumed that this necessarily would degrade sound quality. After all, it still enabled recording at Nyquist frequency under the (widely assumed correct, also by today's general scientific consensus) assumption that humans cannot hear above 20 kHz. That a much higher sampling rate than 50 kHz was ever discussed at that time not as an exception, but among a broader base of digital engineers is, as far as I know, fantasy. This is audiophile revisionist history. Nyquist was broad consensus. Even today, the Audio Engineering Society (AES) recommends sampling at 48 kHz for professional digital recording.

So a no-holds-barred gold standard in those early days of digital might have been 16 bit, 48 or 50 kHz. Again as far as I know, 44.1 kHz was not widely assumed to necessarily degrade sound quality for the reason stated. The one severe compromise on the CD standard would have been 14 bit recording as proposed by Philips, but thankfully that was overridden by the Sony engineers (the CD was a joint development by Philips/Sony).

Of course, now we know that 44.1 kHz is a severe compromise compared to 48 or 50 kHz because of filter slopes etc., and in those days few people thought about quantization error as a limitation when it came to a 16 bit standard.

But to claim that digital was never developed with quality as a goal is just not true. It is audiophile revisionist history.

 

[microstrip]

Digital is a result of the changing society , fast /convenient easy to use , it was never developed with quality as a goal , it was first mass media then accepted by audiophile manufacturers , with 3 tower dacs -100 K transports .
(...)

Listen to SOTA digital recordings in an appropriate system and you will see that both goals, improved quality and convenience, can co-exist. Digital recording opened new ways of recording that were not possible with analog recordings. I have asked people in this forum to listen to the extremely complex The Routes of Slavery by Jordi Savall in DSD, and try to find anything comparable in analog. I am still waiting.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I ve listened to enough high dollar digital to have that opinion , best i heard so far in terms of natural sound was zanden , i found that actually delivering something in addition to the price , probably the tubes softening /juicing, the same with an audio research tube player although arc isnt very linear ( all in my opinion off course )
Most hdd (high dollar digital ) cd sacd streaming sources are in a very good system anyway , change the player for a 2000 euro one in the same system has next to nothing// very little influence on the overal sound imo.
did you try a cheap player in those systems

 

[andromedaaudio]

I dont know that recording , but complexity is not what im after or value very important , natural / authentic reproduction yes.

 

[Bso]

Bso

Well done for mentioning the Melco range of network attached music server/players.

As a Melco N1ZH/60/2 owner, I am a bit confused by your statement that "there is not a clear backup strategy or backup and expansion strategy!"

The rear panel has USB ports for "Backup" "Extension" and "USB.3" in addition to the dedicated USB port which I connect to my dCS Vivaldi Upsampler Plus.

My regime includes regularly backing up the contents of the 2 X 3TB drives (in RAID 0 configuration) onto a Buffalo HD-LX6.0TU3-EU6TB external HD.

If a user ever runs out of internal disc space, then an external HD can be connected to the "Extension" USB port for additional music storage/replay.

The Melco system in MKII guise is solidly built and offers an alternative high-quality music storage/replay medium. I am, however, still primarily a disciple of SACD/CD's!

My library consists of Hi-Rez downloads, purchased from the internet and CD's I own, that I have burned using my Buffalo BRXL-16U3 CD/Blu-Ray ripper.

Thank you for your kind statements. Sounds like I can learn from you. My scribbling about "lack of a clear backup strategy" is not a categorical statement, but rather an impression I received from reading people who are "experts" and my own ignorance of how these schemes work in the audio environment. Since I do not have hands on with all these Roons, jRivers and so on software packages, which where I live are confined to "custom installers of iPOD grade convenience music etc. in the connected house", I am only speaking of my own received "information.".

Is the backup you are describing initiated by the Melco MkII and some utility/firmware on it "pushing" to the USB drives? I suppose if the USB slot is marked "Backup" it has that firmware built into it? Or rather is a "pull" process like a RAID array on the same switch where you go to that LAN address and set the parameters? How do other units work like Aurender and so on?

How often do you run backups? Do you keep the USB disks attached? Is there a place I can read more about the MELCO? I'm still spinning SACDs, Vinyl and DVD A and CDs with rips to shiny disks and USB sticks as a convenient portable medium.

Do you have any problem aurally with the disks being hybrid HDD rather than SSDs both purpose built by Buffalo for the application?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

That is highly debatable. If you look at the early history of digital recording, sound engineers were seriously and honestly looking for something better because they were frustrated by the limitations of tape machines. They started out with 13 bit and a sampling frequency below 40 kHz. Later 16 bit was praised as a gold standard, and 50 kHz sampling was adopted (Teldec). At that time, very many people praised the Teldec digital recordings.

The 44.1 kHz standard of CD rather than a 50 kHz standard was adopted as a compromise because of digital recording/transfer on videotape, but as far as I know it was not widely assumed that this necessarily would degrade sound quality. After all, it still enabled recording at Nyquist frequency under the (widely assumed correct, also by today's general scientific consensus) assumption that humans cannot hear above 20 kHz. That a much higher sampling rate than 50 kHz was ever discussed at that time not as an exception, but among a broader base of digital engineers is, as far as I know, fantasy. This is audiophile revisionist history. Nyquist was broad consensus. Even today, the Audio Engineering Society (AES) recommends sampling at 48 kHz for professional digital recording.

So a no-holds-barred gold standard in those early days of digital might have been 16 bit, 48 or 50 kHz. Again as far as I know, 44.1 kHz was not widely assumed to necessarily degrade sound quality for the reason stated. The one severe compromise on the CD standard would have been 14 bit recording as proposed by Philips, but thankfully that was overridden by the Sony engineers (the CD was a joint development by Philips/Sony).

Of course, now we know that 44.1 kHz is a severe compromise compared to 48 or 50 kHz because of filter slopes etc., and in those days few people thought about quantization error as a limitation when it came to a 16 bit standard.

But to claim that digital was never developed with quality as a goal is just not true. It is audiophile revisionist history.

as always, follow the money trail. any intent to improve performance over analog with Redbook was beside the point, which was a Philips-Sony effort to earn royalties on music media. whatever caused it had little to do with concerns about the production costs and workflow of pro audio. lowering costs (increasing margins) of physical media production and distribution was more significant than performance concerns. time length compared to Lp was also a concern, from a redbook marketing perspective.

I would agree that in that time 'some' did view digital as a step forward. and the sampling rate and bit depth was debated, but 'good enough' was the target, not any utopian ideal. but don't confuse those factors with what drove the investment by Philips and Sony. i'm a fan of redbook and CD's and listen to it often and think it can be outstanding when all is right, i'm not knocking it. but it was no humanitarian/artistic focused effort. it was pure business.

and the reason no real advancement of digital formats has happened since redbook is also pure business. there is no pot of gold market case waiting for it to happen. so why change it? again, follow the money trail. just like MQA, which is another thing which might help, but really is a money grab for a share of the pie. sonic advancement? beside the point. we can and do debate it.

 

[XCop5089]

Thank you for your kind statements. Sounds like I can learn from you. My scribbling about "lack of a clear backup strategy" is not a categorical statement, but rather an impression I received from reading people who are "experts" and my own experience in the computer business where groups of IT people took care of such things as backups. Since I do not have hands on with all these Roons, jRivers and so on software packages, which where I live are confined to "custom installers of iPOD grade convenience music etc. in the connected house", I am only speaking of my own received "information.".

Is the backup you are describing initiated by the Melco MkII and some utility/firmware on it "pushing" to the USB drives or rather is a "pull" process like a RAID array on the same switch where you go to that LAN address and set the parameters? How do other units work like Aurender and so on?

How often do you run backups? Do you keep the USB disks attached? Is there a place I can read more about the MELCO? I'm still spinning SACDs, Vinyl and DVD A and CDs with rips to shiny disks and USB sticks as a convenient portable medium.

Do you have any problem aurally with the disks being hybrid HDD rather than SSDs both purpose built by Buffalo for the application?

Bso,

Please forgive my lack of technical know-how, when it comes to computer audio (the main reason for purchasing a one-box solution like Melco).

Also, I fear further discussion about the Melco products are moving away from the topic of this thread!

Please look at this link to the Melco N1 Software Manual, which is very informative. http://buffalo.jp/support_s/guide2/manual/ha-n1_mk2/software/99/en/pc_index.html

 

[Al M.]

I would agree that in that time 'some' did view digital as a step forward. and the sampling rate and bit depth was debated, but 'good enough' was the target, not any utopian ideal.

As I said, with the sampling rate there wasn't much compromise compared to an ideal at the time (48 to 50 kHz), and neither was there with bit rate which was considered more than sufficient, thus quite ideal (also given the fact that the signal-to-noise ratio of systems usually doesn't much exceed 80 dB anyway if at all, even in the best of cases). There was no utopian ideal to be followed, no potential benefits from a mega sampling rate discussed on a broader level (Nyquist was accepted among engineers, and still is, see the AES standard of 48 kHz). So I am afraid that, once again, you engage in the audiophile revisionist history that I cautioned against.

but don't confuse those factors with what drove the investment by Philips and Sony. i'm a fan of redbook and CD's and listen to it often and think it can be outstanding when all is right, i'm not knocking it. but it was no humanitarian/artistic focused effort. it was pure business.

The initial stages of digital recording (below Redbook standard) were in fact an engineering/artistic effort, as far as I can tell from reading the history. That CD was pure business is undisputed, but business well supported by engineers' standards at the time.

and the reason no real advancement of digital formats has happened since redbook is also pure business. there is no pot of gold market case waiting for it to happen. so why change it? again, follow the money trail.

Sony did develop SACD to the tune of many, many millions of dollars -- of course for business reasons, for sure, to reconvert everyone from CD to SACD. But the broader market didn't respond. So it's not that higher standards haven't been tried for potential acceptance by a broader market.

 

[Bso]

as always, follow the money trail. any intent to improve performance over analog with Redbook was beside the point, which was a Philips-Sony effort to earn royalties on music media. whatever caused it had little to do with concerns about the production costs and workflow of pro audio. lowering costs (increasing margins) of physical media production and distribution was more significant than performance concerns. time length compared to Lp was also a concern, from a redbook marketing perspective.

I would agree that in that time 'some' did view digital as a step forward. and the sampling rate and bit depth was debated, but 'good enough' was the target, not any utopian ideal. but don't confuse those factors with what drove the investment by Philips and Sony. i'm a fan of redbook and CD's and listen to it often and think it can be outstanding when all is right, i'm not knocking it. but it was no humanitarian/artistic focused effort. it was pure business.

and the reason no real advancement of digital formats has happened since redbook is also pure business. there is no pot of gold market case waiting for it to happen. so why change it? again, follow the money trail. just like MQA, which is another thing which might help, but really is a money grab for a share of the pie. sonic advancement? beside the point. we can and do debate it.

Follow the money in consumer audio especially. As far as the early CDs go, look at 3M et al commissioning bringing to the pro market the superior Soundstream Recording System, that was dumped for the Phillips/Sony discipline. If you find a CD or a record that has Soundstream system recording on it try it you may like it.

Sony have never won the proprietary format wars yet. Don't get me started on MQA. It's the "British Invasion - meat the Beetles."

 

[microstrip]

I dont know that recording , but complexity is not what im after or value very important , natural / authentic reproduction yes.

This is one of the most natural recordings I have listened - and BTW I attempted the performance. The recording really recreates it.

But as long we will go one debating dogmas and systems we never listened to, avoiding debating the element we can share (the recording), everyone is a king in his kingdom.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Question then , who pays/paid those engineers to do research in the first place ?
AFAIK earning money is the main goal in a business not improve soundquality per se ,in the musicbusiness thats not serving the audiophile market thats a too small part .

 

[andromedaaudio]

This is one of the most natural recordings I have listened - and BTW I attempted the performance. The recording really recreates it.

But as long we will go one debating dogmas and systems we never listened to, avoiding debating the element we can share (the recording), everyone is a king in his kingdom.

very true

 

[853guy]

Question then , who pays/paid those engineers to do research in the first place ?
AFAIK earning money is the main goal in a business not improve soundquality per se ,in the musicbusiness thats not serving the audiophile market thats a too small part .

Hi andromeda,

"In 1971, Heitaro Nakajima resigned from his post as head of NHK's Technical Research Laboratories and joined Sony. Four years earlier at NHK, Nakajima had commenced work on the digitization of sound and within two years had developed the first digital audio tape recorder. He was struck with the idea of digitizing sound when trying to improve the sound quality of FM broadcasts. Nakajima thought that by using digital technology, which had only been used in computers and long-distance telephone transmission, the quality of recorded sound could be improved.

Spurred by the 1964 Tokyo Olympic Games, the Japanese government as well as private industries had aggressively invested in R&D activities related to broadcast technology. This drive induced growth and development of the domestic broadcast industry. For example, satellite broadcasting was developed and color transmission followed closely behind. Until then, however, these advances in video and audio recording were restricted to analog technologies."

More on Sony's history with digital sound here:

https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/SonyHistory/2-07.html

Best,

853guy

 

[Bso]

Sony did develop SACD to the tune of many, many millions of dollars -- of course for business reasons, for sure, to reconvert everyone from CD to SACD. But the broader market didn't respond. So it's not that higher standards haven't been tried for potential acceptance by a broader market.

SONY and Phillips screwed up SACD because of their copy protection schemes. Hadn't they learned from Betamax? If they left it an open protocol we would not be having this "discussion." Ok, they would have screwed it up another way.

How many times has "Kind of Blue" been "remastered" and to what end? I read where someone was complaining about the panning of some instrument in some song on St.Pppers. Don't they realize that was the way the production team wanted it then at that period in time? "I hate those Corelli pieces on those silly old instruments. Why don't they synthesize it - much purer?" Music and the arts are an expression of their time but become classics.

 

[Al M.]

Follow the money in consumer audio especially. As far as the early CDs go, look at 3M et al commissioning bringing to the pro market the superior Soundstream Recording System, that was dumped for the Phillips/Sony discipline. If you find a CD or a record that has Soundstream system recording on it try it you may like it.

The Soundstreaam system was 16 bit, 50 kHz, not far from the CD standard:

http://ethw.org/Telarc,_Frederick_Fennell,_and_an_Overture_to_Digital_Recording

No mega sampling rates, no mega bit rates.