Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo THE CD FACTOR

I've been wanting to post about this for awhile.....so here goes.
My initiation to the cd came in 1986, like most, I was amazed at the absence of the "clicks & pops" associated with lp's. Little did I know then, but later I would learn what else was "missing" from those early cd's. As I slowly adapted to the new medium,[after the abrupt departure of the lp,] I played the "new" cd's exclusively. I soon began loosing interest in my music. One day, my "early" cd player expired. When I replaced it, there was a marked improvement in the sound quality. The new cd player had an 8x oversampling dual da converter,[new at the time].
This was my first clue that in the "rush to market" of both the cd, and it's player, I HAD BEEN missing much more than clicks & pops.
Neil Young, in an interview said: "A whole generation does'nt know what they have missed". Here is the problem:
Cd technology does not "collect" ALL the "information" from the analog master tape. The subtle nuance, warmth, resonance, and tone of the master tape is missing. Especially bad are the original, 16 bit cd's, full of "sonic flaws", bathed in hiss, excess noise, and "dubious mastering". Like a good violin versus a Stradivarius, the cd's are lacking the tonal qualities of analog.
Let's cut to the present.
There have been vast improvements , with the re-mastering of some "classic' cd's, both with 20 and 24 bit,....... some with 24k gold discs, that sound less "harsh", and more resistant to oxidation,[than the "silver" discs]. Even the "baking" of master tapes to get "more" out of the old tapes.
When I got my M60's, this cd "issue" came to the forefront again. Some of my cd's sound fantastic, "brought to life" by the M60's.
Some of my old favorites are NOT thoroughly enjoyable. Sadly, most will never be re-mastered, and will stay out of print.
My main point in posting this is : another reminder to those "comparing speaker brands"............to choose a cd wisely........never before has there been such a wide range of music types, styles, in various stages of mastering.
This will DRASTICALLY AFFECT an "audition".
"The cd factor" may be overlooked by some. After over 20 years,the cd IS getting "closer" to the way it should have been all along...............I wonder which of the new "mediums" will be the "next big thing"?

well said, i support your post 100%..

i still have lots, and listen to vinyl all the time. much like the tube-vs-solid state debate, there are goods and bads in the cd-vs-vinyl battle. there is no question that a well recorded cd is hands down, better than a record. but there is still a nostalgia and warmth involved with ploppin that needle down on the first groove.

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN THE BLACK CIRCLE!!

bigjohn

In reply to:

---

another reminder to those "comparing speaker brands"............to choose a cd wisely

---

Oh, agreed! A poorly produced record will sound bad regardless of medium, though.

In reply to:

---

Especially bad are the original, 16 bit cd's, full of "sonic flaws", bathed in hiss, excess noise, and "dubious mastering".
...
There have been vast improvements , with the re-mastering of some "classic' cd's, both with 20 and 24 bit,

---

All CDs are 16-bit. The "20-bit remastered" and "24-bit remastered" CDs you see are actually still just 16-bit, but they were mastered at 20- or 24-bit. This means that, generally speaking, these remastered CDs sound better because more care was taken in the mastering process.

However, the dynamic range (which is what bitrate determines) remains the same on these remastered CDs: 96 dB. This is a problem because human hearing can extend up to 130 dB. The other shortcoming of CDs comes from the 44.1 khz sampling rate, which limits frequency response to 22 khz on the high end.

I agree that CD technology is inadequate. Fortunately, some new technologies have been developed which do a better job. HDCDs are 20-bit when played in HDCD-compatible players and are backwards-compatible with regular CDs, but are still limited to 44.1 khz. Plus, it seems that Microsoft owns the technology (ugh).

SACDs and DVD-Audio discs both go well beyond what is probably technically required to reproduce audio indistinguishable from analog. Alan did an excellent review of those two technologies in the November 2002 Audiofile, which I recommend reading.

I'm excited to get a Universal DVD/CD/SACD/DVD-A player to try these technologies out for myself. Multi-channel audio -- which both SACD and DVD-A support -- also sounds interesting, although I'm not as enthused about that as I am about the audio quality.

But there will always be a place in my music library (and heart) for vinyl. As you pointed out, some things just won't ever be reissued in a high-quality digital format. And as bigjohn pointed out, there's something appealing about the physical process of playing a record. Plus the cover art is waaaaaay bigger.

Yes, as I've commented several times before, the original recording technique and the mixing and mastering then applied is what counts, not whether it winds up on a CD, DVD-A or SACD(except when multi-channel, of course). The improvement in sound quality on reissued CDs which have been remixed/remastered can be quite remarkable and demonstrates that there's no problem with the format, but it has to be used with skill.

In other words, it's not the size of the boat, but the motion of the ocean, right?

You got it, Peter. As I've said before, "soundhound" showed me the light.

I was thinking of this very topic just yesterday, and was wondering which labels take more care in mastering and remastering cds. Anyone know?

Although they have a rather limited selection - mainly classical and jazz, both Telarc and Chesky Records have outsanding recording quality.

I've got a couple McCoy Tyner SACDs, one Telarc (w/ Stanley Clarke and Al Foster) and one Chesky (New York Reunion), and both are among the most realistic sounding recordings I have. I also have several Telarc classical cds and all sound very, very good.

I have found the original recordings, and mixing, for the most part,[on my old "classic" cd's] are not the problem.
As I said in my post, the "format", and dubious mastering is.[ Of course there are always exceptions].
I also have,[sorry to say] cd's remixed & remastered.
Most of the cd's in question just need more "information" on the disc, and yes,"care"in the mastering process.
Remixing?.....no thanks, I think the original engineers [had it right most of the time.] In fact, I have found that
many of "todays" engineers, don't seem to mix the same way.
It's like they put the faders on the studio eq board in a straight line, bringing up the background sounds, while setting back the lead vocals, lead guitar, etc.
I have been to a couple recent concerts that "sounded" this way also.
All I wanted, when they carted off the lp into oblivion,
was for my new cd's to sound just the same........sorry, it has not happened yet.

Along these lines, I recently moved and have been expanding and upgrading my audio. As a secondary system, I got an inexpensive Sony 5 disc CD player, Yamaha 5740 receiver and hooked it up to some 14 year old Mirage M 260 (not OM 260) speakers that had sounded pretty good for my budget with a Denon receiver and CD player at the time. The new Sony CD player came with an optical audio output, but no optical cable, so I hooked it up with the 2-channel cable provided. When I got a chance to hook it up with the optical cable, it sounded much, much better. I then upgraded to Axiom M22's with a Velodyne CHT-8 sub and now it sounds about 95% as good as my Polk (RTi8 Fronts, CSi5 Center, FXi3 rears, Velodyne CHT-12 sub, Harman Kardon AVR 230 receiver) home theatre system. So the questions are:

Are the CD players today that much better, but only if you use optical audio connections?


Are the optical audio cables really that much better?

Both?

Or am I actually just listening more closely and the improvements with upgraded connections and speakers are just wishful thinking? Because it really seemed that the cable change did more for the sound than the M22s (although they seemed to improve things as well).