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).
1
Yes, a "bit" better.....[no pun intended].
2
I'll have to pass on this, maybe someone else knows more.
3
I use a digital coaxial cable, and analog cables to connect my Sony cd-sacd-dvd player.
i could be wrong, but the optical cable JUST carries the digital signal(DTS, DD, etc) and has nothing to do with a normal x and o signal from a regular cd.. ?? as far as i am aware, it should not improve or upgrade the sound of a basic cd..
someone please slap me on the wrist here if i am giving bad info...?
i guess one way for him to figure this out would be to disconnect the analog(red&white) cables, and see what kind of sound he gets then from a cd, if any?
bigjohn
The optical is good for older players that have older DAC's.
This way you can take advantage of the DAC's in the receiver.
You are completely wrong.
The optical/coax digital outs carry the 1s and 0s directly from the disk. They are not capable (due to software or hardware limitations, big debate over that one...) of carrying DTS, DD, or other full 5.1 channel surround.
Smack!
If the DACs in the player are complete and total crap, using the optical out with a receiver with good DACs may well improve the sound.
Actually, they can carry DTS-encoded audio just fine. As a matter of fact, DTS requires a digital connection to your amp.
Smackola!!!
hey now, i dont wanna start a slap fest out there
but now i am really confused.. i thought that you absolutely HAD to have the optical cable to get the DTS, DD, etc?? peter, i think you agree with me on that??
but, i also thought the optical cable didnt carry any of the analog signal.. wait, i am just confusing myself more here..
so, if i was to hook my cd player to my receiver with nothing but my optical link, then it will still play cd's just fine(even better), is that right??
just when i think i know something?!!!!?
bigjohn
that's correct. The optical/digital cable carries ONLY a digital signal, which your receiver translate to analog using its (guess what?) D/A converter.
OK...
1. The optical cable just carries the bits. The decoding on DVD-A and SACD is done by the player and is outputted on the 5.1 analog outputs. The DTS and DD from a DVD-V are carried over digital. The DTS on a DTS CD is carried over digital. Me get confused and forget stuff. *smack*
2. The optical cable does not carry the analog signal.
3. The CD player would be fine. An SACD player or DVD-A player would not be fine.
Sorry for my stupid reply above... wasn't thinking...
ok, thanks ya'll for gettin me straight.. i thought i was about to have to scrap everyting i thought i knew!!
i am better now
bigjohn
The older DACs are not necessarily worse.
Call me crazy. I'm currently using a 20 years old Studer CD player because I love its warm and musical sound. I compared it with a Philips 963 SACD player. Using the same CD, Philips sounds more detailed, but Studer sounds way more musical and more enjoyable to listen to.
This may be personal taste after all. =)
seamonster,
I totally agree. I'm using a 13-14 yr old Sony 5 disc CDP that sounds better than the newer DVP755V and a Denon 1604. Just something about it sounds so sweet. I will use that bad boy till the day it dies. It may deny science(I've never been the biggest proponent of science anyhow as their are many things science can't explain), but to my ears its very musical.
I heard the same thing you guys have, but on many CDs I don't prefer the warmer, older player. Harsh CDs - yes.
In reply to:
I still prefer AM radio
sky rockets in flight, afternoon delight!!
Knock Three Times, on the ceiling if you want me!!
she ran calling, WILDFIRE!!
cats in the cradle, and a silver spoon, little boy blue, and a man in the moon!!
those are the AM songs i remember
bigjohn
Muskrat Love - worst song ever