Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003

    The sound of CD's

    No, I'm not trying to establish yet another in the countless series of "digital vs. analog" threads posted everywhere, but instead want to state how the compact disc changed my listening habits forever.

    I always liked classical music, but preferred to purchase LP's of more popular stuff (The Eagles, Doobie Brothers, Santana, Pablo Cruise, James Taylor, etc.) because I wasn't familiar with the classics and found listening to popular music more "fun." I also hated the fact that while listening to a symphony on LP, the surface noise (regardless of the quality nor the country of origin of the pressing) interfered tremendously on those long, quiet passages. Trying to listen to the ending of the third movement of Berlioz' "Symphonie Fantastique" was drudgery: it was all but impossible to hear the music over the noise whether the recording was on RCA, or Phillips.

    So, out of my collection of about 1,500 records, less 200 were classical. Then, in 1983, I purchased my first CD player (an Onkyo monster, with a retail of $1,000). I expected to be all but blown away by the sound of CD's and the dynamic range, but frankly wasn't, probably since I'd been using a 3-band dbx expander at the time. The Onkyo unit had that characteristic "midrange glare" so common to early CD players, and was deficient in bass. Still, there was one element in which it, and all CD players excelled: absolutely dead quiet background.

    Trying to find new CD's in '83 wasn't always very easy, and most of those released were classical, and so I began starting what is now a collection of well over 1,000 classical discs. As the years passed, and I continually up-graded my system, I also continually appreciated what a CD can offer when listening to classical music that an LP plainly and simply can't: non-existent background noise, staggering dynamic range and a sense of depth and clarity I never heard before. I believe this to be not just the realm of digital recording, but the manner in which the entire effort is engineered, and that's where the brand Telarc comes into play.

    I've stated before that I'm a great fan of the Telarc label. I often have correspondence with the former president/founder/chief recording engineer, Jack Renner. He and I have discussed the fact that audiophiles "poo-poo'ed" CD's initially for all sorts of reasons, but one of those was certainly the fact that it was all but impossible to "modify" a CD player, as opposed to the myriad of things one could do to modify a turntable/cartridge combination. Many audiophiles felt that nothing was any good in its initial format, and that only by modifications by industry guru's could that piece of gear ever really be any good. And, this just wasn't possible with a CD player.

    Still, as I continued to collect classical CD's, especially those on the Telarc label, I began to really appreciate what a CD can do, but which many just don't. I found that many of the early CD's that I purchased on the London/Decca label were excessively bright, far too close-miked, with an "in-your-face" presence that was most unwelcome. Purchasing the same piece on Telarc not only illustrated the enormous differences that exist between one conductor's interpretation of a piece and that of another, but the significant improvement in recording techniques Telarc just about always provided.

    And so, in addition to purchasing classical pieces I'd never even heard of before, and getting to really know and like those pieces, I was also becoming just as keenly aware of how different one piece can sound from another, depending on the conductor's point of view. And I owe all this to the invention of the CD.

    The closest the Telarc label ever came to a "rock" piece was an 80's recording by a group called, "Papa Doo Run Run," who sound amazingly like the Beach Boys, on a CD called, "California Dreamin'." The first few notes of that disc are mind blowers in illustrating just how good a CD can sound with something other than symphonic music.

    Still, even though I enjoy listening to many of my popular records and CD's, my music of choice has become the classics, with a newfound knowledge and appreciation of it due to the manner in which it is recorded on a CD, but in particular, the way it is recorded on a Telarc CD. And, no, I don't work for Telarc either!

    I think that those who eschew digital sound (the mod of another forum described CD sound as ranging from "shi**y to merely OK") might think otherwise if they expanded their listening to the classics. After all, they're not called "classics" for nothing!

  2. #2
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Classical on CD

    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    ...
    I think that those who eschew digital sound (the mod of another forum described CD sound as ranging from "shi**y to merely OK") might think otherwise if they expanded their listening to the classics. After all, they're not called "classics" for nothing!
    Well, nobody should be forced to listen to music they don't like just for the sake of better sound. Nevertheless it is apparently true that classical CDs are recorded and mastered to a higher standard than other genre. (This might be related to the fact that the only genre for SACD that is even marginally successful is the classical.)

    The fact is that most classical music lovers aren't all audiophiles. I occassionally visit classical music forums; there is no issue with CD amongst the people. For one thing they don't have an issue with CD sound. For another they know that there is no other medium on that can provide the selection that they require. Mostly they have mid-fi equipment or less.

    By the way, these classical folks are also interested in downloads, though as yet the selection isn't there yet and the download prices offer no advantage over CD. Interestingly, there is consensus the 128bps is inadequate but many insist that 320bps is perfectly satisfactory.

  3. #3
    I took a headstart... basite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Mortsel, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Earth
    Posts
    3,056
    I also like classical on CD for the same reasons you mentioned.

    I do feel other genres can do better on Lp's though....

    Keep them spinning,
    Bert.
    Life is music!

    Mcintosh MA6400 Integrated
    Double Advent speakers
    Thiel CS2.3's
    *DIY Lenco L75 TT
    * SME 3012 S2
    * Rega RB-301
    *Denon DL-103 in midas body
    *Denon DL-304
    *Graham slee elevator EXP & revelation
    *Lehmann audio black cube SE
    Marantz CD5001 OSE
    MIT AVt 2 IC's
    Sonic link Black earth IC's
    Siltech MXT New york IC's
    Kimber 4VS speakercable
    Furutech powercord and plugs.

    I'm a happy 20 year old...

  4. #4
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    I think it really depends on the title, and the CD/LP version.

    My dad has a sizable collection of classical albums that he bought in the late-60s thru late-70s. In particular, he collected works played by the NBC Symphony and maestro Arturo Toscanini. A lot of these LPs I regard as unlistenable because they use the dreaded "simulated stereo" processing and were pressed using this paper-thin warp resistant "Dynaflex" vinyl, a combination that sounded awful. The CD versions of these works are much preferable, even though the original recordings still sound less than stellar (those recordings were originally produced for AM radio broadcasts during the 1940s and 50s).

    On the other hand, other classical LPs I've listened to, particularly those that were pressed in the late-50s through mid-60s, will absolutely smoke the CD version. I used to check some of these vintage LPs out from the public library, and compare them to a first generation CD version. Very interesting to hear how shrill and tinny the CD version would often sound. Since that time, CDs have definitely improved as mastering engineers figure out how to work with those older master tapes (which might have been tweaked to sound optimal with vinyl).

    More recently, I've bought some of the newly remastered RCA Living Stereo hybrid CDs, which include multichannel SACD tracks transferred straight from the original three-track master tape, and those sound very nice. I'd be curious as to how the CD and SACD sound compared to the original Living Stereo LP versions, which are among the most sought after LPs on the collector's market. Either way, I think the SACD has a leg up simply because it provides the option for a three-channel playback, which is exactly what the original session engineer was listening to in the control room.
    Last edited by Woochifer; 02-11-2008 at 03:04 PM.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  5. #5
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Well, nobody should be forced to listen to music they don't like just for the sake of better sound. Nevertheless it is apparently true that classical CDs are recorded and mastered to a higher standard than other genre. (This might be related to the fact that the only genre for SACD that is even marginally successful is the classical.)

    The fact is that most classical music lovers aren't all audiophiles. I occassionally visit classical music forums; there is no issue with CD amongst the people. For one thing they don't have an issue with CD sound. For another they know that there is no other medium on that can provide the selection that they require. Mostly they have mid-fi equipment or less.
    Very true. There is a higher demand for sound quality with classical listeners, but I don't think it's format specific. A great recording can sound great no matter if it gets transferred to LP, CD, or SACD, or whether it gets played on a mid-fi audio setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    By the way, these classical folks are also interested in downloads, though as yet the selection isn't there yet and the download prices offer no advantage over CD. Interestingly, there is consensus the 128bps is inadequate but many insist that 320bps is perfectly satisfactory.
    Like it or not, the iPod is the single biggest force in audio right now (iPod sales alone are about 4X that of the entire home audio component market combined). It would stand to reason that plenty of iPod owners are interested in playing classical through their portable devices.

    Also, I think part of the interest in downloads is that orchestras can now post recordings of their performances not long after a concert. I know that the L.A. Philharmonic contracts with DG to sell digital downloads of their concerts. These concerts are not available on CD, and would otherwise not be available to the public. IMO, this is a great new revenue stream for orchestras, because there are no printing, duplicating, and distribution costs, and most new classical CDs don't sell a whole lot of copies to begin with.

    To give you an idea of how it breaks down, consider that the SF Symphony's much acclaimed Mahler hybrid CD/SACD series has sold a total of about 100,000 copies -- and that's for a total of 9 releases. The best selling title in the series I believe has sold fewer than 20,000 copies. And this is a series that has won three Grammy awards, and all of the releases hit the top three on Billboard's classical album chart. That works out to only about $2.5 million in total revenue at retail, and a big chunk of that is absorbed with production, material, and distribution costs.

    Equally sobering is thinking about who actually takes advantage of the SACD playback! Figure that the best selling title in that series has ~20,000 copies out there. What percentage of those 20,000 CD/SACDs actually get played back using a SACD player? And what percentage use the multichannel audio? If it's 10% of the audience (and that would be a very generous assumption), then we're talking about only 2,000 people in the entire world who are listening to this performance in its optimal audio.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  6. #6
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Hey Woochie,

    Actually you answered yourself, but let me verifiy it for ya.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    I think it really depends on the title, and the CD/LP version.

    I'd be curious as to how the CD and SACD sound compared to the original Living Stereo LP versions, which are among the most sought after LPs on the collector's market. Either way, I think the SACD has a leg up simply because it provides the option for a three-channel playback, which is exactly what the original session engineer was listening to in the control room.
    I have both the SACD version and the 1985 cd of Rubinstein/Wallenstein~Saint Seans, Liszt, Franck. You'd be pleasantly surprised at how the old warhorse hangs in there. The SACD is clearly superior in that the percussive qualities of the keyboards and the upper registers of the instrumentation are more evident, as is the all-important bass on the Saint Seans. It is however worth noting that the original disc exhibits none of the characteristic digital glare so common to the era. All in all a good listen and, frankly, superior to alot of what comes out today. Just shows how important the guy behing the desk is.


  7. #7
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    On the other hand, other classical LPs I've listened to, particularly those that were pressed in the late-50s through mid-60s, will absolutely smoke the CD version. .

    Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but your implication seems to be that you are comparing a CD version of a pre-existing recording. My thread was primarily about those classical recordings done exclusively in the digital domain, not a remaster of any kind.

    I've heard many good, and equally lousy, remasterings of old recordings, but if the entire recording "chain" is exclusively digital, which is the manner in which Telarc records and masters, the end result is often quite stunning, and far better sounding than any LP I've ever heard (inclulding the many I have from the 60's and 70's). And, again, I'm referring primarily to Telarc, as I have numerous EMI, RCA and Phillips CD's that sound pretty awful.

    Simon Rattle, who I believe to be the best interpreter of Beethoven symphonies, records on EMI. While his musical interpretations are nothing less than exceptional, the recorded sound on the EMI discs leaves a lot to be desired: a little too close-miked, and very shrill. If Rattle and Telarc teamed up, then there would be quite a musical and sonic revelation!

    I do have a 60's recording on Angel of "Ballet Music from the Operas," which to this day, sounds absolutely stunning. Unfortunately, it has an excessively high level of rumble, probably caused by a noisy cutting lathe. That's the kind of annoyance that is only found on LP, and never on a CD.

  8. #8
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    A common classical recording problem

    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    ...

    Simon Rattle, who I believe to be the best interpreter of Beethoven symphonies, records on EMI. While his musical interpretations are nothing less than exceptional, the recorded sound on the EMI discs leaves a lot to be desired: a little too close-miked, and very shrill. If Rattle and Telarc teamed up, then there would be quite a musical and sonic revelation!

    ...
    Many do sound too close-miced. I don't know whether close-micing and/or too many microphones is the actual problem. Rather it might be what the producer and engineer do with the resulting tracks. Personally I much prefer an audience perpective, say a 6th orchestra seat, rather than that of teh conductor or (worse) an instrumentalist. I know there are people who disagree with this.

    However I think I've noticed that the multi-channel sound relatively valid with a close-up perspective.

  9. #9
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    Perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but your implication seems to be that you are comparing a CD version of a pre-existing recording. My thread was primarily about those classical recordings done exclusively in the digital domain, not a remaster of any kind.
    If the topic is limited to those recordings, then I would tend to agree with you. Then again, I recall that some of the early Soundstream digital recordings sounded horrible on CD, and much preferable on vinyl. Most of my comparisons of LP v. CD were done with early CD transfers of vintage recordings. Believe me, between those Dynaflex RCA pressings and multi-miked Columbia mixes, and first gen CDs, there was plenty of cringing during those listenings.

    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    I've heard many good, and equally lousy, remasterings of old recordings, but if the entire recording "chain" is exclusively digital, which is the manner in which Telarc records and masters, the end result is often quite stunning, and far better sounding than any LP I've ever heard (inclulding the many I have from the 60's and 70's). And, again, I'm referring primarily to Telarc, as I have numerous EMI, RCA and Phillips CD's that sound pretty awful.
    I guess it's a matter of preferences here. I appreciate Telarc's efforts in keeping the recordings as clean as possible, but for whatever reason, I find some of their work unengaging. While it's not "in your face," it seems somewhat distant to me. I also don't like the opposite extreme where everything sounds spliced together, like a lot of Columbia's output from the 60s and 70s. I guess for me, Decca is a nice happy medium.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Many do sound too close-miced. I don't know whether close-micing and/or too many microphones is the actual problem. Rather it might be what the producer and engineer do with the resulting tracks. Personally I much prefer an audience perpective, say a 6th orchestra seat, rather than that of teh conductor or (worse) an instrumentalist. I know there are people who disagree with this.

    However I think I've noticed that the multi-channel sound relatively valid with a close-up perspective.
    Interestingly, Telarc's multichannel recordings tend to really aim for a close-in perspective. I can go either way with multichannel recordings, and most of the ones I've heard seem to aim for the conductor's position. I think Telarc tends to go slightly overboard with the surround channel usage (especially with their jazz/pop recordings), and this is different from their two-channel mixes, which tend to go very much for that rows-out audience perspective.

    Some of the best multichannel mixes I've heard actually are actually SACD transfers from old quad recordings. Those are audience perspective mixes that really capture the hall ambiance.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  10. #10
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    In fact, most Telarc recordings use as few microphones as possible, which has been one of their goals since their conception. They do try to present an "8th row, center orchestra" perspective, and try also to capture the ambience of the concert hall. All Telarc classics are recorded in such places, as opposed to studios, and mostof the time, though certainly not always, their efforts pay off handsomely. As one who frequently attends live symphonic concerts, I have to admit that the Telarc perspective is a lot closer to a live performance than that which I've heard on other labels.


    The multi-mike concept began in the late 60's, and was really overdone with the London "Phase 4" recording concepts. While Phase 4 records were fun to use for demo in the late 60's, listening to one of them today is enough to give one a migraine headache: overly shrill, and constantly varying levels and perspectives of sections of the orchestra. The "super-wide" soundstage, while impressive back then, sounds downright silly today.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •