Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 60
  1. #1
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003

    A Voice Crying in the Wilderness

    Recently, at a number of other audio-based websites, there's been a wealth of posts once again declaring the "lowly" CD as the worst possible sonic travesty ever inflicted on mankind. The adjectives run the gamut from A to Z, and the vitriolic condemnations of such a "dreadful" medium are endless.

    Yet, amidst all this, I still like the CD. I not only like it, but prefer it to analog. (Making a statment like that on the other sites is enough to get me shot!) First and foremost, I have to state that there certainly are many truly horrible sounding CD's out there, and that most of them are popular music recordings, as opposed to classical. While the style of music shouldn't necessarily dictate the quality of a recording, it's very apparent that a good deal more care has gone into the engineering of a classical CD than a popular one, and that's truly unfortunate.

    I listen to classical music far more than to popular music, though I do have a very extensive collection of popular stuff, including some 800 LP's and a similar number of popular music CD's. I also have a disproportionately large collection of Telarc CD's as compared to any other label in my classical collection, and it is the Telarc label that is primarily responsible for my enthusiastic support of this "horrible" medium.

    There are Telarc CD's that were recorded as far back as the late 80's that still knock my socks off when I listen to them. Even an old Telarc recording of Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto positively crucifies the sonics (and the performance) of a far newer Naxos SACD of the same piece. So, my point is this: if some Telarc CD's can sound this good, then there's nothing inherently wrong with the medium, but rather, the engineering.

    Telarc has used numerous different digital recording devices and consoles over the years, but has now chosen the DSD medium for recording as "the best availalble out there." CD's mastered from DSD recordings sound much, much better than those mastered on other forms of digital recorders, but it is the SACD that is the only playback medium capable of fully capturing all that the DSD process captures.

    And yet, the SACD is in danger of extinction.

    To me, should that happen, then that would be the most ignominious chapter in the history of this industry. Again, while all SACD's aren't the "best thing out there," several are, and nothing compares to them. The smooth, effortless and robust sound from a well engineered SACD can send chills up one's spine, as a couple new purchases I recently made do just that (Telarc's latest "PIctures at an Exhibition," and BIS's super-spectacular recording of Beethoven's 9th).

    Having worked in this industry for over 30 years, I still fondly recall the excitement we all shared whenever some "new" technology appeared, resulting in better sound. The first "Direct to Disc" recording stunned all of us. So did the first Telarc LP, mastered digitally from the Soundstream Digital Tape Recorder. So did dbx-encoded LP's and cassettes. And so on, and so on.

    That the SACD's performance tops all of these by the degree that it does, but sometimes, regrettably, doesn't (for the same reasons some CD's sound so awful), and hasn't received the degree of enthusiasm once reserved for far less incremental improvements in fidelity is a downright shame.

    And, that's my thought for the day....

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

    I'm with you all the way

    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    Recently, at a number of other audio-based websites, there's been a wealth of posts once again declaring the "lowly" CD as the worst possible sonic travesty ever inflicted on mankind. The adjectives run the gamut from A to Z, and the vitriolic condemnations of such a "dreadful" medium are endless.

    Yet, amidst all this, I still like the CD. I not only like it, but prefer it to analog. (Making a statment like that on the other sites is enough to get me shot!)
    ...

    That the SACD's performance tops all of these by the degree that it does, but sometimes, regrettably, doesn't (for the same reasons some CD's sound so awful), and hasn't received the degree of enthusiasm once reserved for far less incremental improvements in fidelity is a downright shame.

    And, that's my thought for the day....
    Well, most of the way.

    I have no practical use for LPs. I think any decent CD recording trumps vinyl. (Granted, I'm talking about well-recorded CDs, not the early, direct transcriptions from masters made for LP.) I don't know and will never find out what it will be like to listen to $10,000 vinyl kit like that snot O'Shag's, much less a $40,000 vinyl kit like Bernd's. So "ultimate" vinyl capability is irrelevant to me

    As for SACD, it's great. Although personally I think the real advantage is multi-channel. What I really hate is the apparent reality that SACD might fail because vinyl Ludites reject it in a continued, if misplaced, loyalty to the LP.
    Last edited by Feanor; 11-15-2008 at 12:35 PM.

  3. #3
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    I suppose I could take the initiative to look this up with the power of Google, but does the LP have enough market share in the music business to impact any other format? I've heard it's something like 0.2% of the music market, which seems like just a blip by comparison to downloads and the CD.

  4. #4
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    I don't know what the LP's market share is, but I do know that the folks at Telarc are alarmed at the increased popularity of the LP as compared to the ever dwindling popularity of the CD, and the lack of any popularity for the SACD.

  5. #5
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    I started buying discs in 1983, when I was stationed in Japan as part of my stint in the Navy. I was a corpsman, and attached to the hospital on the base in Yokosuka, and had ample opportunity to take train rides to Tokyo, Yokohama, etc., where I spent hours shopping for electronics and compact discs.The mid '80's were heady days for Telarc and other recording companies who were eager to trot out their wares. While companies like Telarc produced discs that showcased the new medium to the fullest extent, other manufacturers were happy to churn out inferior recordings of even the most arcane and shoddy material. For collectors of "classic" albums, the CD's promise of durability, portability and unblemished reproduction of source material was irresistible.

    Telarc's recordings were and are among the best recorded and performed music available. I seem to remember Telarc producing LP's, but CD technology was epitomised by Telarc, who took exacting pains to create sonic masterpeices that won over critics and listeners alike, who bought their albums in great numbers. The folks at Telarc were more than happy to oblige listeners who wanted to explore the limits of the medium. With bombastic recordings, such as Star Tracks, listeners could drive their systems to incredible levels of performance. I was one such listener, and blew up a nice pair of AR bookshelf speakers I had previously loaned from a friend, when a crescendo introducing the Star Wars theme sent a brief, powerful blast through the less than digital-ready membranes.

    Other companies produced albums as beautifully rendered, if not more so, than Telarc. Philips was a very aggressive marketer of classical recordings, and their recordings were every bit as pristine and sonically opulent as those made by Telarc. Philips recordings were not as ostentatious as Telarc's, and were viewed by this listener as a more refined cousin of their American cousin.

    Deutsche Grammophone also weighed in for the fight. While many of their works were historically and oftentimes sonically significant, their offerings were not always what they were cracked up to be. Karajan was seen on thousands of recordings, but despite his presence, engineering techniques of the late sixties and seventies did not always translate well in their application to '80's technology.

    In many respects, the Rock and Roll and contemporary music recordings offered on CD were just as spotty. While musicians like Donald ***an were held up as shining beacons of the format, as in The Nightfly, other musicians did not fare as well. Jethro Tull's Aqualung was nearly universally derided by listeners. While some of the blame was rightly placed at the feet of the musicians and their engineers, most of it was rightly leveled at the companies themselves, who did not always cull the best source material for their products.

    It was Michael Jackson's Thriller that brought the fullest expression of the CD medium's impact to light, when that album eclipsed Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon as the highest selling rock album of all time. Pink Floyd fans like myself were wont to buy DSOM with unflagging regularity, as hours of playing the album inevitably created various of the snap, crackle and pops that necessitated buying a new, "virgin" album. With CD's in production, fans of DSOM were delighted to posess an album that was well-nigh indestrucible. While DSOM's reign on the charts held for many, many years, the aftershocks of the CD revolution reversed the tide, and allowed Thriller to knock DSOM out of contention.

    There has always been debate as to whether CD's or LP's are the best available medium, and I won't tarry to prate about that, but it is sufficient to note that CD technology is among one of the most important milestones of recorded music history. CD's are capable of exemplifying some of the best qualities of music available. With all good things intact: a talented artist, a keen-eared and technically proficient engineer and excellent recorning equipment and media, the possibility of recording outstanding recordings that withstand the test of time is very real. While all-digital media, or DDD, is seen by many as the best possible format, savvy and canny folks have demonstrated that even analog material remastered digitally can be just as sonically compelling. Suzanne Vega's early CD's, including her debut, are AAD. Those album's clarity and presentation belie the format and would fool nearly any well-eared listener.

    I don't foresee CD technology going easily into the abyss as other technologies of recording and production step up to challenge CD format. SACD was poised to usurp CD, but it never really did so, as listeners like me were quite happy with the latter and were unwilling to shell out the extra bucks for the recordings and the players that were developed to play them. The current battles between Blue Ray and DVD only encourage me to remember Y. Berra's "It's deja-vu all over again".

    While I am sure that various SACD's are capable of producing works that will be considered exemplars of the format, SACD continues to occupy a niche market that comparativley (to CD's) few consumers are aware of and even fewer have been persuaded to go the distance for. Similarly, Home Theatre and Multichannel interest is a formidable force in the market, but many listeners in the know have opted to less ornate systems of the 2 or 2.1 variety, considering the rest as unnecessary clutter or just plain noise.

    In sum, as technological achievements continue to develop and more media and playback sources are made available, the contants of good performance and good recording will always remain. For this reason, Audiophilism will always be an important interest for music consumers and producers alike, who know all too well that Music, while capable of being deconstructed and prized apart by analysis, exposition and essay, will aways be man's closest contact to the unreachable, to the Sublime.
    Last edited by Auricauricle; 11-15-2008 at 03:24 PM.

  6. #6
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    Is this an SA contest mislabeled Let's remember Sheffield Labs. Vinyl or CD it comes down to the source material as stated. Also analog vs CD is a futile argument because no one is comparing apples to oranges. We all have different analog rigs and CD players, so most are going to have a different impression and experience. And sometimes one is not necessarily better than the other but different and it comes down to what one prefers.

  7. #7
    Forum Regular blackraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,421
    I have not heard $10K turntables but I have heard $2500 set ups an although vinyl sounds nice it still sounds compressed to me. Good CD recordings on good CDP's still sound better to me. Especially with tube or hybrid equipment.

    I also own several XRCD's and and I find them to be excellent and they sound almost as good as good 2ch SACD recordings. And much better than std cd's. Especially the xrcd24's. The only problem is that they cost $30-35's. The remastering and production methods used are excellent and truly make a difference.
    Pass Labs X250 amp, BAT Vk-51se Preamp,
    Thorens TD-145 TT, Bellari phono preamp, Nagaoka MP-200 Cartridge
    Magnepan QR1.6 speakers
    Luxman DA-06 DAC
    Van Alstine Ultra Plus Hybrid Tube DAC
    Dual Martin Logan Original Dynamo Subs
    Parasound A21 amp
    Vintage Luxman T-110 tuner
    Magnepan MMG's, Grant Fidelity DAC-11, Class D CDA254 amp
    Monitor Audio S1 speakers, PSB B6 speakers
    Vintage Technic's Integrated amp
    Music Hall 25.2 CDP
    Adcom GFR 700 AVR
    Cables- Cardas, Silnote, BJC
    Velodyne CHT 8 sub

  8. #8
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Auricauricle
    . SACD was poised to usurp CD, but it never really did so, as listeners like me were quite happy with the latter and were unwilling to shell out the extra bucks for the recordings and the players that were developed to play them.


    While I am sure that various SACD's are capable of producing works that will be considered exemplars of the format, SACD continues to occupy a niche market that comparativley (to CD's) few consumers are aware of and even fewer have been persuaded to go the distance for. .

    That was precisely my take on SACD's for years, until I read about the Marantz SA-8001, which was the first player that not only was a first rate redbook CD player, but an SACD player designed exclusively for 2-channel stereo, and not multi-channel. What sealed the deal was an online conversation with Jack Renner (former founder, president and chief recording engineer of Telarc). I asked him if I'd appreciate the sonic benefits of SACD in 2-channel stereo, as I have no intention of adding two extra speakers in my listening room, and he very enthusiastically replied that I would.

    The 8001, according to Marantz, takes 200 hours to sufficiently burn in for CD playback, and takes an additional 300 hours to burn in for SACD playback. Since I bought it last spring, it's a fair guess that I've reached those timeframes, and I have to say that the difference between the CD and SACD layers on a hybrid disc is now far more apparent than it was when I first received the unit. I also hear a distinct difference in SACD playback as compared to almost any CD: a greater sense of openness, air around instruments, silkiness to the strings, throaty, deep brass and a power to the bass drum that nothing comes close to.

    In conversations with other engineers currently at Telarc, I was told (more than once) that when comparing the CD and SACD layers of a properly engineered disc on a good system, the CD layer "pales by comparison" to the SACD. And, now, I have to agree that it does.

    While the multi-channel capability of SACD's is considered an advantage (and, I suppose it is), I feel that's one of the reasons the format hasn't taken hold as it deserves to. You, me, and countless others, simply aren't willing, or able, to convert our sound systems over to a multi-channel system, and have no intentions of ever doing so. So, at least initially, why bother with SACD? The answer is clear: they sound better. And, they sound a lot better.

  9. #9
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    Thanks for the clue-in emaidel: I am/was completely unaware of 2-channel SACD. Sounds like I have some homework to do....

    Mr. P: Sorry about my loquacity; I suppose emaidel's start touched a nerve. You're right to bring up Sheffield and the case for source material. You and blacktraven's arguments are valid, and remind me as emaidel has, that my knowledge is anything but au courant.

  10. #10
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    I was just joking because you, Emaidel and Feanor wrote such long and well written posts it reminded me of an essay Don't hold back the passion, an outlet for that, with those who may understand is probably why most of us are here.

  11. #11
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    Thanks. Gotta watch out for the Rant Proclivity Index (RPI), nevertheless....

  12. #12
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    231
    While vinyl can certainly sound very good on high quality, expensive equipment, there is one major drawback that it has when compared to CD. SURFACE NOISE!! No matter how good the recording, or how expensive the equipment, there will always be surface noise on vinyl. Personally, I detest the snap, crackle and pop of vinyl, and that one factor alone is enough to destroy my listening pleasure. I had always thought that one of the major aims of high fidelity sound reproduction was to reduce or eliminate extraneous noise. Sure, there is noise on CDs, but only what is in the original recording which has therefore been transferred. There is no surface noise from a CD, and that, for me, is its great advantage.
    All we are saying, is give peas a chance.

  13. #13
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    It was precisely the lack of surface noise on classical recordings that swayed me to the CD in the first place. I often listened to Berlioz' "Symphonie Fantastique," but rarely listened to the third movement on any LP of the piece that I owned, as the surface noise almost always marred the very soft, and extremely quiet parts of that movement. Playing a CD of it, and hearing no noise whatsoever was nothing short of a revelation.

    I don't have any LP's of Mahler's Third, but the third movement of that monumental work has a "posthorn" solo recorded very, very softly as to be almost ethereal. I can't imagine trying to listen to it on LP, no matter how good the pressing, or the quality of the cartridge/turntable combination playing it, without having some surface noise mar the beauty of the posthorn.

    Let us not also forget the nasty phenomenon known as "inner groove distortion" either. As many a symphony has a rousing, and loud finale (but, not all do, of course), there was always a certain amount of such distortion on an LP. Proper tonearm geometry and cartridge alignment does wonders to reduce this form of distortion, but on certain discs it's unavoidable. On a CD, there's just no such thing.

    Again, my enthusiasm for CD's is based primarily on the effort put forth by recording engineers on classical recordings. I truly believe that, if popular recordings were made with the care and precision that most Telarc recordings are made with, the ever-increasing vitriol hurled against the CD would never have happened.

  14. #14
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Me too, but ...

    Quote Originally Posted by emesbee
    While vinyl can certainly sound very good on high quality, expensive equipment, there is one major drawback that it has when compared to CD. SURFACE NOISE!! ...
    For me the biggest factor was the ergonomics of handling LPs; handling the 12" to avoid finger prints; Zerostating them; dusting them with the carbon fibre brush; wiping or blowing of the ridge of dust; cleaning the stylus before and after each play. And of course the installation and balancing of cartridges. Not to mention the constant fear of scratching your record or damaging you stylus.

    Some people claim to actually enjoy all these rituals: it is a form of masochism to which I cannot relate.

  15. #15
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    You're right about the surface noise.....mostly. Yet CD's can be gouged and banged up a bit, and various sonic tattletales of their presence can crop up every now and then. Furthermore, as I said, early pressings of CD's weren't always reflective of the best source material out there. This is one of the reasons there are so many incarnations of Dark Side of the Moon, produced by James Guthrie and others, who took some time to spruce things up a bit in later re-issues. Need I remind anyone how bad Aqualung and some of the Bruno Walter releases were? As far as maintenance goes, I find myself polishing discs from time to time. Maybe it's an exercise akin to the Exorcist rituals described earlier, but I will swear that even with CD's, cleanliness is next to godliness.

  16. #16
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Cleanliness

    Quote Originally Posted by Auricauricle
    ... As far as maintenance goes, I find myself polishing discs from time to time. Maybe it's an exercise akin to the Exorcist rituals described earlier, but I will swear that even with CD's, cleanliness is next to godliness.
    I have CDs I've owned for twenty years that have never been clean, nor do they need it now. Occassionally I borrow a CD from the public library to see if I like the music & performance: typically these discs are scratched and filthy.

    The fact is that I can even be bothered handling CDs nowadays. 98% of my listening is to computer files.

  17. #17
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    Well, you probably have much more advanced and sonically appealing gear than I, but I will aver that cleaner discs sound and behave much better with a little elbow grease, now and then. Truth be told, I have found some players more "finicky" than others: my current DVD player can get testy if there are a few wayward smudges, here and there. My first CD player, on the other hand--a Sony 501-ES, was much less so. It was built like a tank and was very forgiving--a better deck in retrospect.

  18. #18
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    There was actually a time when some folks stated that spraying CD's with ArmorAll improved their sound. I tried that, and experienced more disc-skipping than ever. I used an Alsop CD cleaner to get all that crap off those discs that I had sprayed, and then they were fine.

    Aside from having to clean a CD that mistracked, or more often, a filthy DVD from either Blockbuster or Netflix that either wouldn't play at all, or skipped all over the place, I've rarely ever needed to clean a CD. Like Feanor, I have discs dating back to 1984 that have never been cleaned, and likely, never will be.

    When I encounter a really dirty and badly scratched disc, the problems that are audible are not surface noise, but mistracking issues: clicks, skips and the like. I have to admit never having heard surface noise on a CD, no matter its condition. Still, just as I have handled my LP's with care, and never touching the surface with my fingers, I handle CD's in precisely the same manner even though it's not supposed to be necessary. If I drop a record to the floor the results can be catastrophic. If I drop a CD, chances are pretty good nothing will happen.

  19. #19
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    Maybe I should get my nomenclature down: What you refer to as mistracking issues are what I have glibly referred to as "surface noise". My mistake.

    I also have a number of CD's from the mid-eighties, including The Police's Synchronicity, a few Tangerine Dream albums and various classical discs (including Telarc's beloved Star Tracks) etc. To clean them, I have been experimenting with a solution composed of acetone, silver polish, fungicide and simichrome. It is all very liquid, and is applied with a Q-tip. After it dries, it is wiped off with a chamois cloth. Both front and back surfaces are cleaned. A spritz of disc cleaner (Radio Shack or Disc Washer) is applied to remove any residue. Again, this may be all unnecessary. but like the Exorcist posts described, I do discern detectable differences in clarity, imaging, and nuance. (And you wonder why this Aa screen name is so appropos?)

    BTW: A little story that refers to my becoming smitten over these round, shiny things: Shortly after I started buying CD's, I became infatuated with the group, Dire Straits. In short fashion, I bought all of their albums. Around this time, a Navy buddy who was hosting a party asked me if he could borrow my Making Movies CD. I gave him the disc, with his promise to care for it.

    Later that night, curiosity gripped my soul, and I went to the party. The room (we were living in a barracks), was awash with copious quantities of alcohol and throngs of guys and dolls who were laughing and carousing as though it was their last day on Earth. I found a chair and sat down to sip some beer, when I noticed a coaster to rest my beer upon. Already, the coaster bore a ring from a previously applied drink. Upon closer examination, I realised the coaster was not a coaster, but my CD! Furiously, I withdrew the disc, demanded the cover and stormed out. As soon as I returned into my room, I turned on my player and, after cleaning it off, inserted the disc. Miraculously, the disc played without a hitch. It was at that point that I realised that claims of CD invulnerability and sonic wonder were everything they were cracked up to be.

    At the same time, my demise into the Nether World of audiophilism began its course, a disease that continues to haunt my poor soul to this day......
    Last edited by Auricauricle; 11-18-2008 at 06:37 AM.

  20. #20
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Right about that

    Quote Originally Posted by Auricauricle
    ...

    I also have a number of CD's from the mid-eighties, including The Police's Synchronicity, a few Tangerine Dream albums and various classical discs (including Telarc's beloved Star Tracks) etc. To clean them, ... Again, this may be all unnecessary. but like the Exorcist posts described, I do discern detectable differences in clarity, imaging, and nuance. (And you wonder why this Aa screen name is so appropos?)

    .... It was at that point that I realised that claims of CD invulnerability and sonic wonder were everything they were cracked up to be.
    ...
    Absolutely: scratched, dirty CDs will cause playback glitches. As mentioned, I often borrow CDs from the public library to try before I buy. Most are more or less scratched or dirty; they work better for a cleaning unless the scratching is the main problem.

    On the other hand, like emaidel, I take extremely good care of my own CDs, never touching the playing surface, etc.. Most I've never cleaned because they aren't dirty. Pardon me, but I remain very skeptical of CD treatments that are supposed to make unblemish CDs sound better. On the other hand, I would be interested in devices or treatments that can repair scratched CDs.

  21. #21
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    Scratch repairation is what I've been experimenting with. Alsop made a solution a few years back that reminded me of nothing more than a repackaging of Brasso. In the same vein I have been playing with applying minute drops of Simichrome to discs that have been injured or for GP, with no ill effect. The jury is still out as far as its usefulness in repairing scratches, but I suspect there is a nominal improvement, nevertheless....
    "The great tragedy of science--the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."--T. Huxley

  22. #22
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    On a somewhat related note, I've noticed that on all of the Telarc SACD's that I own, there's a statement to NEVER use a liquid-based cleaner on the disc. I have no idea why that should be, but it's definitely there, as plain as can be.

    One of my most recent purchases (Beethoven's 9th on the BIS label with the Minnesota Orchestra and Chorale) all but refused to play when I first put it into my Marantz SA-8001. I kept getting a "no disc" display, even though there was a disc in the machine. I examined the disc, but saw no visible imperfections, and then lightly rubbed it with a clean cloth, and put it back into the player. And guess what? It worked just fine, and still does.

  23. #23
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    I suppose that caveat was made to prevent lamebrains like myself from applying solvents that would destroy the plastic film and muck things up permanently. Folks often don't remember that most plastics are porous....

    That Beethoven seems like an awesome one. BIS makes amazing recordings, fer sure!
    "The great tragedy of science--the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."--T. Huxley

  24. #24
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    And, that's my thought for the day....
    My opinion doesn't vary much from yours. First of all, not all analog is LP based. Master tapes can sound wonderful with none of the challenges of vinyl. The CD medium works fine overall, especially now that most recordings today are mastered (and filtered) at much higher resolution and down converted to 16/44. The top, however is still a touch dry and lifeless vs. analog and hi-rez digital. I still use vinyl for two reasons: I am loathe to buy all of them over again and some are simply not available. Since I don't (yet) have a SACD player, I still enjoy hearing a clean non-bandwidth limited LP. I'm not crazy about the required ministrations for vinyl, but have used a VPI HW-16 RCM since 1983 which addresses a lot of the ticks and pops. I use a straight line tracking arm that does not suffer inner groove distortion.

    My next purchase will be a two channel SACD player that does well on Redbook as well. I am leaning towards buying a used EMM Labs CD-SA having heard one at length at a friend's house. It also has one very desirable feature to me: high 4 volt output like my GamuT. No need for line stage. FWIW, Telarc uses EMM Labs stuff themselves for the initial ADC process as well as monitoring.

    rw

  25. #25
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    I agree, and after reading your post will look into 2-channel SACD's with interest....

    I keep a turntable for the same reasons you do: some material is unavailable. Unlike you, however, I sometimes mess the "little quirks" of the medium. As a case in point, I refer you to an episode that occurred years ago when I was taping a friend's LP. An earthquake ensued shortly after takeoff, and caused a number of skips and such that I started the project anew when the tremors ended. To this day, I miss that recording...the nostalgia alone would have been worth the effort.....
    "The great tragedy of science--the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."--T. Huxley

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

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
  •