I knew I hated digital and here's why....

[maxg]

I had a re-scan through the article and the reference to DBT's is vague enough to be meaningless.

I have no doubt that this is very much a sales pitch and I am seriously put off by some of the "new-age" terminology, however....

There can be little doubt that there are many people out there that feel that there is something wrong with CD sound generically. This is not just audiophile lunatics. My wife, for example, finds CD music disconcerting at times and is unable to explain why - she simply prefers the sound of vinyl.

Judging by the number of CD tweaks and mods out there she is not alone. There is a ready market for "removing the digital nasties" on CD players from tube output stages to external DACS, cables, green markers and who knows what else. That some of these are "snake oil" is not the point. Their pitch is sufficient to make sales, which means that the market is receptive to it.

The analog music to digital recording back to analogue sound waves is a very "unnatural" process. Different people may indeed show different susceptibilites to how they react to this process.

Further. Lets remember that 16 bit / 44.1 KHz (why not 48KHz? - never understood that one) is somewhat aging technology. the best we could do in 1979 but now there are much higher word lengths and sampling rates to play with.

If there are people sensitive to the digitization process then it does make sense that the better the process (the higher the resolution) the lower the number of people that would be sensitive to it. This implies that both SACD (with its 2.8 MHz sampling - although that figure is a bit of a fudge) and DVDa (192KHz/24 bit) should prove to have a higher level of acceptability amongst those that claim problems with CD.

This does appear to be the case.

[rb122]

If there are people sensitive to the digitization process then it does make sense that the better the process (the higher the resolution) the lower the number of people that would be sensitive to it. This implies that both SACD (with its 2.8 MHz sampling - although that figure is a bit of a fudge) and DVDa (192KHz/24 bit) should prove to have a higher level of acceptability amongst those that claim problems with CD.

This does appear to be the case.

I've never really understood the term "high resolution" with respect to audio. Does a higher sampling rate mean higher resolution? Where does vinyl fall into this scheme?

I also don't really understand the khz/mhz "upgrade" with respect to sound below those figures. Surely 22.05 khz should be sufficient for humans. Then why do the much lower frequencies distort on CD? Does resolution really have to do with ALL frequencies? HF's are troublesome to a degree on redbook CD which would account for the tension people feel when listening. But I'm much more susceptible to the lower treble through the midrange frequencies. Tonal anomalies with instruments, grain, sibilance, etc are bigger offenders than some HF stress causing noise.

Do any of those digital sound improvement thingamajigs actually work?

[Feanor]

... HF's are troublesome to a degree on redbook CD which would account for the tension people feel when listening. But I'm much more susceptible to the lower treble through the midrange frequencies. Tonal anomalies with instruments, grain, sibilance, etc are bigger offenders than some HF stress causing noise. ...

Weren't you the person who recorded vinyl onto CD-R and admitted you couldn't hear the difference between that result and the original? What does that suggest?

I suggest that it suggests that the "problem" with CDs is the way they were recorded & mastered, not the medium itself i.e. not PCM 16/44.1. I have quite a few great CD that don't cause me any tension. I have some that do; I have a few LPs that do too.

[DMK]

Weren't you the person who recorded vinyl onto CD-R and admitted you couldn't hear the difference between that result and the original? What does that suggest?

I suggest that it suggests that the "problem" with CDs is the way they were recorded & mastered, not the medium itself i.e. not PCM 16/44.1. I have quite a few great CD that don't cause me any tension. I have some that do; I have a few LPs that do too.

Well, it suggests to ME that he listen more carefully next time! . I've done the same experiment with different results but they are very, very close. So your point is well taken. OTOH, what does it suggest about CD when the best sounding recordings are made in a consumers home using a sub-$1000 CD recorder? Perhaps it's not the medium but what good IS the medium if it doesn't deliver? Of course, if rbcd has all this potential and doesn't live up to it, what good is a higher resolution medium going to be?

I wonder if vinyl would sound as bad as rbcd if it were still THE medium. In all likelihood, it would. Many of those LP's from the early 80's were pretty bad. We vinyl hounds are probably chasing a pipedream, not because of the CD medium but because of the lack of care taken in the recording/mastering process. But there are other folks aside from RB that suggest that PCM is an inherently limited medium and not up to SACD standards. As such, I'm exploring that avenue and I have yet to be disappointed with the sound. If a medium that inarguably measures better than rbcd can also deliver the sonic goods by somehow forcing RE's to do a better job, the goal of superior sound has been accomplished. I just wish we could all stop making excuses about WHY rbcd sounds so bad and just get some decent results out of digital on a widespread basis.

[rb122]

Weren't you the person who recorded vinyl onto CD-R and admitted you couldn't hear the difference between that result and the original? What does that suggest?

I suggest that it suggests that the "problem" with CDs is the way they were recorded & mastered, not the medium itself i.e. not PCM 16/44.1. I have quite a few great CD that don't cause me any tension. I have some that do; I have a few LPs that do too.

Yes, I was. It suggests that the hue and cry isn't loud enough! If something or someone has the potential to perform well and doesn't, we are usually more likely to complain than when something simply doesn't have the potential. The fact that our society has been duped into accepting that McDonald's hamburgers are the same as home cooked (or even an acceptable substitute) is a sad commentary. McDonald's burgers have the same potential as any other but they've chosen not to realize that potential because the public doesn't care. The nice thing is that I have the choice to cook at home. Unfortunately, we're stuck with CD if we're looking for newly recorded music. If the potential is there, show it or expect that there will be those people who complain because they refuse to quietly accept mediocrity.

[Monstrous Mike]

A doctor selling music lessons, that sure has to make you wonder.