-
A marriage of cd and analog technology?
Hi AR. I have had an idea for a while but have thought that it was too simplistic and must be missing something fundamental in nature. I would appreciate your input...
The laser is a very precise instrument- it is used to accurately read the 0's and 1's on a compact disc which is spinning at high speed. Analog rules because it there is no need to sample or "dumb down" the signal to 0's and 1's. Why not marry the two technologies?
After all, the problem with analog lay with the quality of the needle, cartridge, tone arm, platter, etc. Any physical contact between the needle and record, for instance, will ensure that the next time the record is played, it will not sound EXACTLY the same.
If we could use lasers to read an analog format I think that we could get the best of both worlds. Your thoughts?
-
Great idea, but it might be hard to invent a laser cartridge.
-
It's been done. Full review at the link below. It's $21,000.
http://hometheaterreview.com/the-fin...able-reviewed/
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
Great idea, but it might be hard to invent a laser cartridge.
I think that you wouldn't have to make a cartridge. Why not have the "housing" for the laser lay within a bridge like structure over the spinning analog disc?
-
Thanks for that link. I would imagine, though, that in much the same way that a top of the line CD player from 1990 has not only come down in price but has also drastically superior in quality, that this type of technology would have done the same.
-
ELP Laser Turntable. There used to be ads for in the back of steroephile all the time.
http://www.audioturntable.com/purchase/index.html
-
I knew it had been tried, thanks for the link JoeE, you'd think if it was cost effective they might have tried to market it again with the increase in popularity of vinyl. I don't think it would ever be mainstream because it still wouldn't be as convenient as CD or downloading.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by phileserver39
After all, the problem with analog lay with the quality of the needle, cartridge, tone arm, platter, etc.
You forgot to mention lower dynamics also :)
Even if lasor is used instead of cartridge, the low dynamics which is inherit to vinyl still can not be over come.
-
I really think "dynamic range" is over emphasized. I sometimes wonder if the lower dynamic is part of what people like about vinyl. And, if it was a big deal it should stick out like a sore thumb on mp3 but people don't seem to mind. DR is something that sticks out on a meter and some of us can pick up on it easily enough by listening, however, when comparing CD to vinyl I just don't think it's that big of an issue by just listening. Me personally, I don't think it's a big deal with vinyl but it took me a long time to get used to listening to mp3 on portable devices and I refuse to listen on better equipment. Sometimes I'll make an exception plugging into the car system, it's horrible on home systems, the compression annoys me.
Another consideration and could be why the expense, reading analog with a laser I believe would require it to be converted to digital and back to analog again. The more conversions the more chance of problems.
-
Dynamic range is not a problem witha good turntable rig. Good is not necessarily the same as expensive. CD and Vinyl theoretical advantages are secondary to the quality of the recordings and the playback devices to get the information off the disc.
In a strange way you could argue that Laserdisc is an analog video format while its replacements are digital. And interestingly enough some Laserdisc folks argued the video quality of LD over DVD. I have to say I liked a number of the LD movies over the early DVDs I purchased - particularly Jaws which seemed to have better overall lighting and contrast to the DVD version - both players were Pioneers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
"dynamic range" is something that sticks out on a meter and some of us can pick up on it easily enough by listening, however, when comparing CD to vinyl I just don't think it's that big of an issue by just listening.
I think we need go back in history a bit as to bring shortcomings of analog more into focus.
I don't know if you remember when CD was introduced or not, but there was alot negative comments on its sonic quality that was not much better than vinyl. The best example of that would be the first Led Zepplin albums release on CDs. There was alot of complain that CD sound was flat, compressed and lifeless. Believe me, I had a CD of Physical Graffiti.
Later we found out that record company was using the same master that was used for vinyl pressing for CD also. And CD sound worse since it magnified the shortcomings of master tapes that had low dynamics and limited frequency response. It was only when Jimmy Page himself supervise the whole CD remastering that truly made vinyl a medium fidelity as compare with CD. Thus vinyl free fall :)
-
I worked for CBS tape facility during the first Laserdisc revolution. You remember the ones in the cartridges you loaded into the player so you didn't touch the disc. I remember they were very unstable and skipped frequently.
We started replicating discs in our, new at the time, facility in Carollton Ga. We did use the same masters used for tape at the time. The high-end of the frequency range on the masters in general was limited because at the 40X speed we recorded at was very close to the bias frequency. When the two peaks aligned it would cause a "beat frequency" anomaly on the tape. I'm not sure, but I believe frequency response was -4db at 20Khz. I believe the dynamic range on cassette was limited to 60db, compared to the 100+db possible seen now.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
I think we need go back in history a bit as to bring shortcomings of analog more into focus.
I don't know if you remember when CD was introduced or not, but there was alot negative comments on its sonic quality that was not much better than vinyl. The best example of that would be the first Led Zepplin albums release on CDs. There was alot of complain that CD sound was flat, compressed and lifeless. Believe me, I had a CD of Physical Graffiti.
Later we found out that record company was using the same master that was used for vinyl pressing for CD also. And CD sound worse since it magnified the shortcomings of master tapes that had low dynamics and limited frequency response. It was only when Jimmy Page himself supervise the whole CD remastering that truly made vinyl a medium fidelity as compare with CD. Thus vinyl free fall :)
This problem persisted for years after the CD was introduced. CD really had a bad start in comparison to SACD and DVD-A. Ringing brickwall anti-aliasing filters, poor mixing, poor mastering, recycled analog masters, and the beat goes on. By the 90's, things were dramatically improving, and by the end of the decade, CD truly found its stride.
If you have a Blu ray player, you can already hear digital and analog combined. 2L has two recordings using the DXD recording process, and it sounds very much like analog, but with surround sound added to the equation.
The DXD recording format is much like analog in that it is sampling so frequently so much information, it is almost continuous like analog. It sounds like excellent analog, but it beats the hell out of analogs specs. If you have the equipment to hear the raw DXD data stream, it will blow your mind. Even if it is downconverted to 24/192khz, it still sounds analog(depending on your equipment), and still trashes the specs of analog.
DXD is truly the best of the analog sound in digital form.
Smoke, the CD was introduced in 1983 to the public.
-
I think one of the biggest reasons for analog support was the mishandling of CD and the slogans of Perfect Sound forever. You didn't need perfect listening pitch to tell you that a good turntable systems beat the ever loving crap out of CD and their terrible players for more than a decade. Audiophiles who owned good rigs were not convinced and a decade later many still were not convinced. And when a new digital format comes out with "this is much better than CD...." you can't really blame the vinylphiles for being highly skeptical. I auditioned SACD at a "special event" with the top Sony player and a surround set-up with Martin Logan and top of the line Bryston and heard a live SACD disc and could hear a guitar behind my head - it was interesting but completely fake and artificial sounding to me. Plus it required a HUGE outlay of cash because now you had to buy 5-6 loudspeakers instead of two to get that artificial sound. They put on a few other discs - Hotel California particularly stunk up the joint on SACD and a few less than memorable classical pieces.
So I like many decided that SACD was another perfect sound forever gimmick - not being able to copy them - ahh I surmised that this was the main reason it was brought out - charge $30 instead of $12.99 and you can't make a copy of it. Protects the industry and artists more than being about good sound quality. Then I started to read reviews of people who had $5-$10,000 SACD machines - audiophiles with excellent ears who were also reviewers preferring the sound of certain CD players and their technologies over their own SACD machines. And those CD players are still beaten by Vinyl despite the specs when it comes down to sound. Euphony, distortion, noise whatever it still "sounds more natural" provided that the turntable is up to the task. Most are not and I agree with UHF magazine that noted that turntables start to move away at over $2500. So i am not in the camp that says a $500 turntable beats $5,000 CD players - they don't. I had one and it doesn't beat my CD player (It was a NAD 533 which is a Rega P2 clone made by Rega for NAD).
That said the DXD/DSD at CES is something else - the problem is that no average person can go and demo this anywhere and where do you buy the software - online and unhear and untried? That's a lot to ask of people who were not convinced by CD or SACD.
And contrary to pupular belief there are many makers still trying to make turntables better and are working to make the LPs better but obviously there is less time and effort here but if there were who knows how much better it could have become - maybe there would be a Super Audio 45 today!!
Audiophiles and DJs kept vinyl going and it has seen a steady rise in sales the last 5 years doubling the previous year's sales each year. Overall sales are pitiful compared to CD but it has never left. Interestingly some artists came out with Vinyl only albums with downloadable MP3 versions for owners. In a sense vinyl is a better protection against copying because to copy a vinyl requires real time copying and the gear to get it to sound good will be pricey.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
That said the DXD/DSD at CES is something else - the problem is that no average person can go and demo this anywhere and where do you buy the software - online and unhear and untried? That's a lot to ask of people who were not convinced by CD or SACD.
You really do not need to hear the raw DXD stream to appreciate the quality it has. 2L has done several recordings using this technology and has downconverted them(losslessly) to 24/192khz PCM for release on Blu ray. The discs can be purchased on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/2L-NORDIC-AUDI.../dp/B0025ZITT2
You can also find some of these recordings on SACD as well.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You really do not need to hear the raw DXD stream to appreciate the quality it has. 2L has done several recordings using this technology and has downconverted them(losslessly) to 24/192khz PCM for release on Blu ray. The discs can be purchased on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/2L-NORDIC-AUDI.../dp/B0025ZITT2
You can also find some of these recordings on SACD as well.
I have an order going out today for a bunch of music and can order this 2l: the Nordic Sound BluRay but my machine does not play SACD. The disc shows the SACD symbol at the bottom left. So can a PS3 without SACD play a blu-ray with SACD logo and will it take advantage of the 24/192khz PCM?
I would prefer music with a comparable. For instance I have Dark Side of the Moon on vinyl and CD - it makes more sense to have the same album on all the formats to compare them.
-
No I see that it says Compact disc on the liner notes that tells you the song listings. So it should work for CD encoding. LOL - there are too many freaking formats!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I have an order going out today for a bunch of music and can order this 2l: the Nordic Sound BluRay but my machine does not play SACD. The disc shows the SACD symbol at the bottom left. So can a PS3 without SACD play a blu-ray with SACD logo and will it take advantage of the 24/192khz PCM?
In the case you will find a SACD copy and a PCM copy as well.
Quote:
I would prefer music with a comparable. For instance I have Dark Side of the Moon on vinyl and CD - it makes more sense to have the same album on all the formats to compare them.
Agreed. But just like any high resolution format, everything starts with Classical music(it benefit more from it than any other genre of music), and then works its way outward to other genre's of music. Neil Diamond is also on the Blu ray format, and from what I have gathered, other artists are headed to the format as well.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
You forgot to mention lower dynamics also :)
Even if lasor is used instead of cartridge, the low dynamics which is inherit to vinyl still can not be over come.
bullocks. true, a cd has a dynamic range of what is it, 120 db, and vinyl "only" 84 db. True, you only forgot to mention that not a single recording comes even close to such numbers. The highest dynamic range I found in a recording was like, 30-40db, and that was exceptional, every single pop, and most other popular genres don't even have audible dynamic range, everything is compressed. And recordings that do have some dynamic range, are still well under 50 db...
CD performs better in numbers, nothing more.
-
basite
we're a numbers culture whether you can see or hear the results. Cameras with 10 mega pixels are not necessarily better than 3 mega pixels because it always comes down to the quality of the Lens. A great lens and 3.2 mega pixels is better than a crappy lens and 20 megapixels. But the number is better. Wow and flutter on my turntable is inaudible. The numbers won't be as good as my CD player's spec - but there is no question which sounds better. There was question which sounds better when I was using a Rega P2 clone however. Like a camera it comes down to the "quality" of the device spinning the disc or taking the pictures and less about the numbers.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
In the case you will find a SACD copy and a PCM copy as well.
Agreed. But just like any high resolution format, everything starts with Classical music(it benefit more from it than any other genre of music), and then works its way outward to other genre's of music. Neil Diamond is also on the Blu ray format, and from what I have gathered, other artists are headed to the format as well.
I have another problem here. The PS3 does not have audio outputs. It has HDMI which my amp does not accept. I've had receivers in the past (top iof the line Pioneer Elite and now a Marantz) and musically they're horrible. Arggh.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
basite
we're a numbers culture whether you can see or hear the results. Cameras with 10 mega pixels are not necessarily better than 3 mega pixels because it always comes down to the quality of the Lens. A great lens and 3.2 mega pixels is better than a crappy lens and 20 megapixels. But the number is better. Wow and flutter on my turntable is inaudible. The numbers won't be as good as my CD player's spec - but there is no question which sounds better. There was question which sounds better when I was using a Rega P2 clone however. Like a camera it comes down to the "quality" of the device spinning the disc or taking the pictures and less about the numbers.
very true also,
but then we give numbers:
the brick wall at 20 khz, and 20 hz for example with cd's, while vinyl goes far below 20 hz, and very far above 20khz, without problems. I know, the first reaction you'll get from people is that you can't hear those, I could argue about that, while you cannot hear the 30 db extra dynamic range, which isn't used.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by basite
very true also,
but then we give numbers:
the brick wall at 20 khz, and 20 hz for example with cd's, while vinyl goes far below 20 hz, and very far above 20khz, without problems. I know, the first reaction you'll get from people is that you can't hear those, I could argue about that, while you cannot hear the 30 db extra dynamic range, which isn't used.
And it may also be why the best CD players that I have heard don't used any Brickwall filters and actually let more of the disc get to the preamp. And what do you know these CD players tend to always be described as more analog sounding, more real, etc etc. However, they don't look as nice on the graph. Again do we want to be a slave to the numbers or our ears? I prefer being a slave to the ears since that is what I use to listen. I am listening to such a CD player right now and my other player is so unbelievably horrible in comparison. To me that is also key when evaluating any gear. How much better does one thing sound over another. Like the other thread in the analog forum - CD players also tend to sound a lot more similar to each other than they ought to. Going from a $500 TT to a $2,000 TT it is a massive striking very noticable difference. Going from a $700 Arcam Alpha 7 to an over $2k Alpha 9 not much difference. Too subtle and no one will pass a DBT kind of subtle. For 4 times the money it should be a wow strimking kind of improvement not a "I need to have it in my house for 2 months to know for sure" kind of improvement.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You really do not need to hear the raw DXD stream to appreciate the quality it has. 2L has done several recordings using this technology and has downconverted them(losslessly) to 24/192khz PCM for release on Blu ray. The discs can be purchased on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/2L-NORDIC-AUDI.../dp/B0025ZITT2
You can also find some of these recordings on SACD as well.
Hello Sir Terrance! If I may ask, is there a difference in DSD or DXD from SACD or DVD-Audio? I have a Pioneer DVD player which plays both hi-def formats. Thanks!
-
RGA, I know what you are trying to say but there is a noticeable difference between the Alpha 7 & 9, I'd bet money any one could hear it in a DBT.
There are a couple of different approaches to 5 channel music, one being what you hear from Flaming Lips, Porcupine Tree or BT, where they intentionally use the 5 channels creatively for effect but there are also very good 5 channel recordings such as a Blu Ray Jazz sampler where the channels are used mostly for ambience. From the listing at Bluray.com it appears to be a growing selection of Blu music.
The thing about having a wide frequency response it allows for harmonics.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by basite
The highest dynamic range I found in a recording was like, 30-40db, and that was exceptional, every single pop, and most other popular genres don't even have audible dynamic range, everything is compressed.
I can't argue with you there as it seem compression problem have gotten worse. But that still does not win argument as to superiority of vinyl over CD. If a CD remastering is done right, vinyl can not touch it in terms of dynamic, noise and frequecy response.
David Bowie CDs from Rykodisc is good example of how wondefrul CD sound is when remastering is done right.
-
Smokey, CDP's frequency response are 20-20khz, a phono cartridge frequency response can go much wider. Here's a couple examples and they aren't even the extreme; http://www.soundhifi.com/denon%20pho...artridges.html
-
I was poking around (looking for something else) and found this nice shot of the Finial ELP-1 Laser LPplayer
http://i615.photobucket.com/albums/t...eESP9/elp1.jpg
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
Impressing numbers, but as I said in my first post, you are limited by vinyl itself.
Frequecy response of typical vinyl is probably around 50-15 khz. Most signal above and below those limits is likely to be noise (rumble and hum below 50-60Hz. Clicks, pops, hiss and harmonics above 15,000kHz). And also as an added bonus, you will lose high frequecy response gradually as groove move inward due to speed velocity change.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokey
I can't argue with you there as it seem compression problem have gotten worse. But that still does not win argument as to superiority of vinyl over CD. If a CD remastering is done right, vinyl can not touch it in terms of dynamic, noise and frequecy response.
David Bowie CDs from Rykodisc is good example of how wondefrul CD sound is when remastering is done right.
ture, there can be some noise on vinyl, although good quality vinyl, and good quality TT's and cart's are waaay quieter than other vinyl.
and on remastering: well, that's what they do with remastering, they make it sound different/better, including "more dynamics" (sometimes, exaggerated dynamics, actually). and then they put it on cd, and they also remaster it for a cd, if they were to remaster it, and do it properly and then put it on well pressed vinyl, it is just as dynamic sounding as the cd. Just less harsh, more natural, and fuller.
-
Smokey, do you have a reference for LP's high frequency averaging 15khz? I've never heard that before and 15khz is about the limit for FM and LP's to my ears far surpass FM.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by phileserver39
Hello Sir Terrance! If I may ask, is there a difference in DSD or DXD from SACD or DVD-Audio? I have a Pioneer DVD player which plays both hi-def formats. Thanks!
DSD is the raw stream which is the basis for SACD. DXD is the highest recording resolution every acheived, and can be losslessly transferred to SACD and DVD-A. With DVD-A, you can only use two channels of 24/192khz, and 5.1 channels at 24/96khz. With DSD(and therefore SACD) you can use all 5.1 channels. With the Blu ray format you can use 5.1 channels of 24/192khz, and 7.1 channels of 24/96khz PCM audio.
The pioneer unfortunately turns the DSD stream into PCM so that bass management can be used. This degrades the audio a bit - which is audible when compared to a player that can process the raw DSD stream.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
And it may also be why the best CD players that I have heard don't used any Brickwall filters and actually let more of the disc get to the preamp. And what do you know these CD players tend to always be described as more analog sounding, more real, etc etc. However, they don't look as nice on the graph. Again do we want to be a slave to the numbers or our ears? I prefer being a slave to the ears since that is what I use to listen. I am listening to such a CD player right now and my other player is so unbelievably horrible in comparison. To me that is also key when evaluating any gear. How much better does one thing sound over another. Like the other thread in the analog forum - CD players also tend to sound a lot more similar to each other than they ought to. Going from a $500 TT to a $2,000 TT it is a massive striking very noticable difference. Going from a $700 Arcam Alpha 7 to an over $2k Alpha 9 not much difference. Too subtle and no one will pass a DBT kind of subtle. For 4 times the money it should be a wow strimking kind of improvement not a "I need to have it in my house for 2 months to know for sure" kind of improvement.
Brickwall filters went by the wayside in the middle 90's. With oversampling being used at both recording and playback, there is no need for them anymore. Plus, prefiltering already happens during the recording process via the digital recorders anti alising filters, so a filterless CD player will probably sound no better than an oversampling one.
Quote:
the brick wall at 20 khz, and 20 hz for example with cd's, while vinyl goes far below 20 hz, and very far above 20khz, without problems
Vinyl does not go below 20hz, as there is no way a stylus would stay in the groove at that frequency. The CD format does not have brickwall filters at 20hz, it is at 5hz. Vinyl barely goes above 20khz, and probably peaks at somewhere around 25khz, of which the difference between 22.5khz of CD, and 25khz of vinyl represents about a single note on a scale.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by phileserver39
Hi AR. I have had an idea for a while but have thought that it was too simplistic and must be missing something fundamental in nature. I would appreciate your input...
The laser is a very precise instrument- it is used to accurately read the 0's and 1's on a compact disc which is spinning at high speed. Analog rules because it there is no need to sample or "dumb down" the signal to 0's and 1's. Why not marry the two technologies?
After all, the problem with analog lay with the quality of the needle, cartridge, tone arm, platter, etc. Any physical contact between the needle and record, for instance, will ensure that the next time the record is played, it will not sound EXACTLY the same.
If we could use lasers to read an analog format I think that we could get the best of both worlds. Your thoughts?
Been there, done that. Early on in the development of the CD format, there were plenty of discussions about whether the CD would be an analog optical format, similar to the Laserdisc format, which already used an analog FM audio carrier.
As others have mentioned, there are already laser turntables that play LPs.
-
I don't know if it is technically "brick wall" filtering but current CDP's absolutely still have filtering. My player is a current model and I actually can choose between two different filter slopes. I really believe this filtering is how manufacturers are able to achieve certain sound characteristics they like for their unit to have.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I think one of the biggest reasons for analog support was the mishandling of CD and the slogans of Perfect Sound forever. You didn't need perfect listening pitch to tell you that a good turntable systems beat the ever loving crap out of CD and their terrible players for more than a decade.
I see that you've gone back to the wild broad brushed generalizations. Basically, my view has been unchanged -- there are so many variables to account for, particularly with vinyl playback, that it's ridiculous to makes these generalizations. You have to scrutinize the turntable setup, the condition of the stylus, the tonal characteristics of the cartridge, the mastering and press quality of the LP itself, the preamp stepup, etc.
Vinyl playback has a huge range of sound quality that you're totally discounting here. When I made the mistake of switching the cartridge on my turntable to a Sumiko Black Pearl, I was hard pressed to find an LP playback that I preferred to the CD. Now that I bit the bullet and went back to the Ortofon OM30 (upwards of $250+), my vinyl sounds great and preferable to the CD playback in MANY but not ALL cases.
With CDs, you have much higher sound quality at the low end. That's just undeniable. I lived through the era of portable record changers, and all-in-one systems with the droptop BSR and Garrard spindle spinners. Play one of those systems and tell me how superior the LP sounds with a straight face. No low end CD player sounds as bad as a low end record player, and the low end is coming back with a vengeance with the flood of USB turntables now on the market (also bringing the return of fixed head cartridges, spherical stylii, nonadjustable counterweights and tracking force -- what's next? the return of the penny taped to the headshell to keep the records from skipping?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Audiophiles who owned good rigs were not convinced and a decade later many still were not convinced. And when a new digital format comes out with "this is much better than CD...." you can't really blame the vinylphiles for being highly skeptical. I auditioned SACD at a "special event" with the top Sony player and a surround set-up with Martin Logan and top of the line Bryston and heard a live SACD disc and could hear a guitar behind my head - it was interesting but completely fake and artificial sounding to me. Plus it required a HUGE outlay of cash because now you had to buy 5-6 loudspeakers instead of two to get that artificial sound. They put on a few other discs - Hotel California particularly stunk up the joint on SACD and a few less than memorable classical pieces.
So, you're discounting an entire approach to audio on the basis on one audio demonstration?
Just with my own modest surround setup, I can play an SACD from SF Symphony's Mahler series and get a more representative playback of the audience experience inside Davies Symphony Hall than the two-channel playback can. It's all dependent on the mix, and having sat in many different locations within Davies Hall, I can pick out exactly what "position" within the hall that the 5.1 mix is aiming to reproduce. The two-channel mixes don't even come close to that -- yes, they sound quite good and if you're unfamiliar with Davies Hall's acoustics, you might even think it sounds better, depending on your biases. But, because I know how the orchestra actually sounds inside the hall, to me the two-channel mixes are more of a caricature of the live experience than an accurate reproduction of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
So I like many decided that SACD was another perfect sound forever gimmick - not being able to copy them - ahh I surmised that this was the main reason it was brought out - charge $30 instead of $12.99 and you can't make a copy of it. Protects the industry and artists more than being about good sound quality.
If both the SF Symphony and London Symphony are continuing to issue 5.1 SACDs natively recorded in DSD on their own record labels, how's it not about sound quality? Anyone who wants to copy the disc, can simply rip the CD layer. Or is this news to you, that SACDs are typically hybrid discs that are playable on regular CD players?
I've never seen a $30 SACD with a $13 CD equivalent. Please point out an example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
And contrary to pupular belief there are many makers still trying to make turntables better and are working to make the LPs better but obviously there is less time and effort here but if there were who knows how much better it could have become - maybe there would be a Super Audio 45 today!!
And in case you haven't noticed, the price for a typical new LP is over $20. The state of the art in vinyl often comes down to the skill of the lathe cutter and the quality control steps used in the mastering and pressing processes.
Bob Ludwig, generally considered one of the top LP mastering engineers in the business, has consistently stated over the years that you have to tweak with the LP to get it to sound right. But, he also says that under no circumstances will you ever get an LP playback to sound transparent to original source. Keep in mind that this is someone whose work I have a great deal of respect for, and in many cases, the LPs that he mastered subjectively sound much better than the CDs (for example, the LPs he mastered for Rush). By comparison, he has stated that high res digital (he prefers 192/24 PCM) can sound indistinguishable from the original master.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Audiophiles and DJs kept vinyl going and it has seen a steady rise in sales the last 5 years doubling the previous year's sales each year. Overall sales are pitiful compared to CD but it has never left.
It never left, but that doesn't mean that it will ever amount to anything other than a niche. The only reason why sales are now coming back is because more titles are getting reissued. You still barely get any new releases coming out on vinyl. And all of these LPs are getting released because the record companies turned the LP into a low volume, high margin, limited release product that can cost upwards of $30 each (in contrast to those $30 SACDs you talk about, I have seen $30 LPs).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Interestingly some artists came out with Vinyl only albums with downloadable MP3 versions for owners. In a sense vinyl is a better protection against copying because to copy a vinyl requires real time copying and the gear to get it to sound good will be pricey.
Weren't you just chastising the SACD for its copy protection, yet here you are praising the LP for being more difficult to copy?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Going from a $700 Arcam Alpha 7 to an over $2k Alpha 9 not much difference. Too subtle and no one will pass a DBT kind of subtle. For 4 times the money it should be a wow strimking kind of improvement not a "I need to have it in my house for 2 months to know for sure" kind of improvement.
Bwahhh!! I assume that you chose this analogy because you know I use an Alpha 9. They haven't made this player in nearly a decade so perhaps your a bit behind the times as far as digital tech eh?
FWIW; The Alpha 9 is one of the first of the oversampling players. The technology they use was derived from the much more expensive dCS ring dac. The difference being that dCS manufactures their dac using fully discrete components, where Arcam uses the same topology in a IC form. Basically the ring dac converts jitter to white noise which is much less noticeable. (at least to me) The difference between it and the Alpha 7 was pretty obvious to me because of this. However, BOTH player using a state-of-the-art recording like the XRCD of Diana Krall will change your mind about how good a CD can be.
http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo....mber=VERSXR018
I only have a few of these XRCD's but every one played though my CD player sound better than ANY vinyl recording I've ever heard, and that includes 200gram pressings played on a reference quality system.
Even as good as my player is, I had a chance to hear the Meridian 800 when I bought my Arcam Alpha 9. (2001) This player really impressed me and I would say that at the time it was the absolute pinnacle of playback performance.
Since that time I've chased DVD-Audio with little success, and had an abortive go at SACD. Hopefully the next format will see them re-engineer the recordings to take advantage of the fidelity of the format.
-
Smokey, take a look at this, I found it very interesting and supports what i said earlier about not hearing LP's lack of dynamic range compared to CD. I also would like to state I am not a hardliner for either format.
http://www.audioholics.com/education...-part-4-page-2
Sir T & Smokey, this clearly shows LP goes beyond 25khz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48
As I stated I use both CD and LP, and not hard line on either side but LP as a format isn't as handicap as you want to make it out to be.
-
Woochifer
I'm not going point by point because I don't have time to reply to everyone so I will do my best quicky from what I can remember
1) we are in agreement that at the low end CD player are generally better - depends on the units but I would agree.
2) I have heard SACD several times but the main audition with surround was set-up by professionals. If they can't do it the average audiophile has no hope. My issue has never really been the spatial effects of SACD but timbre and tone. I don't buy the sound of basic instruments and voices - the immersive factor may have just stunk on the disc they showed and maybe vastly better - I give that since this is true of movie soundtracks - some sound better than others. It was still a SS system and perhaps with other gear it would be better but very few places bother to demo it anymore since there is rumbling that is in its death throws - it is pretty tough for high end dealers to continue with it. Soundhounds may be the only one in my area still supporting it.
3) no one here is selling SACD anymore from what I can tell but A&B sound did and their SACD titles were considerably more expensive than their CD counterparts. That may have changed but 4 years ago that was the case. A&B went out of business. I saw no SACD titles at Best Buy or Future Shop today. The Sony store here doesn't sell a single machine that is SACD capable. All of this was not the case 3-4 years ago.
4) you are right - LP is generally more expensive but the prices are coming down - several popular titles are under $20 including the likes of Lady Gaga or Jackson Browne mentioned above.
5) I am happy to give SACD another try - I have had 4 long auditions and I didn't like any of them. Regardless of the music played. With it seemingly on life support I didn't see the need to seek it out yet again. I need more popular titles to come through than classical. If I hear it sound better than the same title I have or it is music that I like that I can't get on the other formats I would buy it - but as you point out it also carries the Redbook encoding which makes it less of a need to spend a massive amount of money on a processor/5 channel power amplifier 5 loudspeakers or more to get SACD when I don't like the sound of receivers just for 2 channel vocals. I suppose I could look at the top Arcam rigs but those are probably in the $4,000 range and I still need speakers. This is a huge undertaking.
6) with number 5 said I have a plan to get back into home theater. And that plan will include SACD. At that point with more of my own "control" over what the gear will actually be I will be able to better judge it. Listening to a few set-ups that dealers - professionals or not - and manufacturers set-up still doesn't leave the control with me. And I am pretty picky about which speakers get used. In all the set-ups I hear the speakers I would not find acceptable in 2 channel so not sounding good with 5 of them hardly helped matters!
-
Geoffcin
I had no idea you owned Arcam of any kind.
I used them as an example frequently because I almost bought a 7 and a 9 - I liked the CD 6 over the 7 and 8 back in the day. I use example frequently because Arcam had a clever modular upgrade approach where the same transport was used and you could upgrade essentially the processing unit - but at high costs relative to the expense of the chips used. I was not attacking them - pretty much everyone else did the same thing including Cambridge Audio. Basically the DAC magic back then used better DAC than what is in the CD 6 though the DiscMagic transport is the same. They could have charged $100 and put the same DAC in there and it would have been a helluva CD player - but no you had to spend $700 to buy the external DAC with the extra $5.00 worth of Chipset. UHF did a review of all this back in the day.
I don't know why people think I am anti-technology or anti-CD. I am reviewing a CD player for heaven sake - talk about dead technology and it doesn't play SACD and it doesn't upsample. It's sounds excellent. I just think LP gets a bum rap. I have albums on LP you can't get on any other format and the sound is outstanding. I have an LP rig that several LP 12 owners have dumped for it. Some of those LP12 owners on AA made more direct comparisons. I believe the vinyl is really good once you're in the LP12 kind of class. So I am not a vinyl guy in the sense that anything will do - I had the Duals and Regas of the world. It takes a fair bit of expense IMO to get vinyl to the point where the nasties of vinyl dissapear. Inner groove distortion, bass wobbles, HF spittiness. Lower end decks that get away from that tend to have anaemic bass and sound leaner and CD like. Which is probably not a bad compromise. The Project decks sound tight and fast and are quite inexpensive but they don't really represent what vinyl can do. A popular MM cartirdge is the Shure M97xE and I owned it. But really it's completely outclassed by better MM and MC carts.
Most of the best rooms at CES all ran vinyl - but the cost of playback as Woochifer alluded to is out of the realm of affordability for most of us on this board. I can get pretty good digital for $1,000 and less but I am not sure I can find a good vinyl spinner for that and maybe not under $2k when the cart and arm are factored in. And that's assuming a good phone stage. You're probably into the $4k and up range to really start having Vinyl pull away. UHF argued at least $2500 just for the table a while back and they may not be far off.
|