Some Thoughts on Hi-Fi, Vinyl, and.CD

[GMichael]

Is it worth the retail price of $1,200?

Is "Plan 9 From Outer Space" the best movie ever made?

Each question gets the same answer...

Ooh ooh ooh, can I answer that one?

"What the h.ll are you talking about?!"

Is that close?

[emaidel]

Ooh ooh ooh, can I answer that one?

"What the h.ll are you talking about?!"

Is that close?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Are you toying with me, or just annoyed? Hopefully, I just confused you.

Is the Bose Acoustic Wave worth $1,200? H*ll no!

Is "Plan 9 From Outer Space" the best movie ever made? Also, "H*ll no," As a matter of fact, a recent poll placed it at the very top of the "worst movies of all time" list.

Two different questions. Same answer to both.

[Mike Anderson]

By the way tough, i have my friends 80$ speakers and 90$ Receiver here and removed the DIVA from its stand and enjoyed his system too for an evening. Pictures comming soon!

Oh, so you finally got together with Spanking Vanilla Ice, eh?

That's great Florian, but I think I speak for all of us when I say PLEASE DON'T POST THE PICTURES!

[Bernd]

Precisely...and that is the way to go, the current trend in the high-end where folks basically argue against objective logic, excusing objective logic on the basis of subjective evaluation is painful... IMO, the attitude is doing more harm than good...

I agree. Blind faith in whatever shape or form does more harm than good. I just prefer Clean Vinyl through a decent TT and Valve amp.
I also respect musicians that are involved from beginning to end like Neil Young.
He prefers Analogue and Vinyl and lot's of his back catalogue has only recently been made available on CD (Record company pressure no doubt. Like Coldplay.They wanted to release their last album only on Vinyl, but the mighty bottom line stopped that).

CD's were a mistake from the beginning. At first everyone was impressed-as I was- by the lack of surface noise, but shortly after that, I became aware of the lack of sound and everything you associate with the air. That's where the surface noise and the tape hiss lived: on the sound floor. It's not the loud stuff that gets affected, it's the quiet stuff. When you take something like a long fade and turn that up on CD, if you have a big amp, by the time you get to the end of the fade, you're listening to the worst sound that's ever been sold.That's my objection. I don't like what digital is adding to the finished medium.
Again just my observation and not meant as the only way. Still looking for that one.
As I said before I was recently exposed to the Zanden CDP and D/A and loved it. So we'll see.

Peace

Bernd

[Florian]

Oh, so you finally got together with Spanking Vanilla Ice, eh?

That's great Florian, but I think I speak for all of us when I say PLEASE DON'T POST THE PICTURES!

Don't worry, they are comming. I will call it Florian's HIFI outreach to the less fortunate and win the prize of "biggest jerk on the forum" Muahha!

[GMichael]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Are you toying with me, or just annoyed? Hopefully, I just confused you.

Is the Bose Acoustic Wave worth $1,200? H*ll no!

Is "Plan 9 From Outer Space" the best movie ever made? Also, "H*ll no," As a matter of fact, a recent poll placed it at the very top of the "worst movies of all time" list.

Two different questions. Same answer to both.

Just playing along with you. I'm kinda saying that, "What the h.ll are you talking about?" equals, "H.ll no."

Sorry to have not been clear on that.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

CD's were a mistake from the beginning. At first everyone was impressed-as I was- by the lack of surface noise, but shortly after that, I became aware of the lack of sound and everything you associate with the air. That's where the surface noise and the tape hiss lived: on the sound floor. It's not the loud stuff that gets affected, it's the quiet stuff. When you take something like a long fade and turn that up on CD, if you have a big amp, by the time you get to the end of the fade, you're listening to the worst sound that's ever been sold.That's my objection. I don't like what digital is adding to the finished medium.
Again just my observation and not meant as the only way. Still looking for that one.
As I said before I was recently exposed to the Zanden CDP and D/A and loved it. So we'll see.

Actually I disagree that CD was a mistake. What was a mistake was the choice of 16bit resolution and a 44.1khz sample rate. As far as the long fade, as you fade downward you are using less bits. Less bits means poor sound. However fades are not ment to be heard that way. Had CD come out with 24bit resolution, a sample rate of 70khz and better made D/A conversion, vinyl would have met its death alot earlier.


Peace

Bernd[/QUOTE]

[Bernd]

Actually I disagree that CD was a mistake. What was a mistake was the choice of 16bit resolution and a 44.1khz sample rate. As far as the long fade, as you fade downward you are using less bits. Less bits means poor sound. However fades are not ment to be heard that way. Had CD come out with 24bit resolution, a sample rate of 70khz and better made D/A conversion, vinyl would have met its death alot earlier.


Peace

Bernd

[/QUOTE]

Apologies (it was early morning). I did mean the 16bit 44.1khz sample rate. But on this premise we got fed the bogus advertising claim "Perfect sound forever" and unfortunatly too many fell for it.I know that fades are not be heard that way, but what about the subconscious registering those sounds as in Super tweeters. Maybe thats why some people are just not convinced by Digital.And I am sure you can get used to it.
By the way-Vinyl is not dead. Sales are increasing year by year.
Ever thought how it would have panned out if CD was here first and then Vinyl reply was invented after that. I wonder sometimes how the arguement would go then. Maybe not change at all.But I am sure Vinyl would have been celebrated as the new all conquering medium. People like what they like. I just don't get the emotional involvement with Digi bits that I get with Analogue.

Peace

Bernd

[GMichael]

Apologies (it was early morning). I did mean the 16bit 44.1khz sample rate. But on this premise we got fed the bogus advertising claim "Perfect sound forever" and unfortunatly too many fell for it.I know that fades are not be heard that way, but what about the subconscious registering those sounds as in Super tweeters. Maybe thats why some people are just not convinced by Digital.And I am sure you can get used to it.
By the way-Vinyl is not dead. Sales are increasing year by year.
Ever thought how it would have panned out if CD was here first and then Vinyl reply was invented after that. I wonder sometimes how the arguement would go then. Maybe not change at all.But I am sure Vinyl would have been celebrated as the new all conquering medium. People like what they like. I just don't get the emotional involvement with Digi bits that I get with Analogue.

Peace

Bernd[/QUOTE]

Both have their advantages as well as disadvantages. Vinyl (analog) does have a certain smoothness or quality of essence. Analog is how real life works. But CD's are much more convenient to use. Being digital does make them last longer than vinyl. I got tied of the crackles & pops. Both have their place in my heart and both will be around for a while. I vote for.....



BOTH!!!!!

[Bernd]

Apologies (it was early morning). I did mean the 16bit 44.1khz sample rate. But on this premise we got fed the bogus advertising claim "Perfect sound forever" and unfortunatly too many fell for it.I know that fades are not be heard that way, but what about the subconscious registering those sounds as in Super tweeters. Maybe thats why some people are just not convinced by Digital.And I am sure you can get used to it.
By the way-Vinyl is not dead. Sales are increasing year by year.
Ever thought how it would have panned out if CD was here first and then Vinyl reply was invented after that. I wonder sometimes how the arguement would go then. Maybe not change at all.But I am sure Vinyl would have been celebrated as the new all conquering medium. People like what they like. I just don't get the emotional involvement with Digi bits that I get with Analogue.

Peace

Bernd

Both have their advantages as well as disadvantages. Vinyl (analog) does have a certain smoothness or quality of essence. Analog is how real life works. But CD's are much more convenient to use. Being digital does make them last longer than vinyl. I got tied of the crackles & pops. Both have their place in my heart and both will be around for a while. I vote for.....



BOTH!!!!![/QUOTE]

ME TOO!!! 49/51

[theaudiohobby]

Both have their advantages as well as disadvantages. Vinyl (analog) does have a certain smoothness or quality of essence. Analog is how real life works.

Analog is NOT how real life works, if you doubt that, read about check neurons in brain cell activity, or neutrons, electrons and photons in physics, some things are continuous, but many other things are actually discrete in their most elementary form, a fact that is the basis of a whole branch of study referred to as Quantum Physics.

[GMichael]

Analog is NOT how real life works, if you doubt that, read about check neurons in brain cell activity, or neutrons, electrons and photons in physics, some things are continuous, but many other things are actually discrete in their most elementary form, a fact that is the basis of a whole branch of study referred to as Quantum Physics.

Very interesting. I'll look into it. But I bet that the bit rate is off the scale.

[emaidel]

I never thought I'd see the day! Two AR members agreeing that BOTH analog and digital are viable sound sources!

Most of the time, however, the two opposing camps are steadfast in their beliefs, refusing to even acknowledge that the "other side" may even have merit. Most supporters of CD's, for example, use practical and tangible items to justify their support of the medium: no surface noise; no annoying ticks. clicks and pops; no inner-groove distortion; no mistracking of loud passages; no warpage; no deterioration with age; no annoying pre-echo; and the like.

Those in the vinyl camp are more attuned to sonic attributes and intangible stuff, such as "warmth," "fluidity," and, without ever acknowledging the aforementioned benefits of a CD, attack the medium as the sonic equivalent of toxic, nuclear waste. I'll readily admit that the two have merits and disadvantages, but this view is somewhat extreme.

The fact that there exists such strong dissention between these camps illustrates the very nature of the audio business, and that is its subjectivity. In a "perfect" world, all items along the audio chain - from source, through amplification to loudspeakers - would result in a ruler-flat frequency response from 20 to 20,000HZ, would have immeasurable harmonic distortion levels, would have a boundless dynamic range, etc., etc. Perhaps it is the "perfection" of digital sound that so many find unappealing.

Specifically, no phono cartridge made by anyone has the ruler-flat frequency response of the digital medium. More importantly, many cartridges are this way by design. A slight rise in high frequencies of about 1/2 to 3/4db starting at about 12KHZ to 20KHZ adds 'brightness," clarity" and "sparkle" to the recorded material. In an A/B comparison to the identical material recorded in the digital domain, the flat response of that medium would result in a sound that was decidedly more "dull," lackluster," and "uninvolving."

Moreover, if the response curve of the cartridge had a deliberate boost in the upper-bass (around 500HZ) and a dip in the mids (around 1KHZ to 2KHZ), the resultant sound would be "lush, "warm" and "full." In the same A/B comparison as previously stated, the CD of the same material would be "thin," "harsh" and - this one's my favorite - "clinical."

Another area of measured response that (and I might be wrong on this one) seems rarely to have been mentioned in the "war" betweeen the two mediums, is square wave response. Ideally, the measured square wave response should be just that - a perfect square, with little or no rise time; no overshoot; no ringing; and a rapid falloff at the end. Again, no cartridge anywhere exhibits a "perfect" square wave, but the digital medium does. And also again, deviations from the norm are often built in purposely.

Many moving coil cartridges have a deliberate overshoot on the initial rise of the square, and this adds a very pleasant "bite" or "attack" to musical transients. A slow falloff at the end, adds a sense of "warmth" to the music as well. No digital recording has any of these characteristics, and again an A/B between identical source material in the two mediums result in a less exciting sound from the CD than from the LP.

So, in terms of measured performance, the CD may be superior. In terms of subjective performance, those deviations from the mean, usually deliberate, offer a coloration or even a form of harmonic distortion that many audiophiles prefer, and miss terribly when listening to material in the digital domain.

Hardly earth-shattering news, or even something that will end the battle, but points I think have merit, and which, I hope, readers found interesting.

[GMichael]

I never thought I'd see the day! Two AR members agreeing that BOTH analog and digital are viable sound sources!

Most of the time, however, the two opposing camps are steadfast in their beliefs, refusing to even acknowledge that the "other side" may even have merit. Most supporters of CD's, for example, use practical and tangible items to justify their support of the medium: no surface noise; no annoying ticks. clicks and pops; no inner-groove distortion; no mistracking of loud passages; no warpage; no deterioration with age; no annoying pre-echo; and the like.

Those in the vinyl camp are more attuned to sonic attributes and intangible stuff, such as "warmth," "fluidity," and, without ever acknowledging the aforementioned benefits of a CD, attack the medium as the sonic equivalent of toxic, nuclear waste. I'll readily admit that the two have merits and disadvantages, but this view is somewhat extreme.

The fact that there exists such strong dissention between these camps illustrates the very nature of the audio business, and that is its subjectivity. In a "perfect" world, all items along the audio chain - from source, through amplification to loudspeakers - would result in a ruler-flat frequency response from 20 to 20,000HZ, would have immeasurable harmonic distortion levels, would have a boundless dynamic range, etc., etc. Perhaps it is the "perfection" of digital sound that so many find unappealing.

Specifically, no phono cartridge made by anyone has the ruler-flat frequency response of the digital medium. More importantly, many cartridges are this way by design. A slight rise in high frequencies of about 1/2 to 3/4db starting at about 12KHZ to 20KHZ adds 'brightness," clarity" and "sparkle" to the recorded material. In an A/B comparison to the identical material recorded in the digital domain, the flat response of that medium would result in a sound that was decidedly more "dull," lackluster," and "uninvolving."

Moreover, if the response curve of the cartridge had a deliberate boost in the upper-bass (around 500HZ) and a dip in the mids (around 1KHZ to 2KHZ), the resultant sound would be "lush, "warm" and "full." In the same A/B comparison as previously stated, the CD of the same material would be "thin," "harsh" and - this one's my favorite - "clinical."

Another area of measured response that (and I might be wrong on this one) seems rarely to have been mentioned in the "war" betweeen the two mediums, is square wave response. Ideally, the measured square wave response should be just that - a perfect square, with little or no rise time; no overshoot; no ringing; and a rapid falloff at the end. Again, no cartridge anywhere exhibits a "perfect" square wave, but the digital medium does. And also again, deviations from the norm are often built in purposely.

Many moving coil cartridges have a deliberate overshoot on the initial rise of the square, and this adds a very pleasant "bite" or "attack" to musical transients. A slow falloff at the end, adds a sense of "warmth" to the music as well. No digital recording has any of these characteristics, and again an A/B between identical source material in the two mediums result in a less exciting sound from the CD than from the LP.

So, in terms of measured performance, the CD may be superior. In terms of subjective performance, those deviations from the mean, usually deliberate, offer a coloration or even a form of harmonic distortion that many audiophiles prefer, and miss terribly when listening to material in the digital domain.

Hardly earth-shattering news, or even something that will end the battle, but points I think have merit, and which, I hope, readers found interesting.

And then comes, tube amps vs digi-amps......

[topspeed]

I can't believe I'm getting involved in this, but what the heck...

I read something somewhere that made a heck of a lot of sense regarding the viability of cd's. The person, who was a pretty well respected guy in the industry, noted that the cd is completely viable, it just hasn't been executed correctly.

Case in point: He asks; Have you ever heard a cd that was so pristine, so emotionally involving, so right that you said "Wow!" If so, then the cd is viable. Whether it was the rig, the recording, the dac's, whatever. The fact remains that the digital medium was capable of transporting the listener to that special place that vinyl proponents claim only analog can. I don't know of one audiophile, including vinyl junkies, that will admit that they have never heard a cd...somewhere, sometime...fit that description.

[Mike Anderson]

I read something somewhere that made a heck of a lot of sense regarding the viability of cd's. The person, who was a pretty well respected guy in the industry, noted that the cd is completely viable, it just hasn't been executed correctly.

I agree with this. I have quite a few CDs (most of them mastered fairly recently) that sound gorgeous on my setup.

When CDs were first rolled out, they sounded like crap to me. Nobody really knew how to properly master an album for that format. A lot of people wrote them off at that point.

These days, they can sound pretty damned good, at least to my ears, and on my rig.

[Bernd]

Very interesting. I'll look into it. But I bet that the bit rate is off the scale.

I agree. Extremely interesting. Please keep me informed what you find out. Maybe quark oversampling. I am feeling random already.

Peace

Bernd

[emaidel]

I have quite a few CDs (most of them mastered fairly recently) that sound gorgeous on my setup.



These days, they can sound pretty damned good, at least to my ears, and on my rig.

I too have purchased a slew of new CD's recently - mostly classical - that range from downright horrible, to absolutely remarkable. Strangely, that very gamut was run on one label (Phillips) and with the same conductor (Valery Gergiev). His interpretation of Berlioz' "Smphonie Fantastique" is hands down the very best I've ever heard, both in terms of musical composition, and sonics. And it's the best of all those I currently own (three LP's, and five CD's).

Unfortunately, his rendition of Rimsky-Korsakov's "Scheherezade," while musically fine, is the perfect example of how awful CD's can sound - harsh, "in your face" and just plain too much. I guess "overmodulation" is something its engineers simply disregarded.

On the other hand, many new purchases of Telarc CD's, using the DSD medium, and transferred from that format to "standard" CD via a "Direct Mapping" process have been pretty outstanding. A compilation of choral suites by Miklos Rosza from "Ben Hur," "Quo Vadis" and "King of Kings" not only illustrates that movie music can also be good music, but how good such music can sound too.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I agree with this. I have quite a few CDs (most of them mastered fairly recently) that sound gorgeous on my setup.

When CDs were first rolled out, they sounded like crap to me. Nobody really knew how to properly master an album for that format. A lot of people wrote them off at that point.

These days, they can sound pretty damned good, at least to my ears, and on my rig.

Actually they were using the same master tapes for both the CD and Vinyl release. They mastered for the vinyl playback system, and used that master for the CD. Sounded great on Vinyl, but the EQ should ALWAYS be different for CD.

[Geoffcin]

On the other hand, many new purchases of Telarc CD's, using the DSD medium, and transferred from that format to "standard" CD via a "Direct Mapping" process have been pretty outstanding. A compilation of choral suites by Miklos Rosza from "Ben Hur," "Quo Vadis" and "King of Kings" not only illustrates that movie music can also be good music, but how good such music can sound too.

On of the reasons that I bought my CD player is that I heard it playing a HDCD disk. If your player decodes this format I suggest getting a few.

[hermanv]

Again, no cartridge anywhere exhibits a "perfect" square wave, but the digital medium does.

Maybe I can beat jneutron to the punch.

Although it seems possible to describe a perfect square wave with the bits, the reconstructed signal will not be a perfect square wave. A perfect square wave contains all odd harmonics to frequency infinity, obviously limiting the response to 22KHz will leave you a long way from a perfect square wave. For example the Redbook standard can only encode a 20KHz signal as a sine wave, a 20KHz or even 10KHz square wave is impossible to encode with a 44.1KHz sample rate.

As the fundamental frequency goes lower and lower, the square wave reproduction gets better and better.

[hermanv]

On of the reasons that I bought my CD player is that I heard it playing a HDCD disk. If your player decodes this format I suggest getting a few.

Since Microsoft bought the rights to HDCD I can find no master list of titles, I agree they sound noticably better and would love to purchase more of them.

On e-bay there are a number of artists available in HDCD from Hong Kong, do you know if they really are HDCD, have you listened to any?

[Florian]

I am a Vinyl and CD Fan. To me, the way the old music was recorded is a lot more realistic in their texture, bloom and color then the modern CD recordings. It takes a lot more then the standard commercial equipment to judge both formats, in my book.

[Feanor]

I am a Vinyl and CD Fan. To me, the way the old music was recorded is a lot more realistic in their texture, bloom and color then the modern CD recordings. It takes a lot more then the standard commercial equipment to judge both formats, in my book.

"The old music" means what? Recordings from the fifties, sixties? Some recordings from this era are good, some not. Some current recordings are good, some not. But IMO, its pure folklore that the old recordings, in general, are better than the new. Furthmore the best more recordings are outstanding and beat the best of the old recordings -- I'm talking not only SACDs but CDs too. (I am speaking of classical music.)

[musicoverall]

People who like vinyl tend to like tube equipment too. Why? My thesis is that they like a sugar-coated sound that, while pleasant, is less accurate. That's OK: they are entitled to that, but they shoudn't talk about "high fidelity" in the same breath.

I gave up using this term quite awhile ago because I discovered that I really didn't know what it meant. Is "high fidelity" using components that measure well but make the best recordings sound unlistenable? That's been my experience.

My belief is that unless we happen to be Sir Terrence (and who among us doesn't want to be? After years playing around with various gear, my only equipment envy is the console and therefore the guy behind it... besides, Sir T already knows the sh*t most of us are still trying to learn - but I digress...) how do we know what high fidelity to the source sounds like?

I've been fortunate enough to hear 3 master tapes in my lifetime. The playback equipment had ZERO tubes in it and sounded fantastic. The resultant CD sounded like garbage, with or without tubes. Ditto the fact that I've been in a live venue during a concert that was being recorded and after listening to the CD, I don't remember the screechy highs that would have driven me from the room (HF sensitivity is awful, folks!).

So I buy equipment that makes the recordings I listen to at home sound more like my memory/idea of live music. As a result, I've got more tubes in my system than transistors by a factor of 10. I also listen to vinyl and I tend to prefer it a little more than half the time. Whether that means CD's are getting better overall or that I'm just getting used to their distortions remains a question. The notion that CD's are garbage is garbage itself. Some of them sound wonderful to me.

At any rate, high fidelity exists in my vocabulary only as a nebulous concept. The SACD's I own sound like they may be high fidelity. Sir T might know but I don't. Nor do I care. When high fidelity means superior sound, I'm in. As of now, it's a crapshoot. Quite frankly, if I loved equipment more than music, I'd own fewer than half the CD's I now own.

On a positive note, I've heard some jaw-dropping things from multichannel audio. Also some terrifyingly bad things. But if it can be done well, it can be done well - and should be. This is an area I plan on exploring more in the future.