Half the information on CDs is analogue

Shadorne & El: I know that not ALL "redbook" cd's and / or cd playback systems suck. I have heard very enjoyable redbook based systems and would like to think that i own a couple of them. Having said that, i think that the mass majority of redbook based recordings and playback equipment are FAR below the standards set by "lowly" vintage analogue gear.

For all of the technology that we have invested in digital recording and playback equipment, it sure seems that progress ( if you want to call it that ) is quite limited in both amplitude and scope. That is, one truly has to work hard to seek out and find quality digital recordings and gear that make one WANT to listen to music and be able to do so for extended periods of time without getting "listener fatigue". When is the last time that you heard someone say that about vinyl ???

On the other hand, vinyl may be a pain in the ass and FAR less convenient, but even "reasonable" analogue based front ends can sound SOOO much more musical, it's not funny. I say this for several reasons and it is not just based on the aforementioned story regarding dubbing analogue to digital, etc....

My girlfriend has a CD that she likes to listen to. I have the same recording on LP. Just for fun, i compared the two using my HT system as the reference. Listening to the digital version and then swapping over to the analogue version literally made me laugh out loud. Not only were the sonic differences staggering, but they were so much in favour of the LP that it wasn't funny. Bare in mind that this was with me using a Direct Drive TT with a servo controlled linear tracking tonearm & a cartridge that i had picked up used off of Ebay for under $100 total. This was fed into the ( non-adjustable ) phono stage of my Pre / Pro using the permanently attached "low grade" interconnects that come out of the TT. In other words, this was FAR from "state of the art" vinyl gear / phono stage equipment.

In comparison, the two different digital front ends that i tried this with are both reasonably well respected "universal" players. One could be purchased for appr $100 and the other sold for just under $1000 when they were new. Granted, neither of these are "state of the art", but the sure in the hell "should be" FAR more advanced and "better sounding" than the archaic equipment and technology that went into the analogue playback gear. After all, digital supposedly has no "wow & flutter", "rumble", "anti-skating", "VTA", etc.... to deal with or mess up.

Needless to say, i've always admired certain characteristics of analogue playback and wished that "digital" could come closer in those areas. After experiencing this, it really made me re-assess "redbook" and the so-called "digital technology" behind it. Quite honestly, it really is a joke for the most part. That is, until you get into the highly specialized and "esoteric" gear that even most audiophiles never stumble accross.

Too bad SACD and DVD-A were pretty much "still-born". Even then, we would still be stuck with the "half deaf" moron's recording and mastering most of this stuff, so how much have we REALLY gained ??? No matter what format one prefers, we are still stuck with the limitations of the recording industry "professionals" mucking things up. Sean
>

Too bad SACD and DVD-A were pretty much "still-born". Even then, we would still be stuck with the "half deaf" moron's recording and mastering most of this stuff, so how much have we REALLY gained ??? No matter what format one prefers, we are still stuck with the limitations of the recording industry "professionals" mucking things up.

you really don't think highly of any recording industry "professionals" very much, do you? one thing to keep in mind is that the word "professional" implies that they are paid. The amount that they are paid corresponds to how many albums they can sell. the majority of records out there are not mixed/mastered and marketed towards audiofiles, but rather, they are made to sound decent on a small boombox or in your car. they are not made to sound fantastic on a high-end system and end up sounding like crap on anything else.

if all the "professional" audio engineers and professionally made recordings bother you so much, why don't you go and record for yourself. you'd be amazed at the quality you can achieve with a nice stereo pair of mics, a quality pre-amp, an A/D converter, and record at 24/96. no processing, n ocompression, just straight to disc recordings. and then burn your own DVD-A's. that's mostly what I listen to and I've never been happier

Jason: That's a great idea, but i don't really see too many high visibility performers that would be open to the idea of "strangers" recording their live events. While some artists / groups do allow such things, trying to do so at most events will either get you arrested and / or your gear confiscated.

Other than that, better recordings sound good most anywhere, even on bandwidth & dynamic limited systems. Unfortunately, the recording industry doesn't seem to understand this though and tries to keep throwing "bigger" recordings at us. On top of that, the "high end" audio industry really doesn't have any type of unified voice to speak up with, as we as "audiophiles" can't even agree on what "good" reproduction really is.

When "audiophiles" are buying and recommending speakers that show a frequency response tolerance of +8 /-7 dB's and using amplifiers that have in excess of several percent THD at normal listening levels, i have to wonder if even they desire "purity of reproduction" at all. Talk about sending a "mixed message". How is the average person supposed to know what "sounds good" or "sounds right" when those supposedly devoted to "high fidelity audio reproduction" don't even know what it is??? Sean
>

> How is the average person supposed to know what "sounds
> good" or "sounds right" when those supposedly devoted to
> "high fidelity audio reproduction" don't even know what it is?

Such touching devotion to the common man! ;-)

The real question is why should audio be free of disagreements about the truth of their chosen field when the rest of the world cannot reach agreement on their passions?

I know people who people who don't think some popular comedians are funny. I know people who think the highest rated (and most expensive) restaurant in my city is "so-so." I know others who look at =very= expensive art and state "my kid could do better than that!"

Ultimately music is an emotional experience. The particular brand of speakers you are enamoured with are tops on your list because they do a good job of delivering the audio cues =you= need for your best listening experience. For me and others, they may fall short since we are looking for other triggers.

Similarly, we can be more forgiving of some of a medium's or device's shortcomings than others. The background quiet of digital material is very attractive to some while others don't care that vinyl has an inherently higher noise floor.

Or highs. Not a lot of people are aware that LP records actually lose high frequency response as they wear during play. The RIAA considers it an acceptable standard for the high frequencies on a record to drop to 18 KHz after three plays, 13 KHz after 25 plays and as low as 8 KHz after 80 plays. (However, it should be noted that a properly configured turntable of good quality is not this rough on records but some loss is still occurring due to the physical contact of the stylus with the groove walls.)

That would never be an acceptable standard for digital recordings but is a fact of life in the vinyl world.

The big problem with many music recordings these days is that it is ultimately a business driven by money. The majority of people who buy music are not audiophiles. Record companies want their tracks to stand out on radio play lists and other environments where close listening is not at the forefront. In those cases, dynamic range and a natural sound can kill a song. This is the same as the fast food and restaurant industry pursuing cost efficiencies that are at odds with fine cuisine.

That said, there is still a lot of fine music out there that can be enjoyed in spite of whatever shortcomings we encounter.

These types of threads always get me a little riled up because of the amount of misinformation and pure bulls**t that people spew. So that you know where I'm coming from, I'm a full-time recording engineer who uses top-flight digital and analog gear on a daily basis.

To begin with, the difference between a 16-bit, 44.1kHz recording and a 24-bit, 96kHz recording is pretty subtle. Multi-track recording to 24-bit is extremely important because it results in a significantly easier mixing and mastering process and a drastically reduced noise floor, but the difference between a 24-bit stereo file and a 16-bit stereo file is very slight. The S/N ratio of most recording and reproduction gear (including most DACs and especially microphones) barely exceeds that of a redbook CD anyhow, and I challenge anyone to find any recording with more than 96dB of dynamic range (which would be a recording who's loudest passages have an amplitude 2,000,000,000 times greater than the softest). As for higher sample rates, the audible advantage to getting the sample rate above 44.1K is getting the filter (a low-pass filter is involved with all A/D conversion) out of the audible frequency range. Most converters (especially in the pro world) oversample and get the filter out of the audible range anyhow.

The main differences that you are hearing in your SACDs and DVD-As is in the mixing and mastering. Most redbook CDs are compressed to hell (just import a track from a CD into any audio editing program and look at the waveform), meaning limited (read no) dynamic range, not compressed as in MP3s, especially compared to the old analog releases. This is because people expect to put a CD in their car or stereo and have it be as loud as the rest of their CDs. It's also an attempt at having the loudest track on the radio. Most SACDs and DVD-As are mixed and/or mastered with audiophiles in mind, meaning enhanced dynamic range, and a more natural presentation.

As for the poster who said that extreme equalization was needed to make digital recordings sound natural, you actually have it backwards. RIAA equalization was already mentioned as it pertains to LPs, but you might be interested to know that significant equalization is also applied to multitrack analog tape to even out the frequency response. Digital requires no such EQ, and is usually as perfect and natural a representation of the original event as is possible.

Even most engineers that prefer analog tape as a recording medium will admit that the aspects that they like about tape are tape saturation (resulting in natural compression as the tape is driven with a hot signal) and harmonic distortion, two things which make the recording LESS natural.

In short, there's really nothing wrong with redbook as a medium. SACD offers some improvement through DSD, and DVD-A offers slight improvements through higher bit-depths and sample rates (although they are very subtle), but incredible sound is possible via redbook. The problem with most bad sounding recordings is in the mastering (due to *gasp* PUBLIC DEMAND), and somewhat in mixing. Part of what many of you consider the problem to be with most commercial recordings is that realistic and natural reproduction of an acoustic event is NOT the typical goal.

These are just the opinions of someone that works with analog and digital audio of all types all day, every day, and who produces CDs for a living.