The CD Theory

[originalbigm]

Here is a thought provoking article on The CD Theory that I found interesting.

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl34.html

[QUINNY]

And you believe every word he says! :roll:

How could CD be a step backwards? Please explain in a logical way to this 52 year old who's owned and played 78's, 45's, 33's and CD.

It's true, the music Biz did start to die in the 1980's. That's when (more) affordable recording equipment started to rear its ugly head. That's when indie record labels sprung up like mushrooms and the way records were made available began to change. In many ways I've been part of that revolution (bringing the ability to record and issue material to semi pros and lesser known pros at knock down prices) and I'm not too sure that I'm happy about it. Less is more, eh?

[originalbigm]

First off all I don't believe every word he says like I don't believe every word you say.I simply provide the information for people to glean what they may from it.I certainly believe that record companies have an interest in maximizing their profits and never let it be said that record companies are genuinely interested providing quality over quantity.Remember boy bands.Even when vinyl was king they took shortcuts to minimize costs and it was reflected in the quality of recordings then so what makes it so different now.Look at the artists we have nowadays they come and go like the wind.Why do we still flock to the artists of old when they come up with new material,Because they are on CD or maybe because we hope they can capture the magic of old in their music?There was a time when people bought music because of it's sound not because it had a great video associated with it.I'd really like to hear Al Green's new release on vinyl as well as CD and see which one I'd prefer.
I believe that CD's are a matter of convenience and time savers. I don't believe that CD sound quality is all it's cracked up to be. The record companies saw huge profits from it's development and to promote anything else is contrary to their bottomline.Consequently the advent of MP3's, whose sound quality has been compared to the old 8 track format were a threat to that bottom line in that it perpetuated the downloading of music on the internet.The record companies had to stop this so now we have internet sites selling us inferior quality sound in MP3 formats.Again I'm not criticizing anyone who goes this route as it just proves that nobody gives a hoot about sound quality as long as it sounds OK!Again conveniance.Download MP3's ,create a custom playlist and play it on my MP3 player or burn it on a cd so I can listen to it in the acoustically perfect environment of my car.
That's why I believe that even the better and superior quality of SACD and DVD-A formats are having difficulty establishing themselves. Are these formats attempts to create a more life like sound that they can then promote at greater cost.MP3 and Minidiscs are cheaper but sound OK.

So I can see where the authors argument of CD's being a step backward comes from.They haven't caused the masses to demand better audio only more conveniant and OK sounding audio.IMHO

I've learned long ago that when it comes to sound quality there are pros and cons to every format and the question is which one works best for you.Personally I choose to listen to vinyl as much as possible on a half decent analogue setup when I have the time to appreciate all the nuances and and flaws.It has always sounded sincere,alive and reassuring.I guess you can say I'm not one who embraces technology blindly or without question.

[QUINNY]

Originalbigm:Sorry, but my ears and my brain tell me vinyl is inferior on most (if not all) counts.
CD has done way more than anyone could ever imagine to up the overall appreciation of sound. It brought a damned good sound to the masses, where before it was only the hi fi anoraks and super rich who were lucky enough/enlightened. I reckon most vinyl guys are just pissed 'cos any old Tom, Dick or Harriet gets as good a sound from their cheapo CD set up as they took years and thousands of bucks to realise with their vinyl set up. That's what this whole debate is really about, or maybe it's just good old elitism?
The same sort of debate has raged in the pro audio world for years now. Valve this, valve that, retro this, retro that. Yes, some of this gear can sound very sweet, but does that really justify its 10X - 20X dearer price tag? Maybe it does for some people, especially the elitist types, but I personally don't buy wholeheartedley into that bull. It sounds different, that's all.
If anyone subjectively buys into it, fair enough, but please give us mere easily pleased/less intense humans a break, 'cos subjectively we like our CDs and our digital sound!! Do we write endless amounts of crap trying to convince the analogue heads of this world? Not really.

[Mixmachine]

.I'd really like to hear Al Green's new release on vinyl as well as CD and see which one I'd prefer.

----there is Nothing like the fresh smell of vinyl in the morning........
----it smells like.......
----Excellence
:lol:


http://store.acousticsounds.com/stor...3163&do=detail

[originalbigm]

CD has done way more than anyone could ever imagine to up the overall appreciation of sound.

If you mean it simply eliminated the background hiss and clicks and pops agreed.But I'd argue that the masses in fact found something lacking in the overall sound of the music excluding the noise.Again the sound was OK and convenient to them.The younger generation had no other format to equate to since they were raised in the digital age and MTV and hell we all know how good the sound is on TV.Why do these same people get so turned on to the sound of vinyl when they do hear it on a half decent setup,on a relatively clean record?

where before it was only the hi fi anoraks and super rich who were lucky enough/enlightened.

Are you serious?

I reckon most vinyl guys are just pissed 'cos any old Tom, Dick or Harriet gets as good a sound from their cheapo CD set up as they took years and thousands of bucks to realise with their vinyl set up. That's what this whole debate is really about, or maybe it's just good old elitism?
The same sort of debate has raged in the pro audio world for years now. Valve this, valve that, retro this, retro that. Yes, some of this gear can sound very sweet, but does that really justify its 10X - 20X dearer price tag?

Well I guess that in the 70's the entire population were elitist since we all had analogue systems.Funny I don't recall
any of my friends having multi thousand dollar systems but good systems none the less.I guess the fact that the old law of supply and demand has fallen out of the equation today because as I recall it costs way more to produce 100 than 10000 units.So the simple law of economics dictates the cost of stereo components is proportional to the number of manufacturers and the amount of units they supply.Also knowing that the market place is dominated by CD and related equipment obviously there is not a market for identical analogue equipment at that price range.Which I would agree at that level would not do it justice.However your contention that only pricey high end equipment can produce sound quality equivalent or better than CD is wrong.Quoting from an article that I came across

" If you're going to do vinyl, there are no short cuts. You can create the illusion with a modest $2000. table/arm/cartridge/phonostage if you,re prudent and careful in choosing the components. That's the same price as a good DAC, and for the difference in sound I think the rewards are obvious."

If anyone subjectively buys into it, fair enough, but please give us mere easily pleased/less intense humans a break, 'cos subjectively we like our CDs and our digital sound!! Do we write endless amounts of crap trying to convince the analogue heads of this world?

I don't believe I have ever admonished anyone about their listening habits or formats of choice. What could be more elitist than one who because of technical know how wishes to constantly admonish people with contrary points of view:-? Again the purpose of information is for learning and understanding and as I've said before that there are arguments on both side by people with far superior knowledge on this subject than me and possibly you.I read all articles concerning this and draw my own conclusions subjectively.The argument for analogue has been pretty convincing in a rather clear and concise way.We will agree to disagree on some points.I do believe these forums are for promoting views from all sides.By the way I do own a Cd player and a DVD player and have a CD player in my car and my wife has a portable CD player that she loves and my son has a MINI disc recorder and downloads MP3's and I do have a CD burner.So I guess that makes me a hypocritical elitist To each his own

And for those interested in another fine essay on analogue vs digital discussion
http://www.decware.com/paper20.htm

Also this website expounds on my premise of the convenience aspect of digital formats and according to this author MP3 will become the dominate format for the masses.

http://www.digitalsongstream.com/book/introduction.htm



:D " Neil Young compared Cd's to taking a shower with ice" cubes :lol:

[QUINNY]

Originalbigm: You've taken my comments far too personally.
Let's just end by my saying that I'll never understand why anyone could prefer vinyl to CD and you obviously feel differently.
BTW: $2,000 for tone arm, deck and cartridge is big bucks in my book! Try an average $250 and tell me CD doesn't sound better.

[originalbigm]

Your question was

And you believe every word he says!

So you made it personal

Your statement was

Originalbigm:Sorry, but my ears and my brain tell me vinyl is inferior on most (if not all) counts.

If we're talking subjective then present me the arguments that would convince me your statement is irrefutable.And let's not get into the noise thing because I have conceded that CD's are better from that aspect.As a matter of fact there are those who posture that this noise contributes to the overall dynamics of analogue sound.

I quote from an other article written in the July 2001 issue of Home Theatre magazine by Chris Lewis who summed it all up like this.
"It's ironic that, on the surface, the compass of progress points squarely into the past: The best we can hope for from our digital systems is to emulate the best of our analog systems. When you remember, though, that analog is a physical/electrical representation of the original experience and that digital is a processed representation of analog, it starts to make more sense. No one ever said (or should have ever said) that analog didn't sound good; it's just that it has many aspects that, for lack of a better phrase, are a pain in the ass. If SACD and the other high-resolution formats can successfully combine the ease and flexibility of digital with the sound of analog?while at the same time capturing the hearts of the masses and not getting bogged down by their own peripherals?then the future of audio really is upon us. CD, MP3, and the rest of the usual suspects may be alive and kicking for now, but their graves have been dug. What actually gets put in those graves is up to you."

If your preference is CD So be it .Enjoy it!I'll continue to appreciate the fine sound of vinyl even with it's shortcomings :)

[QUINNY]

Originalbigm: It's funny, but all you drag up are more articles with NO real information. Just that the writer LIKES the sound of vinyl. That is a subjective assessment, nothing else.
These same guys may have strange hearing or they may have perfect hearing, but by ALL measureable parameters, CD beats vinly hands down. So go figure why I and countless billions prefer CD. It couldn't actually be that it does sound better, could it?

Yes, vinyl does contribute to the sound. It contributes noise, pops and crackles, distortion, wow, flutter, feedback (if you're not careful), wear and tear (so that, in absolute terms, the record will never sound as good on successive plays) and is nowhere near as linear in response. Oh, and by the way, records have to have their actual frequency respose limited (sometimes severely in certain frequency bands), otherwise they couldn't be cut. Need anything else? :lol:

[efunk_adelic]

Alright guys.... I sure that both of you own this on record and CD... take a listen to Barry White's - Can't Get Enough Of Your Love, Babe on vinyl vs. CD. Tell me which one sounds better... note: nevermind the snaps, crackles & pops... because I wanted to make a point here.

I'll be back later, a few hours...

[originalbigm]

Simply show me articles to the contrary.Do you expect me to accept what you purport as gospel.I want other points of view or information that I can learn from and form opinions with.Isn't that one of the benefits of the web. I've had difficulty finding any articles that extol the superiority of CD as a continuing format most are saying that we need a better format because that one ain't cutting it any longer.Pray tell why if it's so flawless and great.So what's the argument gonna be when the record companies and manufacturers decide that CD is obsolete and that you now need this better technology at a higher price of course.CD's were to be the be all and end all of sound technology as I recall from it's inception.I'm afraid we.ve been sold a bill of goods.The real beneficaries of this technology were the record companies sure they gave us ease of use and convenience as the crumbs off the plate while they systematically gouged us.

[efunk_adelic]

Quinny & bigm, disregard my last post... I just realized I told you guys what to do... :oops:

I'll find a better way to get my point across...

[QUINNY]

Originalbigm: Your last post more or less vindicates what I've been saying.
All the rhetoric comes from vinyl freaks who have a REAL downer on CD. They are few in number but vociferous and bitter in their condemnations. I reiterate: Their tirades are purely subjective with no real scientific back up. They like the sound of vinyl. O.K I can live with that, but don't try and justify it by dissing CD, DVD, SACD etc with no proper back up. It may well be that their ears are slightly different to the majority of people. They may well 'hear' things differently. They may well have a more accute perception of mid-range frequencies for example. This could either be a fault with their hearing or may signify the rest of us have a problem. However, none of that is a justification to diss CD and the 'plebs' that like it. They prefer the sound of vinyl, that's all.

Sound quality may still be a 'black art' (for me the jury's still out), but so far as I'm concerned, everything I know and listen to still tells me that CD is better and there is the scientific data to back it up. Just look at the spec sheet of your CD player and compare it with that of your record deck set up. Forget the cartridge frequency response specs. If there's no real information above 20 KHz (which there isn't, 'cos any harmonics are likely to be lost in the noise), even a cartridge that goes to 100KHz is NOT going to extract what isn't there. The real clincher for me is the noise of vinyl compared to CD. When I listen to anything in real life, it's not accompanied by rumble, hiss, crackles, wow and flutter. By all scientifically measureable parameters, CD does a much better job of getting rid of these major artifacts and leaving the sound to be enjoyed for what it is. In 2004 this is fact, not fiction. That doesn't mean that something far superior won't come along.
I rest my case.

So far as record companies (and artists BTW) ripping off the public by issuing CD. Hmmm, there is an element of truth in it, if you believe in conspiracy theories. The truth of the matter is that there was a new format which did offer a significant improvement in sound quality over vinyl, so far as the vast majority of consumers were concerned. It was then those consumers' choice as to whether or not they bought into it. The decline in vinyl was mostly down to consumers exercising their preference for CD. Just like microgroove replaced 78's (which by the way, were cut straight from session to disc - superior to latter techniques?). This was great for the music business as a whole (not just the record companies), because there are not many businesses that can re-invent themselves every 20 odd years. The point is that music is timeless. Music carriers are not. We'll always buy our favourites on new formats that offer superior sound quality. As an overall view, that's what CD did!
So far as I'm concerned, its a shame that Minidisc wasn't invented before CD. It would have been a far superior consumer format, especially in the recordable market. How many CD-R frisbees do you have? Many I guess and so do I, but I don't have any Minidisc ones and the sound quality now is very good. Not for audiophiles maybe, but for Joe Public it is hunky dory.

[Sami M]

Totally with Quinny on this, vinyl is not capabable of delivering the information the cd is. Furthermore, the installation of turntable and the wearing and dusting of dear vinyl and stylus are a real tease.

But about the md, yes it's sad that its being seems to have become to an end. It's very easy and fast to use. And for the sound quality of the md, I'd say that if it requires hard concentration to pick up differencies compared to cd. I have had two md players, the 1st is from 1997 and the other from 1999. Very hard to tell which one is playing cd or its digital copy on md when compared in real time.

Nevertheless, it seems that the old c-cassette will outlive md. The amount of md-players, even in Sony's range have come down rapidly.

[Forrrce]

The reasons why I like (and at times prefer) CD are pretty much the same as Quinny's. If CD were so inferior to vinyl, there would be no audiophile CD market at all. Minidsic reached its giddy heights with Sony's JA-555 ES (this machine took MD to the limit) and has stood still. DAT didn't really take off in the home market because both hardware and software were expensive.

I've yet to hear an argument which convinces me that CD is inferior as a format. As long as the source material is from the good masters (or, if not, at least Cedared and processed by an engineer with ears) and mastered with due attention, I'm there. Any overbaked, supertweaked recording I do at my leisure can be reproduced on a CD, with nothing noticeable missing. Better than cassette. Better than minidisc.

A clueless colleague who is now campaigning under the 'vinyl is warmer' banner told me of the engineer who cuts his acetates not liking the 'flat' sound of last year's Jurassic 5 LP - so he duly laquered it, played the laquer to DAT and then cut the production masters from this 3rd generation copy. Why? "Better bass response". How irresponsibe - ego-tripping, garbage-talking idiot. Why not just add a little more bass at the cut if he thought it was necessary? Now anyone who buys this LP is unwittingly paying for a vastly inferior product - though it's a hip hop LP, so I don't think anyone would necessarily notice. Brainwashed follower, or what? :roll:

One of the reasons why I stopped buying 4 hi-fi mags a month was that there were too few Ken Kesslers - common-sensers who just got on with it. Seeing serious, hi-fi reviews of sample-based LPs which were created using everything these 'buffs' rail against - Technics (a complete joke to these statesmen - like it's that bad! It's no reference deck but it's great for what it is) - mixers (horror) - Stantons (disgust) - samplers...and crusty, scratched old records that these reviewers would doubtless poo-poo in a review! Sometimes, the hi-fi fraternity just can't see beyond its own anus.

Anyone who says they love the crackles and pops on records is just as guilty of listening at the music, as opposed to it, which is a criticism often levelled at those who take music reproduction seriously. They're nostalgic for what makes them comfortable, but noise annoys and I want less of it and more music. I don't listen to music with 'graphs and 'scopes, I listen to it with my ears. Digital is not inferior. Gimme CD!

[Sami M]

Amen! :D

I sometimes read hi-fi reviews and so, but got bored of them really quickly. Only reason I do read them is to find out what new is up and where the technology is going a.s.o. But , like Forrrce wrote, the reviews of cd-players and other equopment worth 10.000 € and more and the their differences in sound when compared to each other. Mon Dieu, just chit chat, maybe a hobby went bit too far...?

My own hi-fi interest is to get pure and dynamic sound, and I think it can be reached when picking up the little better built and designed stuff than the cheapest plastic ones. I'm a hifist at about a same level as I would take Technics sl-1200 and not Omnitronic or something like it.

What comes to djing today, I think it's absolute nonsense that they do not use the cd-format. There are no real reasons why to stick to vinyl. With today's cd-players you can do much more inetresting mixing on the fly than with a vinyl, turntabalism is a different thing.

I'd say holding on to vinyl is holding on to past or to try to posses something unique and rare. :-?

In most cases however I like the older stuff on vinyl on which is what originally produced. But thats for nostalgic reasons. I only hope that the were more good remasterings available on cd and that some mind would be put in the coverart aswell when the republish the old stuff.

I don't really know what to think of the SACD or DVD thing? To be honest, I don't need either for audio, cd is enough for me.

Oh, yeah, and them hifist say, that the copy controlled cds are not cds at all...

[QUINNY]

I wonder if Hi-MD will reveive the format's fortune.


LAS VEGAS (CES Booth #N109), Jan. 7, 2004 -Taking the MiniDisc™ a big step forward, Sony today announced its new Hi-MD™ Walkman® digital music players.


With Hi-MD technology, users can record up to 45 hours of music at up to 100 times transfer speed on one disc, while still enjoying the extensive battery life, compact design and robustness for which MD players are recognized. Removable, re-recordable Hi-MD media provides music lovers with unlimited storage capacity to build an infinite library of their favorite songs.


"Net MD Walkman recorders have been the top-selling digital music players for the past 18 months and with Hi-MD players, we're giving music lovers more choices," said Todd Schrader, vice president of marketing for Sony Electronics' portable audio products. "Nothing's been left out. We've created the best overall portable music solution that addresses digital music fans' needs for high capacity storage and long battery life in a small and extremely durable device."


Hi-MD Walkman recorders incorporate the ATRAC3plus™ codec. The ATRAC3plus format is a high-quality audio compression technology that Sony developed to effectively reduce the size of audio files while preserving more of the sound quality.


With ATRAC3plus compression, more audio files can be burned to Hi-MD media or for that matter, to a standard MiniDisc. Music can be compressed to 132, 105, 66, 64 or 48 kbps (kilobits per second), so you can store more music or record at higher fidelity. By compressing at 48 kbps, users can enjoy 45 hours of music on one Hi-MD disc or 13 hours of music on one standard, 80-minute MiniDisc.


Record, Manage and Play Back Your Music


Hi-MD recorders connect to the PC via a USB cable for high-speed music transfers. They are compatible with the new Connect™ online music service. They also come bundled with SonicStage® version 2.0 software and the Simple Burner application, which makes it easy to import, manage and transfer music collections. With SonicStage software, playlists or track information created in the jukebox are automatically transferred to the Hi-MD recorder. Additionally, SonicStage 2.0 jukebox supports many Internet audio formats, including MP3, WMA, WAV files.


Hi-MD recorders make it convenient to locate favorite tracks and customize listening options. The devices feature Sony's Jog Dial™ navigation system, offering a single-hand way to scroll through playlists and songs. Albums, artists and song titles can be viewed on the Hi-MD player's three-line liquid crystal (LCD) display. Hi-MD recorders also include flexible editing tools so you can change the order of tracks or delete unwanted songs right on the device and without having to re-visit the PC.


Advanced Features, Added Functionality


The new Hi-MD players are packed with extra features that add convenience and utility to the digital music experience. For example, with the new upload function musicians or note-taking students can use the mic-in feature on several of the models to make a self-recording on the device and transfer the content back to the PC. When connected to the PC, Hi-MD recorders act as an external drive enabling users to store and transfer such data files as presentations, digital images and spreadsheets on the discs. Since the USB will feed power to the unit when connected to a PC, there is no need to worry about draining battery life when transferring to the Hi-MD device.


And speaking of battery life, Hi-MD Walkman players let music fans make the most of all that capacity by providing up to 30 hours of continuous playback using just one "AA" battery (MZ-NH600D and MZ-NHF800).


The Hi-MD digital music players are backwards compatible, so they will play back and record music on standard MiniDisc media. All of the players come supplied with a Hi-MD disc and will be available in April.


Top of the Line MZ-NH1 Model


Graceful and chic best describes the MZ-NH1 model. With its full magnesium body and ultra-compact shape, this new recorder sets a new standard in digital music design. The recorder has all of the Hi-MD convenience features, including the mic-in function, and comes with a three-line backlit LCD remote. The elegant USB cradle makes for an easy PC connection and convenient charging of the supplied rechargeable battery. The MZ-NH1 model will be available for about $400.


Entry Level MZ-NH600D Model


For about $200, the MZ-NH600D model is an ideal solution for digital music fans looking for a high-capacity portable player that won't break the bank. With enough battery life to support hours and hours of music, and the rugged endurance to survive a marathon, this Hi-MD recorder is ready to go anywhere.


MZ-NHF800 Model


Stepping up in the line, the MZ-NHF800 model has an AM/FM/TV/Weather Band tuner remote, making favorite radio and TV programs and on-the-fly editing just a click away. This player also has a line-in and mic-in to enable easy recording from multiple sources and is expected to sell for about $250.


MZ-NH900 Model


The MZ-NH900 model has an LCD tuner remote that makes managing music on the fly a breeze. It is supplied with a charging stand and rechargeable battery. The MZ-NH900 Hi-MD recorder will be available for about $300.


Hi-MD Media


Like standard MiniDiscs, Hi-MD discs are small, durable and re-recordable up to a million times without degradation in audio quality. Each 1GB disc can hold up to 45 hours of music compressed at 48 kilobits per second (kbps). In addition, Hi-MD media can store PC files, including Microsoft® Word® documents, PowerPoint® presentations and JPEG images. Hi-MD discs are expected to cost about $7 each when they become available in April.

[QUINNY]

Just an afterthought about something touched on by Forrrce.
When comparing CD with vinyl versions of records made 25 or 30 years ago.

1). Don't forget that the original record was cut from a brand new master tape. It's a little known fact among the general public that many things can happen to master tapes over the course of 25 years.
a). The high end response and overall level of the recording will diminish over the course of time, due to the lowering of magnetic flux levels of the magnetic particles.
b). If line up tones weren't included at the head of the recording, then it will be 'free season' as to what Eq the mastering engineer will apply.
c). Masters may deteriorate physically with the magnetic layer breaking up, layers sticking to each other because binder leaks (this leads to a time in a low heat oven) and other defects being manifest. It's no fun if you can't even transfer one tune without the playback heads getting clogged up with ferric oxide particles. I've been there and got the T shirt.
d). Print through (where the signal is transferred to adjacent layers causing pre and post echo effects) will be noticeably worse than when the master was new.
e). Both speed and azimuth variations will be noted between the original recorder and current day one. However, this would have also been true BITD, so maybe this has little overall effect when comparing.

2). All the above will greatly enhance the need for tweaks at the transfer and mastering stages. This would suggest that almost all reissues are going to sound 'messed around with', because there will be a need to 'undo' analogue errors, which may be both serious and manifold.

Therefore, I would suggest that it may be unfair to make direct comparisons between original vinyl and a CD re-issue, especially if the track hasn't been heard on CD before.The chances of the CD copy sounding different are more than likely and to be expected.

[QUINNY]

in error

[Sami M]

Surely the aging of the master tapes is one reason why old vinyl may sound better. But in discussion vinyl vs. cd I think one should make comparisons only if both are made from the same master at the same time and not decades after :roll:

This master tape ageing thing is very interesting to me. I mean, to let material detoriarate like that, so that enormous efforts are required to get the masters to the shape that they can be used again. Do they just think that, ok we had our money from this, and then just put the tapes in the storage.

Oh, I totally forgot th net md...

[Forrrce]

Luckily, I don't know of too many re-issues that have suffered badly due to tape deterioration. The odd minor drop-out or crumple is a small price to pay. I have been involved in projects myself where a tape's had to be baked and it's an all-or-nothing precision task. You get one chance to transfer after a bake (so I'm told - this true, Quinny?) so history is literally in some poor engineer's hands.

Whatever, though, we're always going to be at an engineer's mercy - the end product is essentially moulded by them.

One of my jazz buddies, who's a couple of years older than Q and a bit of a champaigne socialist, has a mid-to-highish range hi-fi set-up with separate power supplies and expensive cables, archaic valves, Conrad Johnson pre., speakers from the BBC (wartime-that's old) and he recently changed his trusty Garrard for an SME deck. He will not go near CD and is rather set in his ways. He just won't admit that CD can sound decent - ('poor bass, unrealistic'), yada-yada . But here is a man who will not allow himself to tailor sound to his own tastes - he's anti tone control. On many occasions I've had to listen to him complain about the lack of bass here, too bright there...
Considering the amount of tweaking that music has to go through before it reaches you, surely a tone stage on your amp. isn't going to make that much of a difference...unless you want it to.

That's the same head-in-the-sand mentality that can afflict the anti-CD lobby.

[BrunoRepublic]

I wonder if Hi-MD will reveive the format's fortune.

Let's hope so. I had just about given up on MD with all the hard disk-based MP3 players coming out until this announcement. Sony has finally done the things that they should've done all along, namely:

- Greater capacity
- Allowed non-real time file uploading
- Allow uncompressed audio (so pros can actually use it now)
- Allow PC file storage

Sony had long held out on uploading and file storage; terrified that mass piracy would result if they did. Well, it happened anyway, and had nothing to do with MD, so...

[QUINNY]

Forrrce: I'm not aware of the once only application for baked tapes, but one thing's for sure. After that treatment I would imagine that treating it as if it were a once only deal would be wise.

Purists will always believe in the straightest, least component path. In theory (and in practice) this will result in a better quality of reproduction. In all honesty, I would like to have 16 tracks of that kind of front end to get my high end mics into the multitrack recorder, but I could never afford it. $5,500 ( X 8 ) for each pair of mics and a direct path stereo pre-amp is too rich for little ol' moi, although my Soundfield Mk V did cost me more than that. Just to show you what a contemptable old cus I am, I paid all that money and I don't like the sound of it at all. It's just like the vinyl vs. CD thing. The Soundfield just sounds too synthetic and too sterile to me, but most classic performers still cream their pants over it. I just keep quiet and nod at the right time.

Graham: I understood that Hi-MD still uses ATRAC. The mention of compression ratios is more to do with down streaming quality you wish to utilise in effect, isn't it?

[originalbigm]

Originalbigm: Your last post more or less vindicates what I've been saying.
All the rhetoric comes from vinyl freaks who have a REAL downer on CD. They are few in number but vociferous and bitter in their condemnations. I reiterate: Their tirades are purely subjective with no real scientific back up. They like the sound of vinyl. O.K I can live with that, but don't try and justify it by dissing CD, DVD, SACD etc with no proper back up. It may well be that their ears are slightly different to the majority of people. They may well 'hear' things differently. They may well have a more accute perception of mid-range frequencies for example. This could either be a fault with their hearing or may signify the rest of us have a problem. However, none of that is a justification to diss CD and the 'plebs' that like it. They prefer the sound of vinyl, that's all.

Quinny:I don't recall me saying anything negative about SACD or DVDA in fact I recall putting forth positive articles about it.I do however have problems with the contention that CD quality is all it's cracked up to be.I haven't dissed anybody that prefers to listen to CD but I simply question the assertion that it's such a superior format to vinyl simply because it's noise free and a more convenient format.I welcome technology if it truly delivers what it promises.

I'm truly amazed as to how often people dismiss others with views or reviews contrary to their way of thinking as if these people have no legitmacy in what they say that somehow they are not credible enough to offer an opinion about sound formats.Everyone is entitled to their opinion but again in any debate it's usually prudent to offer legitamcy to your views with reports or essays supporting those points of view and not simply dismissing or attacking them.
Can someone address the statements and articles from people who I have no reason to doubt are credible that CD quality is moving in the wrong direction and that these new formats are attempts to address this issue.
Why doesn't anyone address the fact that current CD sampling methods omit information from the analogue sound source so you are not getting a full representaion of the sound as it was originally recorded or how the dynamic range of the original recordings are compressed for the sake of trying to create a louder sounding disc which in turn doesn't allow the digital recording to show it's 90dB + dynamic range capability. If this is what is considered far better sound then by all means Enjoy!

Here are a few more articles written by peolpe who just happen to be taking up space on the web with nonsense.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2076336/#ContinueArticle
http://georgegraham.com/compress.html
http://www.proaudiorx.com/dynamicrange.htm
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...rmatTrends.php
http://www.bodyandsoul-nyc.com/inter...ges/25918.html
http://www.mala.bc.ca/incline/turntables.html



I've never claimed that CD was an inferior product to vinyl.I acknowledge that it has capabilities that vinyl hasn't however the record companies and manufacturers have simply hyped the product and given us a far inferior product to what it's potential is.The consensus is that CD quality has diminished since it's inception.Why?I've just stated that we've been fed a lot of crap as to it's sound superiority and quality .There are numerous articles supporting this statement by people who are not vinyl lovers but who are perturbed and frustrated by the lack of record companies and manufacturers taking advantage of it's full capabilities.

Quote
"And if the digital music revolution has taught the industry anything at all, it is that sound quality runs a distant second to convenience as a consumer piority."

Fact is CD sales are on the decline,vinyl sales are seeing a resurgence as well as turntables.And the millions of people who download from the internet and burn their own cd's simply confirms my contention it's quantity and convenience over quality.

Quote
"and there's another whole point, which I hereby add to all of the above as Point Number Four. Sound on most people's computers and hand-held sound kits is likewise only so-so. Yet it turns out that so-so sound is okay sound. Hence the Big Internet Music Steal that the music companies rage against. That too is a hi-fi-isn't-that-important thing.

Now MD technology is interesting and worth looking into.

http://mdf1.tripod.com/

[originalbigm]

Totally with Quinny on this, vinyl is not capabable of delivering the information the cd is.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm