The CD Theory

[BrunoRepublic]

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?

Yep, although the specs I read stated that it could indeed do 93 minutes of 16-44.1. If I remember correctly... Sony is pushing ATRAC3, which is (supposedly) better sound than MDLP2 and with a lower bit rate a la AAC/MP4.

[QUINNY]

Here are some interesting quotes I found on the web:

" A friend of mine is a mastering engineer, prepping stuff both for vinyl and CD. Now, *if* the studio has done its job right, he could in theory throw what they gave him straight onto CD, and you'd hear it pretty much as sounded back in the studio.

According to him (and he should know) you can't do that with vinyl: there are many things he gets from studios that if stuck straight on vinyl would cause the needle to jump straight out of the groove. Ergo, it has to be massaged to fit within the limits presented by the mechanical medium that vinyl is. This process may well lead to a sound that listeners prefer over the "raw" version, but ultimately isn't the sound that was arrived at in the studio."

This more or less tells it like it is. There are engineers who'll tell you that a CD never comes back sounding like the master they sent for replication and convince you that the differences are huge. Personally, I'm willing to accept that the process of making CDs isn't perfect and is open to some degradation of the master (Jeez, the sheer physics of CDs and the methods used to press them are mind blowing), but earth shatteringly different? My answer is "so what". The public has never had a copy that is a perfect mirror copy of the master tape. As long as it sounds good, what's the big deal? This is prima donnarism of the most ridiculous order. Nothing that humans make can ever be perfect.


" A friend was determined to see if a panel of highly-qualified judges could tell the difference between speaker cables. He took some 12 AWG zip cord and a number of other exotic speaker cables, you know, the ones which cost dozens or hundreds of dollars per foot.

He used a top-of-the-line amp, speakers and top-quality source material. All these choices were approved by his panel, as was the source material. He laid the cables out on the floor, in full view of the panel, and started by hooking up the 12 AWG zip cord. He had the panel listen for a few minutes to a number of selections, using 12 AWG zip as the "reference."

Then he had his assistants go behind each speaker, and behind the power amp, to change the cable. And, of course, when they got to the expensive cables, well, the soundstage, the detail, it was dramatic! They played the same selections through each of the cables. While some of the panel members preferred one cable over another, they all agreed that they left the 12 AWG in the dust.

My friend told me the names and qualifications of the panel members, some of whom had advanced degrees. Others had spent their lives working in the professional audio industry. These were the tops of their craft. At the end of the test, they thanked my friend for such an enlightening experience.

My friend said he didn’t have the heart (or guts) to tell them what really happened. Each time the assistants went behind the speakers and amplifier to change cables, they had done nothing. The entire time the panel was listening to the 12 AWG zip cord. "

What does this mean? It means that, like life, we hear what we want to hear. Our ears are interpretive. They are not something we can measure.

As they always say, "bullshit baffles brains"

Seriously though, I do feel that we can and do convince ourselves about such things. I do feel that the 'vinyl is warmer' stance is true, but that it's down to the medium's limitations and non linearity. Vinyl does indeed 'soften' the actual sound. Sit 3 feet or so away from a rock band (or even a jazz band at full tilt) and tell me the sound is warm. It's as harsh as hell!!

An interesting story. I once recorded an alto saxophonist at a live gig. To cut a long story short, when he heard the master he said "no, no, that's not my sound". To my ears it was just like his sound, then it struck me. He had always heard his own horn from behind the bell, never in front of it and certainly never 9 inches or less, in front of it. So was it his sound, or wasn't it. The parallel here is that CD, if you like, is the sound in front, vinyl is the sound from behind. Does that make any sense? It's down to subjective taste.

[QUINNY]

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?

Yep, although the specs I read stated that it could indeed do 93 minutes of 16-44.1. If I remember correctly... Sony is pushing ATRAC3, which is (supposedly) better sound than MDLP2 and with a lower bit rate a la AAC/MP4.

Graham: I've just had a good read at the www.minidisc.org site and PCM recording will be possible. Only 38 minutes on a 305 Mb Hi-MD reformatted disc and 94 minutes on a 1Gb true hi-MD disc. Otherwise, anything up to 38 hrs or even 45 hrs possible if quality isn't so much of an issue.

[Sami M]

Originalbim:

The difference between analog and digital signal is an old fact. But to state that vinyl losts no information and digital media does is crap. Then we should also speak about tape, the good old open-reel recorders and casssete recorders. Yes! They too are analog all the way and thus along with this logic, lose no information of the original signal. Yeah, right...

Analog media has it's falses on frequency response, noise, wawe and flutter, dynamic and what else. How could analog equipment by any means represent more flawless replica of the signal?

[paul]

THANKS FOR SHARING THOSE WEB POST QUINNY. THE SPEAKER WIRE STUFF IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS WHERE I BELIEVE A SUCKER AND HIS MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED. I TOO BELIEVE THE CABLE STUFF IS BULLSHIT BUT I KNOW A LOT OF AUDIOPHILES SWEAR THEY HEAR A DIFFERENCE. THIS, DESPITE THE SCIENCE AND DOUBLE BLIND TESTING THAT PROVE OTHERWISE. THE LATE PAUL KLIPSCH BELIEVED A LOT OF THIS WAS BULLSHIT AS WELL BUT IT'S HARD TO FIGHT PERCEPTIONS, REAL OR AS IN THIS CASE BOGUS. AS FOR ME, 12 GAUGE ZIP CORD IS ALL I NEED.
THE CD/VINYL ISSUE IS, I THINK SOMETHING MOST OF US CAN AGREE ON TECHNICALLY. VINYL, ESP. AT LOW FREQUENCIES WILL BE ATTENUATED IF LEVELS GET TOO HIGH FOR GENERAL PURPOSE CARTRIDGES TO TRACK. HOWEVER, FOR THE TINY AUDIOPHILE MARKET THIS IS LESS OF AN ISSUE WHERE WE USED TO SEE DIRECT TO DISC VINYL FOR EXAMPLE. I AM STILL PERPLEXED HOWEVER THAT THE STUDIOS COMPRESS THE DYNAMICS OF CD SO MUCH :o I KNOW THAT DIGITAL IS NOT AS FORGIVING AS ANALOG WHEN OVERLOADED BUT DIGITAL HAS A WIDER DYNAMIC RANGE.
I AGREE THAT AROUND THE MID BASS AREA, VINYL GENERALLY SOUNDS RICHER COMPARED TO CD. IN GENERAL I SUSPECT THIS MAY BE DUE IN PART TO THE EQUALIZATION THAT OCCURS AROUND 500 HZ FOR VINYL. IN THE CASE OF THE COMPARATIVELY "THINNER" SOUND FOR CD, I FEEL IT'S A MATTER OF NOT ENOUGH BITS. THE LAST 2 SENTENCES ARE JUST MY CONTENTIONS BASED ON FACTS. THE CONCLUSIONS I'VE DRAWN MAYBE BULLSHIT :lol:

[QUINNY]

Paul/Forrrce: I'm convinced that the perceived lack of bass with CD is basically down vinyl always being less accurate than it should have been and everyone just getting used to that sound.
Now here's a strange but true fact, based on my 20 odd years in the business.
I used to do a lot of real time cassette copying for a number of clients. I could always tell when the studios changed from analogue to digital, especially when they invested in a digital mixer.
1). the background noise was almost completely wiped out, at a stroke.
2). the masters were less compresssed and less squashed, the overall reponse was noticeably wider, compared to previous analogue ones and, wait for it......
3). The bass was much better defined and much, much heavier. There would be real feeling down at 30 Hz and below and it just sounded much more solid.

Go figure.

[BrunoRepublic]

Paul/Forrrce: I'm convinced that the perceived lack of bass with CD is basically down vinyl always being less accurate than it should have been and everyone just getting used to that sound. [/b]

I attribute it to the widespread use of Stanton DJ cartridges, which exaggerate the bass.

If someone had been used to hearing vinyl with, say, Ortofon OM cartridges, I doubt they'd ever think of vinyl as having "fuller" bass...

[geo__]

All I know is that music companies managed to sell us three times more expensive a medium that costs 20 times less to manufacture, reproduce and ship.
Yes CD has better quality (but not always, I had CDs that the volume was way too low, or very bad), but is this a reason to sell us something so expensive? Here in Europe in my country a new CD costs 20 Euros.
One final Point:
MUSIC COMPANIES CARE ONLY ABOUT MONEY, NOT MUSIC.
How do you explain that many wonderful songs never reached the charts and not many people know them? Probably because music labels thought that they would never make big money so they didn't promote them.
George

[efunk_adelic]

MUSIC COMPANIES CARE ONLY ABOUT MONEY, NOT MUSIC.
How do you explain that many wonderful songs never reached the charts and not many people know them? Probably because music labels thought that they would never make big money so they didn't promote them.
George

Geo, I agree with you on this opinion... however, sometimes they spend too much money promoting a new artist.

[K-Bee]

MUSIC COMPANIES CARE ONLY ABOUT MONEY, NOT MUSIC.
How do you explain that many wonderful songs never reached the charts and not many people know them? Probably because music labels thought that they would never make big money so they didn't promote them.
George

Geo, I agree with you on this opinion... however, sometimes they spend too much money promoting a new artist.

.......and way to often abandoning their back catalogues in the process, I might add :x

[QUINNY]

In the real world, a plumber only comes and fixes your pipes 'cos he's getting paid for it. Record companies are no different, except for every one big money making hit, there might be 10 money losing total flops. A record company never knows when it's next going to hit pay dirt.

If you went to work every day not knowing when you'd actually be paid, wouldn't you tend to charge more than you need to, in order to stand a better chance of surviving?

It's all about risk and reward. The higher the perceived risk, the greater the rewards have to be, in order to compensate.
The music biz is a very high risk business.