DMP disks, early ones

[zacster]

I'm listening to an early DMP CD, Joe Beck Friends, catalog CD-446, at the moment. This is a very early CD, maybe from year 2 of CD. I have a few of the others that are even earlier, I think this is their 4th release.

The DMP disks were heralded as state of the art, and always used in demos at the local shops at the time. They were held up as examples of what will be possible with CD, lower distortion, complete lack of surface noise, higher dynamic range, all the usual claims from the time.

Listening to it today it just sounds AWFUL. There is no soundstage, it is extremely grainy, screechy in the highs, there isn't even normal stereo separation. Bass is totally lacking, and my system does not lack for bass. And no dynamic range, surprising given that DR is one of the claims made at the time. I get better sound from an ordinary current pop recording using the same setup, and a decent recording can sound really good.

As an early adapter of CD, I always had qualms about the sound, but over time I came to accept it. DVD-A sounds much better, SACD I don't have. I have heard some good CD players that can make CD sound pretty good, although I don't own one. But listening to this disk right now makes me wonder what they were all thinking, and hearing, (and smoking?) back in the early 80s. This just doesn't sound good by today's or yesterday's standards. I guess we all thought 200w solid-state amps sounded good too back then, even as the tubies were touting tubes as far superior.

And I never liked the music either, but that's a whole different matter. Time to turn it off.

[stoolpigeon]

When I first bought a cd player I was unfortunately conned into buying some DMP cd's.

How can anyone possibly listen to this drivel for long enough to determine sound quality?

Was it Beck who had a song called "MTV makes me want to smoke crack"?

He was lucky he never heard Flim and the BB's.

[zacster]

I have 2 of the Flim and the BBs CDs, also very early ones. Why I bought a second I'll never know. There is one other group that I have that isn't bad music-wise, but the SQ is the same.

But like I said, I had to turn this one off. And for both reasons, poor SQ and just crappy music.

I've never been able to listen to "cool jazz", "light jazz", "smooth jazz" or anything of that ilk. Real jazz doesn't have electronics, and sounds best through tubes.

[Conrad Hoffman]

I've got Tunnel and Big Notes and they're not that awful. The music isn't something I'd want a regular diet of, but technically they sound ok, good bass and certainly not harsh. Compared to some recent "remastered" CD stuff I've got, they're wonderful. I've come to the realization that sound quality can't be predicted by label, artist, release date, color of the cover, or any other clue I've found.

[mlloyd1]

wow! i never saw this thread ...
i was just listening to "hands on" by warren bernhardt (from 1987) and thinking how nice it sounded

to each his own, i guess ...

mlloyd1

[Javin5]

I also have both Big Notes and Tunnels in my CD-collection. Haven`t played them for a long time, but after seeing this thread, I put them in my player. I find them quite well recorded, even compared to some of my much newer CD`s. Extremely grainy? No. Lack of bass? No. Dynamics? Enough for my taste.

Interesting, how we can come to such different conclusions. Where I have to agree, is that the music isn't exactly what I would buy today; but I could say that for quite a few ot my other CD's as well.