There were some that wanted it higher than 16/44 right at the beginning, but evidently the bean counters, et al., got in the way.
That decision really hamstrung the industry for a couple of decades and contributed to the overall decline in recorded music quality.
Best Regards,
TerryO
(Reporting from Dave R's bathroom remodelling project)
nirvana,
In this, as in many of your other post, you're once again...wrong.
Not all recording studios are digital and many cds, especially the audiophile labels, use analog master tapes for their source, given a choice.
Best Regards,
TerryO
It would be nice if they would even give us 16 bits worth in the recordings on current formats, but that's crazy talk.😀
In my experience, "all the big studios" work with digital and analog. The mid tier and smaller studios, however, are digital only ... they are unlikely to be involved with releases to both CD and vinyl.
There are significantly more recording studios around today ... "the big studios" as you put it, probably numbered around 100 worldwide in the analog only age, but digital-only studios are a 21st century phenomena ... CDs outsold vinyl for the first time in 1988 and did not outsell pre-recorded cassettes for the first time until 1998.
You say 'evidently' so what is the evidence that the bean counters, et al. got in the way?
it was "designed by committe" and with little industry prior experience in digital audio capabilities
today's hindsight makes flex formats, lossless compression, subtractive dither, metadata including loundness obvious when the digital intelligence to make use of it was still expensive then
today's hindsight makes flex formats, lossless compression, subtractive dither, metadata including loundness obvious when the digital intelligence to make use of it was still expensive then
I find it interesting that this thread turned into such a long debate about the faults of digital media.
For me there is no comparison, Vinyl LP's sound much better. I have a pretty highly refined playback system for both CD and LP Vinyl.
I am amused by all the comments about how dirty nasty and full of scratches vinyl is. I have records that are over 50 years old and they playback beautifully, yes a tiny click hear or there. I find that easier to listen to than the skipping non playback of a number of CD's. I take just as good of care of my Cd's as I do my vinyl. I agree it takes a very good playback system to realize life like realism, that is true for vinyl and digital. In my experience Vinyl is closer to reality than digital.
But I cannot play vinyl in the car, nor do I want to. Digital is like fast food ( hamburger and a coke), drive thru. Vinyl is like a fine meal( steak and wine with a salad),sit down and savor.
I have done extensive comparisons between the latest remastered special edition cd(all versions) and the original vinyl pressing. The vinyl wins every time.
For me there is no comparison, Vinyl LP's sound much better. I have a pretty highly refined playback system for both CD and LP Vinyl.
I am amused by all the comments about how dirty nasty and full of scratches vinyl is. I have records that are over 50 years old and they playback beautifully, yes a tiny click hear or there. I find that easier to listen to than the skipping non playback of a number of CD's. I take just as good of care of my Cd's as I do my vinyl. I agree it takes a very good playback system to realize life like realism, that is true for vinyl and digital. In my experience Vinyl is closer to reality than digital.
But I cannot play vinyl in the car, nor do I want to. Digital is like fast food ( hamburger and a coke), drive thru. Vinyl is like a fine meal( steak and wine with a salad),sit down and savor.
I have done extensive comparisons between the latest remastered special edition cd(all versions) and the original vinyl pressing. The vinyl wins every time.
Last edited:
Conrad Johnson/Rega, LP12/lyra, PV12, Premier 11a, Merlin VSM.
many other components in the past, Tubed Marantz CD players, Meridian,etc. Currently building up a Lenco L75.
@kingsnake
I think I am going to start marketing a box for use with digital sound sources that reduces bass and treble, blends stereo to mono below 400 Hz and compresses transients. It will use a crude filter to apply an 'RIAA' frequency response. It will then attenuate the the signal internally to about 3mV, then amplify it back up to line level with considerable distortion and a not-quite matching inverse RIAA response. I will inject rumble, hum, noise and clicks, and blend the two channels together with ample crosstalk. Its performance will degrade over time.
Could I be onto a winner?
I think I am going to start marketing a box for use with digital sound sources that reduces bass and treble, blends stereo to mono below 400 Hz and compresses transients. It will use a crude filter to apply an 'RIAA' frequency response. It will then attenuate the the signal internally to about 3mV, then amplify it back up to line level with considerable distortion and a not-quite matching inverse RIAA response. I will inject rumble, hum, noise and clicks, and blend the two channels together with ample crosstalk. Its performance will degrade over time.
Could I be onto a winner?
"How better is a Turntable compared to a CD? "
If you like wow, flutter, rumble, acoustic feedback, limited dynamic range, mistracking resulting in non linear distortion, worn out recordings, surface noise, pops and clicks, damaged recording that require careful handling and maintenance to extend their lives, storage problems, fragile or worn out styli that have to be replaced sometimes with great difficulty and at considerable expense, then a turntable, tonearm, cartridge, and phongraph records cannot be beat. Certainly not by CDs. I know, I have lots of both of them.
🙂
If you like wow, flutter, rumble, acoustic feedback, limited dynamic range, mistracking resulting in non linear distortion, worn out recordings, surface noise, pops and clicks, damaged recording that require careful handling and maintenance to extend their lives, storage problems, fragile or worn out styli that have to be replaced sometimes with great difficulty and at considerable expense, then a turntable, tonearm, cartridge, and phongraph records cannot be beat. Certainly not by CDs. I know, I have lots of both of them.
🙂
I have a marketing plan too. I will start with a musical wave form then cut it up into thousands of pieces, through away what ever I deem insignificant, reassemble it , compress it, and market it as just as good as the original.
I think not unless you manage to incorporate the ritualistic elements of LP playback as well as the signal degradations. So for example, the digital media would need special care and attention to handling, preferably be in 12inch format with great graphics and easily legible sleeve notes. Then it must play for a maximum of 20mins before needing further attention. Equally the replaying mechanism must be amenable to an infinity of tweaks and enhancements...😎
@soundminded and kingsnake
If it was shown that many of your vinyl recordings had actually originated from 16 bit (i.e. 'CD') masters, or had been digitized at the pressing plant anyway, how would you justify your belief in vinyl? (I know I'm not the first to make that argument!)
It seems remarkable that the designers of the LP microgroove system were only trying to find a way to mass produce high quality audio within the limitations of 1950s technology, but stumbled onto something akin to magic. Their miraculous process can even transform a digital recording, removing the evil digits and replacing them with genuine analogue waveforms which are much more lifelike.
If it was shown that many of your vinyl recordings had actually originated from 16 bit (i.e. 'CD') masters, or had been digitized at the pressing plant anyway, how would you justify your belief in vinyl? (I know I'm not the first to make that argument!)
It seems remarkable that the designers of the LP microgroove system were only trying to find a way to mass produce high quality audio within the limitations of 1950s technology, but stumbled onto something akin to magic. Their miraculous process can even transform a digital recording, removing the evil digits and replacing them with genuine analogue waveforms which are much more lifelike.
Mayeb we shouldn't be comparing CDs to vinyl anymore but Digital to Analog.
Here's a quote from Computer Audiophile editor who toured Abbey Road Studios.
"One engineer I spoke with about analog and digital sound said unequivocally that digital is by far more accurate than analog ever was. Sure this is one person's opinion, but it's an opinion of someone who has been around the block a few times and knows how his recordings should sound. If the decision is up to him he said he'll never use analog again."
Here's a quote from Computer Audiophile editor who toured Abbey Road Studios.
"One engineer I spoke with about analog and digital sound said unequivocally that digital is by far more accurate than analog ever was. Sure this is one person's opinion, but it's an opinion of someone who has been around the block a few times and knows how his recordings should sound. If the decision is up to him he said he'll never use analog again."
I believe that full of diyers in this forum here, fun for this hobby is build and make by your own ideas and hands to improve sound quality, in CD what you can do will be only change digital cable or modify the out put analog section inside the convector, you can't change the D/A chip the only way is to buy a new convector for up grade. but in vinyl, there are so many factors can affect to the sound change, not only different in tonearm, cart or TT, even different material under the TT or driving belt can change the sound too, you can learn and increase knowledge by experiment in changing those small things and have a lot of fun also
- Status
- Not open for further replies.