interestingly first cd players sounded dreadfull not because thery were "digital", but mainly because of their terrible analog sections...today we still use the same cd format, yet cd players sound better and better, due to much better operational amplifiers emplyed...or completely disrete analog section, solid state or tube
if you take nice signal from decent DAC and force it through six disgusting operational amplifiers, no matter the "digital", it will sound terrible
vinyl can be wonderfull and so can cd...
if you take nice signal from decent DAC and force it through six disgusting operational amplifiers, no matter the "digital", it will sound terrible
vinyl can be wonderfull and so can cd...
Why do you have to say things like this? The cost to produce a CD is far lower than it is to produce an LP, hence the profit margin is much greater.
See here:
"The most expensive part of a CD is the jewel case. In 1995, material costs were 30 cents for the jewel case and 10 to 15 cents for the CD. Wholesale cost of CDs was $0.75 to $1.15, which retailed for $16.98.[30] On average the store received 35 percent of the retail price, the record company 27 percent, the artist 16 percent, the manufacturer 13 percent, and the distributor 9 percent.[30] When 8-track tapes, cassette tapes, and CDs were introduced, each was marketed at a higher price than the format they succeeded, even though the cost to produce the media was reduced. This was done because the apparent value increased. This continued from vinyl to CDs but was broken when Apple marketed MP3s for $0.99, and albums for $9.99. The incremental cost, though, to produce an MP3 is infinitely small.[31]"
Compact disc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are correct sir. While we are quoting Wikipedia:
In 1974, an initiative was taken by L. Ottens, a director of the audio industry group within the Philips Technology Corporation in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. A seven-person project group was formed to develop an optical audio disc with a diameter of 20 cm with a sound quality superior to that of the large and fragile vinyl record.[3] (also from CD entry on Wikipedia)
Crapppy turntables make LPs sound crappy, crappy DACs make CD and other digital sound crappy. It's about implementation. The implementation of digital is just cheaper and easier than analogue for a certain level of performance.
I am surprised today's vinyl industry connoisseurs have not been mentioned. Take Jack White. His personal record label, Third Man Records, moto is "Your turntable's not dead." With Jack White's musical history and the artists Third Man continues to sign, he's goin to be around and pushin vinyl as his preferred medium for a while. Besides, his entirely-analog recording style makes his records some of the most interesting to listen to. Nothing recorded in the genre today sounds anywhere near the same. Which is his goal to an extent.
I will name all CDs that I have listened to on a more than mediocre quality audio system as suffering from easily audible digital artifacts, including quantization distortion. These effects are manifested in the following ways that vary somewhat with the material and the exact digital processing:
1) Poor imaging/soundstaging, most particularly with any sound not located between speakers. All but the strongest lateral imaging is significantly compromised. Any semblence of depth in the imaging is markedly flattened if at all apparent.
2) Poor delineation of acoustic detail that grows worse with decreasing level.
3) Little differentiation of instruments exhibiting primarily HF spectra - Multiple drumset cymbals on CD are largely merged into a monolithic hash of HF sound.
4) A pervasive lack of acoustical transparency especially below peak levels.
5) Musical timbre that changes with image position and deteriorates at lower levels sometimes to the point of apparently changing acoustic identity.
6) Brick wall filters near 20khz add a characteristic sonic thumbprint to the higher frequencies. Pre-ringing is nobody's acoustic friend. Keep in mind that tube amplifiers in the 1950's were seriously discounted in SQ if they exhibited a db or more of aberrant response causing far less significant waveform aberrations than Gibb's Phenomenon and none of that pre-transient, of course, due to magnetic or stability characteristics in the same frequency region.
These effects are also very noticeable on LP. I have, for instance, two nearly new versions of (note the restricted audio quality of the music here) Van Halen's first album. Both are equally quiet pressings. In the all analog 180g version, the electronic signature of the electronics used in recording and producing this record is apparent. Sounds a lot like TL070 or TL080 series op amps are part of it. In the digitized WB version, there is not a trace of this otherwise quite apparent electronic acoustic signature - everything has fallen into the quantization black hole. I also have several other recordings where CD and all analog or even high quality digital can be compared These comparisons are damning for the nonrobust garden variety digital SQ that some people apparently salivate over.
Last edited:
The last time I had a discussion with someone about the sound of lp's vs digital source, I realized that most people these days do not listen to live acoustic music and therefore have no expectation about what the reproduction is supposed to be reproducing. The sound of the average live pop extravaganza is abysmal, to the point where performers actually publicly discuss whether they should perform live or lip sync. The fact is, that for the majority of people these days, music reproduction means radio, iPod and cheap surround sound. But, anyone visiting this website knows this already. The answer to the original question is that new analog technology will continue to be developed by the the minority who value it and will be ignored by everybody else.
Technically, you are correct, and Gibb's Phenomenon is not an effect directly related in any way to frequency specific amplifier linearity issues, but I was attempting to point out that there was a time when anomalies of this order so near the audible frequency range were considered audibly significant. I recall a mainstream audio power amplifier review from the '50's (unfortunately, not the specific amp or reviewer) where the fairly high end amplifier was slammed for this characteristic.
Did you see my post about analog tape? If you have several thousand dollars lying around doing nothing, then that's for you!
Have you actually looked at real music w/wo the 22.05kHz brickwall filter? The usual demos are with impulses or squarewaves. Music does not in general contain sudden discontiuities.
By its nature, new technology comes from beyond what already exists.
Laser turntable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Who knows what sort of ideas people will dream up. It's human nature to create stuff even if it doesn't become commercially successful or mainstream.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.