[[email protected]]

It all starts with good writing & composition, great authors as one guy pointed out to me, and rehearsal, rehearsal, rehearsal(!) But how much of a role does the engineering side play in producing something that wins Grammys, or at least, becomes a standard for decades on?

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

wrote:
It all starts with good writing & composition,

.... whatever that means, We know it when we see it, sometimes.

I expect "Under Pressure" by Queen is "great", but it's really
only seven notes. "Wish You Were Here" and we're down to
four.

Hooks. It's hooks. Er, it usedta be. Prolly still is; the hooks
are just not necessarily all musical cues now.

Of course, I am talking the sort of big selling album music
I grew up on . Folk will be different, as will jazz, as will
other genres.

great authors as one
guy pointed out to me, and rehearsal, rehearsal, rehearsal(!)

.... or not. This *really* varies a lot; I'd kinda hate to record
something after dogging it for a year on the road because after about a
month you can play it in your sleep.

But
how much of a role does the engineering side play in producing
something that wins Grammys, or at least, becomes a standard for
decades on?


Almost zilch. Except for the appropriate technical Grammies.

soapbox

The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

/soapbox


--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

On 4/12/2014 10:55 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

Er bad pressings were common in the days of vinyl. But you actually
thought a CD that managed to play properly was a "bad pressing" because
it sounded off?

I will admit however to thinking some of my vinyl were bad pressings
because of very high distortion, until I got CD copies that were the
same :-(

Trevor.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
On 4/12/2014 10:55 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

Er bad pressings were common in the days of vinyl. But you actually
thought a CD that managed to play properly was a "bad pressing" because
it sounded off?


I had heard it only on vinyl up to that point, and thought that the CD
was going to sound significantly different.

It didn't. Of course you lost all the surface noise and such.

I will admit however to thinking some of my vinyl were bad pressings
because of very high distortion, until I got CD copies that were the
same :-(


Exactly.

Trevor.


--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

Les Cargil wrote: "I had heard it only on vinyl up to that point, and thought that the CD
was going to sound significantly different.

It didn't. Of course you lost all the surface noise and such. "

It didn't because they used the same/existing source as for vinyl - as was the case many time during the early CD days.

They could have made some changes, like not summing the bass end to mono(for vinyl), but they were probably in a rush to get the catalog out on these new shiny contraptions.

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill wrote:

The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

The top end was knocked down a bit on the LP, which made it much more
listenable, but the harshness of the PCM1610 just made the early CD
release even more screechy than the original.

This is a classic "cocaine mix" and you will find the same tonal issues on
a lot of major releases from that era for the same substance-related reasons.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 12/4/2014 10:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

The top end was knocked down a bit on the LP, which made it much more
listenable, but the harshness of the PCM1610 just made the early CD
release even more screechy than the original.

This is a classic "cocaine mix" and you will find the same tonal issues on
a lot of major releases from that era for the same substance-related reasons.
--scott


What's a cocaine mix? What is it about cocaine that causes the problem?

[hank alrich]

mcp6453 wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

The top end was knocked down a bit on the LP, which made it much more
listenable, but the harshness of the PCM1610 just made the early CD
release even more screechy than the original.

This is a classic "cocaine mix" and you will find the same tonal issues
on a lot of major releases from that era for the same substance-related
reasons. --scott


What's a cocaine mix? What is it about cocaine that causes the problem?

How it messes up your perception of high frequencies. You will want
MORE, just like you "need" more cocaine.

I have been in the studio with famous producer-engineers who broke out
the blow at the start of mixdown and referred to it as "mixing powder".
The end result is almost always ugly.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Rick Ruskin]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:36:30 -0500, mcp6453 wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:


The top end was knocked down a bit on the LP, which made it much more
listenable, but the harshness of the PCM1610 just made the early CD
release even more screechy than the original.


I maintain that the reason early CD's sounded so bad wasn't so much
because of the converters but because the eq'd safety masters made
when the original laquers were cut got used for the CD masters instead
of the original master reels. I'm assuming ignorance on the part of
some individual(s) for these errors becaue it happened more than once.

[Scott Dorsey]

Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:36:30 -0500, mcp6453 wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

The top end was knocked down a bit on the LP, which made it much more
listenable, but the harshness of the PCM1610 just made the early CD
release even more screechy than the original.

I maintain that the reason early CD's sounded so bad wasn't so much
because of the converters but because the eq'd safety masters made
when the original laquers were cut got used for the CD masters instead
of the original master reels. I'm assuming ignorance on the part of
some individual(s) for these errors becaue it happened more than once.

There were a LOT of reasons why early CDs sounded bad, and that was one
of them. But the original converters were pretty dreadful too. And
all the cocaine didn't help either... remember the CD was introduced at
about the same time crack did....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

The top end was knocked down a bit on the LP, which made it much more
listenable, but the harshness of the PCM1610 just made the early CD
release even more screechy than the original.

This is a classic "cocaine mix"

.... so I found out later. Some of it sounds like it was just badly
overloaded tape in tracking.

and you will find the same tonal issues on
a lot of major releases from that era for the same substance-related reasons.


Not to recommend it, but the most egregikous example I know of is Don
Felder's solo album. Holy cow.

--scott



--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

On 5/12/2014 12:13 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
Trevor wrote:
On 4/12/2014 10:55 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

Er bad pressings were common in the days of vinyl. But you actually
thought a CD that managed to play properly was a "bad pressing" because
it sounded off?


I had heard it only on vinyl up to that point, and thought that the CD
was going to sound significantly different.

It didn't. Of course you lost all the surface noise and such.

I will admit however to thinking some of my vinyl were bad pressings
because of very high distortion, until I got CD copies that were the
same :-(


Exactly.

Right, two different things. Bad CD pressings usually don't play
properly. Bad vinyl pressings can be noisy, distorted, warp wow, skip
etc. If a CD simply sounds crook, it's almost certainly not the pressing
as you originally thought.

Trevor.
\

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 9:23:54 PM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 5/12/2014 12:13 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
Trevor wrote:
On 4/12/2014 10:55 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
The first CD I ever bought was "Hotel California". I thought it
was a bad pressing all those years. Nope. All the ugly
was apparently *tracked* that way.

Er bad pressings were common in the days of vinyl. But you actually
thought a CD that managed to play properly was a "bad pressing" because
it sounded off?


I had heard it only on vinyl up to that point, and thought that the CD
was going to sound significantly different.

It didn't. Of course you lost all the surface noise and such.

I will admit however to thinking some of my vinyl were bad pressings
because of very high distortion, until I got CD copies that were the
same :-(


Exactly.

Right, two different things. Bad CD pressings usually don't play
properly. Bad vinyl pressings can be noisy, distorted, warp wow, skip
etc. If a CD simply sounds crook, it's almost certainly not the pressing
as you originally thought.

Trevor.
\
__________
True - it could be the mastering.

[Edi Zubovic]

On 4 Dec 2014 19:27:33 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:36:30 -0500, mcp6453 wrote:

On 12/4/2014 10:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

The top end was knocked down a bit on the LP, which made it much more
listenable, but the harshness of the PCM1610 just made the early CD
release even more screechy than the original.

I maintain that the reason early CD's sounded so bad wasn't so much
because of the converters but because the eq'd safety masters made
when the original laquers were cut got used for the CD masters instead
of the original master reels. I'm assuming ignorance on the part of
some individual(s) for these errors becaue it happened more than once.

There were a LOT of reasons why early CDs sounded bad, and that was one
of them. But the original converters were pretty dreadful too. And
all the cocaine didn't help either... remember the CD was introduced at
about the same time crack did....
--scott

--Were these early CDs pre-emphased, too?


Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Rick Ruskin wrote:
I maintain that the reason early CD's sounded so bad wasn't so much
because of the converters but because the eq'd safety masters made
when the original laquers were cut got used for the CD masters instead
of the original master reels. I'm assuming ignorance on the part of
some individual(s) for these errors becaue it happened more than once.

I have loads of superb sounding early CDs. Compared to the LPs of the same
material, that is.

--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Scott Dorsey]

Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[rem wrote:
On 4 Dec 2014 19:27:33 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

There were a LOT of reasons why early CDs sounded bad, and that was one
of them. But the original converters were pretty dreadful too. And
all the cocaine didn't help either... remember the CD was introduced at
about the same time crack did....

--Were these early CDs pre-emphased, too?

Hardly anyone used pre-emphasis (which is a shame because it made a
substantial improvement in the sound back then). And, back then, all
of the players handled the emphasis bit properly.

Pre-emphasis didn't actually become a problem until fifteen or twenty
years later when people started playing discs on machines that didn't
know how to deal with the emphasis bit.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Klay Anderson[_2_]]

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 12:46:17 PM UTC-7, hank alrich wrote:

I have been in the studio with famous producer-engineers who broke out
the blow at the start of mixdown and referred to it as "mixing powder".
The end result is almost always ugly.

That's what I used to call a "balanced line". Half the producer and half for me.

Yours truly,
Mr. Klay Anderson, D.A.,Q.B.E.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, December 5, 2014 9:22:26 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Edi Zubovic r wrote:
On 4 Dec 2014 19:27:33 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

There were a LOT of reasons why early CDs sounded bad, and that was one
of them. But the original converters were pretty dreadful too. And
all the cocaine didn't help either... remember the CD was introduced at
about the same time crack did....

--Were these early CDs pre-emphased, too?

Hardly anyone used pre-emphasis (which is a shame because it made a
substantial improvement in the sound back then). And, back then, all
of the players handled the emphasis bit properly.

Pre-emphasis didn't actually become a problem until fifteen or twenty
years later when people started playing discs on machines that didn't
know how to deal with the emphasis bit.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Is that why WAVS and mp3s ripped from my older CDs onto my modern computer sound like they have too much top?

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

wrote:
On Friday, December 5, 2014 9:22:26 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Edi Zubovic r wrote:
On 4 Dec 2014 19:27:33 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

There were a LOT of reasons why early CDs sounded bad, and that was one
of them. But the original converters were pretty dreadful too. And
all the cocaine didn't help either... remember the CD was introduced at
about the same time crack did....

--Were these early CDs pre-emphased, too?

Hardly anyone used pre-emphasis (which is a shame because it made a
substantial improvement in the sound back then). And, back then, all
of the players handled the emphasis bit properly.

Pre-emphasis didn't actually become a problem until fifteen or twenty
years later when people started playing discs on machines that didn't
know how to deal with the emphasis bit.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Is that why WAVS and mp3s ripped from my older CDs onto my modern computer sound like they have too much top?



There are a thousand reasons that that may be so.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
On Friday, December 5, 2014 9:22:26 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Pre-emphasis didn't actually become a problem until fifteen or twenty
years later when people started playing discs on machines that didn't
know how to deal with the emphasis bit.

Is that why WAVS and mp3s ripped from my older CDs onto my modern computer sound like they have too much top?

Maybe, but probably not, because so few folks actually used the emphasis.
But, get a bitscope application and look and see if the emphasis bits are
set. Every once in a while you will find a CD that uses it.

If you look at the archives from this newsgroup back in the early nineties,
you'll hear me arguing in favor of emphasis and Gabe Wiener arguing against
it. It's true that by that time, converters had improved to the point where
the benefit was not as substantial as they had been a decade earlier.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Friday, December 5, 2014 1:43:18 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
om wrote:
On Friday, December 5, 2014 9:22:26 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Pre-emphasis didn't actually become a problem until fifteen or twenty
years later when people started playing discs on machines that didn't
know how to deal with the emphasis bit.

Is that why WAVS and mp3s ripped from my older CDs onto my modern computer sound like they have too much top?

Maybe, but probably not, because so few folks actually used the emphasis.
But, get a bitscope application and look and see if the emphasis bits are
set. Every once in a while you will find a CD that uses it.

If you look at the archives from this newsgroup back in the early nineties,
you'll hear me arguing in favor of emphasis and Gabe Wiener arguing against
it. It's true that by that time, converters had improved to the point where
the benefit was not as substantial as they had been a decade earlier.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

So back then, emphasis in the digital realm *sort of* accomplished the same thing as Dolby B NR did on cassettes?

Also Scott I threw a few known early/original release CDs of mine into Exact Audio Copy and they all returned a NO in the Emphasis column. That leaves over 400 more to check, something I don't think is worth wasting time on. LOLOL

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/5/2014 4:32 PM, wrote:
So back then, emphasis in the digital realm*sort of* accomplished
the same thing as Dolby B NR did on cassettes?

It's the same thing that pre-emphasis does anywhere, like record and
playback equalization on tape or the RIAA equalization curve on an LP
record. It boosts the highs where there's headroom and then brings the
level back to where they should be, taking some hiss along with it.

Dolby is a compression and expansion system. Dolby B divided the
frequency range into two bands and worked on each one individually.
Dolby A used four bands. Dolby SR effectively used a gazillion ( +/- a
few bazillion) bands.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[None]

As everyone knew he would, , the moronic
monotonic one-trick phony, mounted his donkey of a hobbyhoese and
spake
True - it could be the mastering.

Woomp! There it is! Ride that hobbyhorse, li'l buckaroo!
Then please have a glass of milk and put your jammies on.

[Trevor]

On 6/12/2014 1:22 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[rem wrote:
On 4 Dec 2014 19:27:33 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

There were a LOT of reasons why early CDs sounded bad, and that was one
of them. But the original converters were pretty dreadful too. And
all the cocaine didn't help either... remember the CD was introduced at
about the same time crack did....

--Were these early CDs pre-emphased, too?

Hardly anyone used pre-emphasis (which is a shame because it made a
substantial improvement in the sound back then).

You are kidding right? The CD format has always had more than enough
capability (without pre-emphasis) to handle anything recorded on tape.
Any difference whatsoever in sound would be because the pre-emphasis was
not implemented or decoded correctly. Which is why it was hardly ever
used and soon forgotten completely. The pre-emphasis absolutely
necessary for tape of course is a different thing altogether.

Trevor.

[Tom McCreadie]

Mike Rivers wrote:

Dolby is a compression and expansion system. Dolby B divided the
frequency range into two bands and worked on each one individually.
Dolby A used four bands. Dolby SR effectively used a gazillion ( +/- a
few bazillion) bands.

I believe Dolby B is single band system.
And while the CD pre-emphasis curve shape - with its boost of ca. 0.4, 7.6 and
9.5 dB at respectively 1, 10 and 20kHz - does superficially resemble that of
(the maximum result of) Dolby B, it differs in not being level-dependent. The
pre-emphasis in Dolby only kicks in when the signal drops below a certain level,
with the amount of applied pre-emphasis thereafter progressively increasing as
the signal level drops..
--
Tom McCreadie

[John Williamson]

On 06/12/2014 13:02, Tom McCreadie wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

Dolby is a compression and expansion system. Dolby B divided the
frequency range into two bands and worked on each one individually.
Dolby A used four bands. Dolby SR effectively used a gazillion ( +/- a
few bazillion) bands.

I believe Dolby B is single band system.
And while the CD pre-emphasis curve shape - with its boost of ca. 0.4, 7.6 and
9.5 dB at respectively 1, 10 and 20kHz - does superficially resemble that of
(the maximum result of) Dolby B, it differs in not being level-dependent. The
pre-emphasis in Dolby only kicks in when the signal drops below a certain level,
with the amount of applied pre-emphasis thereafter progressively increasing as
the signal level drops..

Dolby B splits the audio into two bands, and then works only on the HF
end, while ignoring the bottom end, so from that point of view, it's a
two band system.

Dolby A, which was rare, IIRC was a single band system which applied
compression (At about a 2:1 ratio?)to the unmodified signal.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"John Williamson" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Dolby B splits the audio into two bands, and then works only on the HF
end, while ignoring the bottom end, so from that point of view, it's a two
band system.

Also my level of information in as much as the frequency response change for
the upper frequency audio was gradual.

Dolby A, which was rare, IIRC was a single band system which applied
compression (At about a 2:1 ratio?)to the unmodified signal.

That however is the description of dbx. My woefully poor recollection is
that dolby a had more bands, 4 comes to mind.

Tciao for Now!

John

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:
Dolby is a compression and expansion system. Dolby B divided the
frequency range into two bands and worked on each one individually.
Dolby A used four bands. Dolby SR effectively used a gazillion ( +/- a
few bazillion) bands.

Don't forget C - as used on Beta SP and MII linear tracks. Sort of doubled
up B.

Thinking again, perhaps best forgotten. ;-)

--
*When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
On 6/12/2014 1:22 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Hardly anyone used pre-emphasis (which is a shame because it made a
substantial improvement in the sound back then).

You are kidding right? The CD format has always had more than enough
capability (without pre-emphasis) to handle anything recorded on tape.
Any difference whatsoever in sound would be because the pre-emphasis was
not implemented or decoded correctly. Which is why it was hardly ever
used and soon forgotten completely. The pre-emphasis absolutely
necessary for tape of course is a different thing altogether.

Early converters had a lot of linearity problems, and the end result was
somewhat unpleasant high end. Remember this was the age of very long
ladder converters; if you recorded a 1kc tone at -60dBFS and played it
back, it sounded audibly buzzy (implying more than 2% distortion) on the
1610.

Pre-emphasis did a lot to reduce some of the high end distortion products
at the expense of a little dynamic range. The difference in sound on the
1610 (or even worse the SV3700) was quite audible.

Thank God those days are over.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson wrote:
Dolby B splits the audio into two bands, and then works only on the HF
end, while ignoring the bottom end, so from that point of view, it's a
two band system.

True, although there's still only one serial signal path, unlike SR.

Dolby A, which was rare, IIRC was a single band system which applied
compression (At about a 2:1 ratio?)to the unmodified signal.

Yes. Dolby A was not rare at all, though, it was in nearly every studio
in the country. (People also used the encoders as effects devices.)
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/6/2014 9:22 AM, John Williamson wrote:
Dolby A, which was rare, IIRC was a single band system which applied
compression (At about a 2:1 ratio?)to the unmodified signal.

Dolby A was the standard, at least here in the US. dbx noise reduction
was a broadband compressor and expander with an EQ curve thrown in for
good measure. There was Telcom that never got much traction but of
course that's the one that some people said was best. And also on the
consumer side, there was Dolby C (a better Dolby B) and Dolby S (a cheap
Dolby SR).

Dolby would sell B/C chips to anyone who wanted to put them in their
product and put the Dolby logo on it. They didn't make any attempt to
control the quality of the audio that went into and came out of the
processor, which is probably the greatest reason why it got a bad rap.
The hardware had to be qualified by meeting a set of specifications
before Dolby would supply S chips to a manufacturer, but it never got
very far since digital was getting a pretty good foothold by then.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[William Sommerwerck]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

Dolby would sell B/C chips to anyone who wanted to put them in their product
and put the Dolby logo on it. They didn't make any attempt to control the
quality of the audio that went into and came out of the processor, which is
probably the greatest reason why it got a bad rap.

I'm not sure. Dolby B definitely dulled the sound (dbx did not), and I believe
this was due to a design flaw -- specifically, the peak limiter.

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Dolby B splits the audio into two bands, and then works only on the HF
end, while ignoring the bottom end, so from that point of view, it's a
two band system.

True, although there's still only one serial signal path, unlike SR.

Dolby A, which was rare, IIRC was a single band system which applied
compression (At about a 2:1 ratio?)to the unmodified signal.

Yes. Dolby A was not rare at all, though, it was in nearly every studio
in the country. (People also used the encoders as effects devices.)
--scott

Let's not forget the Cat. No. 43A controller that separately managed the
Type A's four bands of dynamic expansion and functioned very well as an
ambiance helper in dialog productions.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

Dolby would sell B/C chips to anyone who wanted to put them in their product
and put the Dolby logo on it. They didn't make any attempt to control the
quality of the audio that went into and came out of the processor, which is
probably the greatest reason why it got a bad rap.

I'm not sure. Dolby B definitely dulled the sound (dbx did not), and I believe
this was due to a design flaw -- specifically, the peak limiter.

Dolby B could be pretty flat, if the signal path between encoding and decoding
was flat. Unfortunately it seldom was.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

So back then, emphasis in the digital realm *sort of* accomplished the same thing as Dolby B NR did on cassettes?

No, the notion was distortion reduction rather than noise reduction. (It
did change the noise spectrum as well but not really in a useful way.)

Also Scott I threw a few known early/original release CDs of mine into Exact Audio Copy and they all returned a NO in the Emphasis column. That leaves over 400 more to check, something I don't think is worth wasting time on. LOLOL

They exist, you will find one. I released a bunch of them. But they are
very much a drop in the bucket.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chuck[_10_]]

On 6 Dec 2014 10:27:35 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article , Trevor wrote:
On 6/12/2014 1:22 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Hardly anyone used pre-emphasis (which is a shame because it made a
substantial improvement in the sound back then).

You are kidding right? The CD format has always had more than enough
capability (without pre-emphasis) to handle anything recorded on tape.
Any difference whatsoever in sound would be because the pre-emphasis was
not implemented or decoded correctly. Which is why it was hardly ever
used and soon forgotten completely. The pre-emphasis absolutely
necessary for tape of course is a different thing altogether.

Early converters had a lot of linearity problems, and the end result was
somewhat unpleasant high end. Remember this was the age of very long
ladder converters; if you recorded a 1kc tone at -60dBFS and played it
back, it sounded audibly buzzy (implying more than 2% distortion) on the
1610.

Pre-emphasis did a lot to reduce some of the high end distortion products
at the expense of a little dynamic range. The difference in sound on the
1610 (or even worse the SV3700) was quite audible.

Thank God those days are over.
--scott


Some higher end CD players with Burr Brown DACs, in the mid 80s, had a
potentiometer that could be adjusted for minimum distortion on a low
level tone. Many times they were adjusted incorrectly out of the box.
As a courtesy to our customers, we would adjust the pots for minimum
distortion before the customer took the players home.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[[email protected]]

Also Scott I threw a few known early/original release CDs of mine into Exact Audio Copy and they all returned a NO in the Emphasis column. That leaves over 400 more to check, something I don't think is worth wasting time on. LOLOL

They exist, you will find one. I released a bunch of them. But they are
very much a drop in the bucket.
--scott


http://www.studio-nibble.com/cd/inde..._(release_list)

Mark

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:56:24 -0600, Chuck wrote:

On 6 Dec 2014 10:27:35 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article , Trevor wrote:
On 6/12/2014 1:22 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Hardly anyone used pre-emphasis (which is a shame because it made a
substantial improvement in the sound back then).

You are kidding right? The CD format has always had more than enough
capability (without pre-emphasis) to handle anything recorded on tape.
Any difference whatsoever in sound would be because the pre-emphasis was
not implemented or decoded correctly. Which is why it was hardly ever
used and soon forgotten completely. The pre-emphasis absolutely
necessary for tape of course is a different thing altogether.

Early converters had a lot of linearity problems, and the end result was
somewhat unpleasant high end. Remember this was the age of very long
ladder converters; if you recorded a 1kc tone at -60dBFS and played it
back, it sounded audibly buzzy (implying more than 2% distortion) on the
1610.

Pre-emphasis did a lot to reduce some of the high end distortion products
at the expense of a little dynamic range. The difference in sound on the
1610 (or even worse the SV3700) was quite audible.

Thank God those days are over.
--scott


Some higher end CD players with Burr Brown DACs, in the mid 80s, had a
potentiometer that could be adjusted for minimum distortion on a low
level tone. Many times they were adjusted incorrectly out of the box.
As a courtesy to our customers, we would adjust the pots for minimum
distortion before the customer took the players home.

Don't blame the manufacturers - those pots were doing an essentially
impossible job. What you were seeing was not misalignment but drift.
Given a week or so, they would have been off by just as much again.

d

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:05:27 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Also Scott I threw a few known early/original release CDs of mine into Exact Audio Copy and they all returned a NO in the Emphasis column. That leaves over 400 more to check, something I don't think is worth wasting time on. LOLOL

They exist, you will find one. I released a bunch of them. But they are
very much a drop in the bucket.
--scott


http://www.studio-nibble.com/cd/inde..._(release_list)

Mark
_________

Thanks Mark!


Seems to be a list for everything nowadays... Couple things I noticed about this list: #1. Most of the items on it were made outside of the U.S. for distribution outside of the U.S. Guess sound quality wasn't as much of an issue on early CDs & players inside of the U.S. as it was in other countries. #2. Of the 3 catalog #s I own that are on this list, Exact Audio Copy returned a "no" in the pre-emphasis column. The weirdest was the Jacksons' "Triumph", cat EK36424, US for US, with "unknown pressing" stated in the Notes column - WTF?! It was probably THEE pressing for sale in the United States! lmao..


All in all, I suspect that any of my CDs that do have emphasis fall under the "Suspected Missing PE" category, since programs like EAC are looking for the PE flag - not analyzing for actual emphasis curve. Guess inserting a PE flag was optional or they didn't care on some releases.


In any case, I'm still mystified as to why so many of my mp3s and lossless rips from my CDs are so 'top-heavy' compared to listening to the actual CD, that's why I initially suspected pre-emphasis that isn't accounted for by current ripping tools(Windows Media, iTunes, etc.).

[Tom McCreadie]

On 10 Dec 2014 wrote:

Also Scott I threw a few known early/original release CDs of mine into Exact Audio Copy and they all returned a NO in the Emphasis column. That leaves over 400 more to check, something I don't think is worth wasting time on. LOLOL

They exist, you will find one. I released a bunch of them. But they are
very much a drop in the bucket.
--scott


http://www.studio-nibble.com/cd/inde..._(release_list)

That list was mainly pop/rock music. I think you'll find a lot more lurking out
there in classical genre.
For instance, doing a quick dip into a pile of classical cd's before me that
were made between 1980 and 1990, I found this one at only my 6th try :-):

Musica Svecia MSCD 626 (1990): "Serenad, Midvinter, Chitra";composer Wilhelm
Stenhammar; performed by The Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra and Choir.
--
Tom McCreadie