Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
I am generally not a pioneer when it comes to new technology. I prefer to let
someone else spend the big bucks and pay to get the bugs out of new gadgets. However, one important exception I made was audio CDs. When they first came out, they seemed to have so many advantages over phonograph records--and so few disadvantages--that I was literally one of the first people in the city to buy a CD player and a CD (Vivaldi, which I still have). It seemed like a technology that just couldn't lose. So, when did you first decide to switch to CD audio over phonograph records? Or, if you'eve never switched, what made you stay with records? And if you've always preferred some other technology (reel-to-reel tape, or whatever), why did you/do you prefer it? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
I had always preferred open-reel tape to LP, so the switch to CD was easy.
Once I bought a player -- it was a not-expensive Yamaha -- I started buying CDs. This was fairly early in the introduction. What one might more profitably ask is... When did you stop playing LPs? Last year I sold almost all my audiophile LPs (which I thought I never would do). I rarely listen to LPs, and it's mostly to hear SQ quadraphonic disks, 99% of which have never been transferred to a digital multi-ch medium. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
On Jan 26, 1:53*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
So, when did you first decide to switch to CD audio over phonograph records? Or, if you'eve never switched, what made you stay with records? And if you've always preferred some other technology (reel-to-reel tape, or whatever), why did you/do you prefer it? I combined LPs and CDs very early in their development. I worked at a record store, so I was getting good discounts on records. It was sort of an "all in" kind of thing with the CD. You had to have the hardware to play them. So, once I invested in a CD player (the second generation Sony Diskman, the one with the docking station so it worked as a regular CD player), I started buying more CDs as they released recordings that I wanted. I'd guess, through the '90s, I still bought LPs and CDs, depending on what format had what I wanted (I listen to Jazz almost exclusively, and not "smooth" jazz) so a lot of what I was looking for was only on LP. Once everything started to be released and re-released on CD, I just listen to CD now. I'll pull out the old LPs, every now and then, but the convenience of playing a CD is so much more attractive. The dog won't walk by (I have a big dog) and make the CD skip. I don't have to turn it and holding it without touching the playing surface can be accomplished with one hand. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Soundhaspriority writes:
I switched in the late 80's. At that time, a lot of CDs sounded really rotten, but I was attracted to the convenience and durability. The early 90's were a time of rapid progress, rapidly diminishing the negative aspects of subjective sound quality, eventually exceeding that of LP's. I recall hearing people say that early CDs sounded terrible, but at least the ones I bought sounded okay to me. What was wrong with the way early CDs were made? Or was it only an isolated problem? |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Mxsmanic wrote:
I am generally not a pioneer when it comes to new technology. I prefer to let someone else spend the big bucks and pay to get the bugs out of new gadgets. However, one important exception I made was audio CDs. When they first came out, they seemed to have so many advantages over phonograph records--and so few disadvantages--that I was literally one of the first people in the city to buy a CD player and a CD (Vivaldi, which I still have). It seemed like a technology that just couldn't lose. So, when did you first decide to switch to CD audio over phonograph records? Or, if you'eve never switched, what made you stay with records? And if you've always preferred some other technology (reel-to-reel tape, or whatever), why did you/do you prefer it? I had around 110 or so vinyl albums right up to USMC boot camp in 1985. When I came home, all but two had been stolen. I went without anything but cassette until the end of 1987, when I bought myself my first cd deck and a few cds. Got back into vinyl around 2005 or so. I listen to both for a number of reasons. Vinyl for the different sound, experimentation on the cheap, and nostalgia. CD for easy handling and easy clean sound. If I want it even easier and handier, I go with my computer or iPod. But I'm still not throwing away the records. I still get way too much enjoyment out of 'em. JMHSO ---Jeff |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Soundhaspriority writes: I switched in the late 80's. At that time, a lot of CDs sounded really rotten, but I was attracted to the convenience and durability. The early 90's were a time of rapid progress, rapidly diminishing the negative aspects of subjective sound quality, eventually exceeding that of LP's. I recall hearing people say that early CDs sounded terrible, but at least the ones I bought sounded okay to me. What was wrong with the way early CDs were made? Or was it only an isolated problem? Crap conversion. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Soundhaspriority writes: I switched in the late 80's. At that time, a lot of CDs sounded really rotten, but I was attracted to the convenience and durability. The early 90's were a time of rapid progress, rapidly diminishing the negative aspects of subjective sound quality, eventually exceeding that of LP's. I recall hearing people say that early CDs sounded terrible, but at least the ones I bought sounded okay to me. What was wrong with the way early CDs were made? Or was it only an isolated problem? A lot of it had to do with early CD players having horribly screechy sounding converters, due to linearity issues. The second generation Philips was actually much worse than the first generation in that regard. Add to that the original mastering being done with pretty nasty sounding converters on those PCM-1610 machines. Thank God all of those are gone. On top of THAT, record companies were reaching into the back catalogue and trying to get everything available as quickly as possible, and that meant using whatever tapes were handy, and as little time spent in the mastering room as possible. There was a huge press buildup when the first four Beatles albums first came out on CD... but when they did, they were clearly full-track mono tapes played on a stereo machine without the channels summed, and on one of them the deck azimuth was off so the sound was a little cockeyed from the delay. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
On 1/26/2012 3:53 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
I am generally not a pioneer when it comes to new technology. I prefer to let someone else spend the big bucks and pay to get the bugs out of new gadgets. However, one important exception I made was audio CDs. When they first came out, they seemed to have so many advantages over phonograph records--and so few disadvantages--that I was literally one of the first people in the city to buy a CD player and a CD (Vivaldi, which I still have). It seemed like a technology that just couldn't lose. So, when did you first decide to switch to CD audio over phonograph records? Or, if you'eve never switched, what made you stay with records? And if you've always preferred some other technology (reel-to-reel tape, or whatever), why did you/do you prefer it? I was the fifth in our town to buy a CD player ... the CDP-101, which I still have and which still works. I also still have and listen to the first disks I bought. Why? Because I expected better sound, and, except for audiophile LPs played the very first time, I got it. But Barclay-Crocker open reel Dolby tapes were and still are excellent, though I have digitized all of those I won and retired my beloved Sony TV-755. Doug McDonald |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Soundhaspriority writes:
The A/D converters weren't good enough, noise shaping wasn't in wide use, and the DAW chains weren't good enough. On a superficial level, they didn't have enough resolution, but there were many internal problems, related to incomplete engineering knowledge. Modern A/D converters are much more refined, using combinations of techniques to provide excellent high and low level linearity. The first good A/D converters had a lot of custom chips and high parts counts, so they were extremely expensive, and available only to the well-heeled. So the best recordings of the 80's were still analog, mixed to two channels before conversion. By 1987, there were some good digital recordings, and these were distinguished by advertising and labeling. But my personal impression (and ears will vary) is that before noise shaping, there was always a subjective lack. Many audiophile products used doubtful methods to make those early recordings listenable: DACs with deliberate coloration, tubes in the chain, etc. Does this apply at both ends? Will old CDs sound better on newer equipment, or was the damage done when they were made, permanently leaving them with poorer sound? On the DAW end, mixing was originally done with 16 bits, then 24, and finally, floating point. Before floating point, mixing introduced additional quantization error. So I should prefer 32-bit floating point WAV files to 24-bit signed WAV files? I've been using the latter because I don't know how many bits of precision 32-bit provides (if the total length of the number is 32 bits, then the precision is far lower than 32 bits and probably less than 24 bits, depending on the floating-point format used). |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Mxsmanic wrote:
[...] So, when did you first decide to switch to CD audio over phonograph records? Or, if you'eve never switched, what made you stay with records? And if you've always preferred some other technology (reel-to-reel tape, or whatever), why did you/do you prefer it? I was given a secondhand CD player, so I went out and bought one CD to test it; the music was a compilation transfered from 78s, many of which I had already collected and knew extremely well. The transfer had been beaten to pulp by badly-operated Cedar and the sound quality was dreadful. I went back to listening to 78s for pleasure. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"hank alrich" wrote in message
... Mxsmanic wrote: I recall hearing people say that early CDs sounded terrible, but at least the ones I bought sounded okay to me. What was wrong with the way early CDs were made? Or was it only an isolated problem? Crap conversion. This is partly true -- the early Sony ADCs weren't that good. It also appears that many recordings weren't transferred from the original recordings, but from "masters" made for LPs. These often had HF EQ and other manipulations not needed for CDs. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... So, when did you first decide to switch to CD audio over phonograph records? I decided to switch to digital audio over analog in 1981 or so, based on hearing PCM-F1-based recordings that a certain unnamed and unnamable engineer was bootlegging from events he worked. I switched to CDs as my favored medium in March 1983. I bought a CDP 101 (one of the first few sold in Detroit). There were a whopping 16 different CD titles at the local record store (now long departed). I bought them all. In those days I did quite a bit of business travel, and found any number of new titles in various places like Chicago (obvious) and Bismarck North Dakota (not so obvious). It turns out that there were a goodly number of wealthy farmers who were interested in the arts but were cut off from them from the standpoint of broadcast audio and video by their location. Many parts of the great plains had maybe 1 TV station that delivered a substandard picture even with heroic antennas and receivers. So, they were early adopters of various formats of pre-recorded audio and video. BTW, AFAIK the most heroic personal TV reception system I've seen belonged to a farmer in Ontario who lived north of 403 between Sarnia and London. He had a 300+ foot tower built and put the best Yagi he could find on top of it. This was a six-figure project, if memory serves. Of course the yagi was on a rotator and the feed line (over 600 feet long) had booster amps. It turned out to be only marginally successful. No serious problems with signal strength, but he was never able to find a commercial VHF antenna that had enough directivity to separate stations in Detroit, Toledo, and Cleveland. There were stations on alternate channels (Detroit/Toledo) or the same channels (Detroit/Cleveland) that interfered with each other. Some problems with propagation. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Soundhaspriority writes: I switched in the late 80's. At that time, a lot of CDs sounded really rotten, but I was attracted to the convenience and durability. The early 90's were a time of rapid progress, rapidly diminishing the negative aspects of subjective sound quality, eventually exceeding that of LP's. I recall hearing people say that early CDs sounded terrible, but at least the ones I bought sounded okay to me. What was wrong with the way early CDs were made? Or was it only an isolated problem? For the most part the early CDs that sounded bad (which were IME in a tiny minority) sounded bad due to production mistakes. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Soundhaspriority writes: The A/D converters weren't good enough, noise shaping wasn't in wide use, and the DAW chains weren't good enough. On a superficial level, they didn't have enough resolution, but there were many internal problems, related to incomplete engineering knowledge. Modern A/D converters are much more refined, using combinations of techniques to provide excellent high and low level linearity. The first good A/D converters had a lot of custom chips and high parts counts, so they were extremely expensive, and available only to the well-heeled. So the best recordings of the 80's were still analog, mixed to two channels before conversion. By 1987, there were some good digital recordings, and these were distinguished by advertising and labeling. But my personal impression (and ears will vary) is that before noise shaping, there was always a subjective lack. Many audiophile products used doubtful methods to make those early recordings listenable: DACs with deliberate coloration, tubes in the chain, etc. Does this apply at both ends? Will old CDs sound better on newer equipment, or was the damage done when they were made, permanently leaving them with poorer sound? Broken is broken. The first CD I even bought was "Hotel California" and it sounds remarkably like the vinyl. For years, I'd thought it was the pressing - nope. On the DAW end, mixing was originally done with 16 bits, then 24, and finally, floating point. Before floating point, mixing introduced additional quantization error. So I should prefer 32-bit floating point WAV files to 24-bit signed WAV files? You should prefer *mixing* in 32 bit floating point. 24 vs 16 is your call for storage, but I know of no compelling reason to save stuff in 32float. I don't know how you'd mix in anything other than 32float these days. You'd have to go back to software targeted for pre-Pentium era computers ( or whatever the corresponding Mac is) I've been using the latter because I don't know how many bits of precision 32-bit provides (if the total length of the number is 32 bits, then the precision is far lower than 32 bits and probably less than 24 bits, depending on the floating-point format used). No - not true. The exponent is information, too - not just the mantissa. You'll get a pretty accurate picture of the analog noise of the recording chain at 24 bit. This being said, with 32float, you're more likely to survive level mistakes than in pure linear PCM without damage. -- Les Cargill |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:12:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Mxsmanic" wrote in message .. . So, when did you first decide to switch to CD audio over phonograph records? I decided to switch to digital audio over analog in 1981 or so, based on hearing PCM-F1-based recordings that a certain unnamed and unnamable engineer was bootlegging from events he worked. --------------8----------------------------- -- On a very good German site I've found a story on how Mr. Studer met Mr. Morita at IFA or CeBIT in 1987. This is a Google translation (oh, "Race Cars" = Boliden = Studer reel to reel machines, of course). A legend or not, it shows how an era began to go towards its end:-- http://translate.google.hr/translate...e.html&act=url (hope the link works well) Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
William Sommerwerck wrote:
What one might more profitably ask is... When did you stop playing LPs? Last year I sold almost all my audiophile LPs (which I thought I never would do). I rarely listen to LPs, and it's mostly to hear SQ quadraphonic disks, 99% of which have never been transferred to a digital multi-ch medium. I just cut two sides yesterday afternoon. If that counts as listening... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:06:00 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
Does this apply at both ends? Will old CDs sound better on newer equipment Both ends. So I should prefer 32-bit floating point WAV files to 24-bit signed WAV files? I've been using the latter because I don't know how many bits of precision 32-bit provides (if the total length of the number is 32 bits, then the precision is far lower than 32 bits and probably less than 24 bits, depending on the floating-point format used). IEEE 32 bit float is 8 bit exponent and 24 bit signed mantissa, which means it's at least as good as 24 bit linear and mostly much better. -- Anahata -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827 |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
PStamler wrote:
And crap post-production; many early CDs were edited on a Sony editing console which (I'm told) stopped being 16-bit resolution and reverted to 14-bit whenever the master gain was set at something other than unity. And there was this bizarre idea of "following the fade" -- that is, as the sound died out after the last note the mastering engineer would fade the signal out in parallel, making the fade down to ambient noise into a (truncated-word) fade into total silence. Oh, yeah. I forgot all about that. Those things also had weird zipper noises when you adjusted the gain. I first heard decent digital recording on, of all things, a consumer DAT deck -- Sony's first generation of home DAT recorders using 1-bit converters. I liked it, and I bought it, even though you could only record analog at 48kHz sampling rate. Used it to make some nice- sounding recordings. For me, it was the PCM F-1 at the NPR affiliate in Atlanta. The low end was just so clean and solid... it was the first time I had ever heard a recording with the kind of low end that you hear in the hall. It took me a bit of listening to realize just how awful the high end was, though. When did I buy my first CD player? Actually, I didn't; it was given to me by my parents when they got a better one. It was about 1990, which was also the time the improved Sony DAT machines came out. One reason I waited: most of the music I was interested in didn't start coming out on CD until the 90s. (I had a buddy say he wouldn't buy a CD player until he could get a CD of Robert Jr. Lockwood. It was the mid-90s before that happened.) I bought a 14-bit Philips when the 16-bit ones came out, on the advice of Audio Amateur. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Mxsmanic wrote:
So, when did you first decide to switch to CD audio over phonograph records? Or, if you'eve never switched, what made you stay with records? And if you've always preferred some other technology (reel-to-reel tape, or whatever), why did you/do you prefer it? I had been perfectly happy with LPs played by a Shure V15-IV MR (IIRC) into a custom phono preamp built around API 2520s by one of the guys at Quad-Eight. But then several new classical releases I wanted were only on CD. This was around 1988 or so. I began a 2 year quest to find a CD player that sounded half-way decent. Auditioning some 20+ units, from cheap to as much as a new car of the day, the disappointment was epic. All of them had terrible imaging, and way too many had grit or other sonic issues, sometimes intential problems designed to "fix" other underlying problems. Then I was loaned a stock Pioneer PD75. This was pretty good. No grit, better (but not perfect) imaging. Then the dealer next loaned me a PD75 they'd hot-rodded (better caps with bypasses, additional PS bypasses, removing the botched balanced outputs, etc) and wow! What great sound. Razor perfect imaging, zero grit or edge (unless the CD had been badly done); none of the inherent sonic limitations of recoards. I was hooked. Years later, I dug in a bit to what Pioneer had done. There were several separate power supplies completely isolating digital, analog, and transport power needs. They'd used a stereo DAC for EACH channel, with a clever inversion scheme designed to linearize the conversion process. They'd done several things to mitigate jitter, which had been a serious problem and was a contributor to what many folks disliked about "digital sound". I still have the thing, it still works, and in some ways it still sounds the best (even compared to the Avocet monitor controller), though it does have its own signature -- just happens to be a pretty good one. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Les Cargill writes:
No - not true. The exponent is information, too - not just the mantissa. Yeah, but it's magnitude rather than precision. Just like any other floating point. When I hear 32-bit, I wonder about the size of the mantissa. If it's a 32-bit mantissa, great, but if it's eight bits of exponent and two sign bits, plus 22 bits of mantissa, it's potentially worse than signed 24-bit. For high accuracy in other types of computer processing, very large integers are often used rather than floating point--although that's also a question of performance and decimal precision, and the latter probably isn't important for audio. You'll get a pretty accurate picture of the analog noise of the recording chain at 24 bit. This being said, with 32float, you're more likely to survive level mistakes than in pure linear PCM without damage. I guess with the poor quality of my gear I'm splitting hairs, but I still worry about accuracy and precision. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Mxsmanic wrote:
I am generally not a pioneer when it comes to new technology. I prefer to let someone else spend the big bucks and pay to get the bugs out of new gadgets. However, one important exception I made was audio CDs. When they first came out, they seemed to have so many advantages over phonograph records--and so few disadvantages--that I was literally one of the first people in the city to buy a CD player and a CD (Vivaldi, which I still have). It seemed like a technology that just couldn't lose. So, when did you first decide to switch to CD audio over phonograph records? Or, if you'eve never switched, what made you stay with records? And if you've always preferred some other technology (reel-to-reel tape, or whatever), why did you/do you prefer it? Mid 80's, bought a cd player to be cool, a hitachi, about $180 . Took it along with my DJ friends to play some good old cd music. Had to almost hold it to keep it from skipping while playing from floor vibration. Greg |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
William Sommerwerck writes:
What one might more profitably ask is... When did you stop playing LPs? Last year I sold almost all my audiophile LPs (which I thought I never would do). I rarely listen to LPs, and it's mostly to hear SQ quadraphonic disks, 99% of which have never been transferred to a digital multi-ch medium. My listening to LPs fell way off once I had bought my first CDs. In many cases it wasn't so much that the LPs sounded worse, it's just that there was too much overhead to playing them, as opposed to popping a CD into a player. I recall brushing each LP with some special brush I got before each play, and squirting anti-static something-or-other at it before playing it. I could never tell if the anti-static gun thing actually did any good, though (I wasn't sure, but I figured it wouldn't hurt). I think there was even some sort of liquid that I was supposed to put on the LP before brushing it to perfection. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[rem writes:
-- On a very good German site I've found a story on how Mr. Studer met Mr. Morita at IFA or CeBIT in 1987. This is a Google translation (oh, "Race Cars" = Boliden = Studer reel to reel machines, of course). A legend or not, it shows how an era began to go towards its end:-- http://translate.google.hr/translate...e.html&act=url So if I understand the translation, Morita gave Studer two of the first digital recording devices, and (apparently) Studer did not have much experience with digital? |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:40:47 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote: Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[rem writes: -- On a very good German site I've found a story on how Mr. Studer met Mr. Morita at IFA or CeBIT in 1987. This is a Google translation (oh, "Race Cars" = Boliden = Studer reel to reel machines, of course). A legend or not, it shows how an era began to go towards its end:-- http://translate.google.hr/translate...e.html&act=url So if I understand the translation, Morita gave Studer two of the first digital recording devices, and (apparently) Studer did not have much experience with digital? -- I can't tell whether the situation mentioned in the article was a fact or fiction. However, I think that Studer _did_ almost miss the digital train. Why it is so I can't explain. What Studer did with microprocessors has been more automation and synchronisation and better handling of analog tapes. The only Studer DAT machine known to me is D780. But then again, the article deals with DAT devices in 1978, but I think that Sony begun the digital recording era with the Sony PCM-1600 , based on U-Matic. A friend of mine told me about his first experiences with that machines in the 80's. DAT as RDAT cassette format came later. I have a Sony SDT-9000 streamer which has a firmware version allowing reproduction and recording of DAT. With a specialized software (I use WaveDat, a Japanese software best suited for the purpose, there are some other programs too) I am able to transfer DAT tapes to the hard drive without the hassle with DAT machines. Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Mxsmanic wrote:
So if I understand the translation, Morita gave Studer two of the first digital recording devices, and (apparently) Studer did not have much experience with digital? Nobody did. Outside of a few folks in Japan, the whole idea was pretty alien in the industry. The thing is, Studer got to see early DAT systems before anyone else did, and that led them to being one of the first of the old line outfits to get into the digital market. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
On Jan 27, 6:58*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Soundhaspriority writes: I switched in the late 80's. At that time, a lot of CDs sounded really rotten, but I was attracted to the convenience and durability. *The early 90's were a time of rapid progress, rapidly diminishing the negative aspects of subjective sound quality, eventually exceeding that of LP's. I recall hearing people say that early CDs sounded terrible, but at least the ones I bought sounded okay to me. What was wrong with the way early CDs were made? Or was it only an isolated problem? For the most part the early CDs that sounded bad (which were IME in a tiny minority) sounded bad due to production mistakes. Many early CDs were bad. Arguably most. I got rid of my records in the early 90s because of moving and personal issues. The sad thing is that that was well after people noticed there was something not right with CD. I have stayed with CD but also have got back into vinyl because I enjoy many LPs not available on CD or available only with lousy, squashed mastering, plus LP is fun to tinker with. I now have a much better table (actually two: a much modified Linn Sondek and a vintage Fairchild) than I did before. Neither vinyl nor CD sounds as good as tape....but there's no way I'm paying "Tape Project" prices. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Les Cargill writes: No - not true. The exponent is information, too - not just the mantissa. Yeah, but it's magnitude rather than precision. It's both. If you seriously want to understand floating point, you have to play with 'em. Just like any other floating point. When I hear 32-bit, I wonder about the size of the mantissa. If it's a 32-bit mantissa, great, but if it's eight bits of exponent and two sign bits, plus 22 bits of mantissa, it's potentially worse than signed 24-bit. Not really... so do this: 1) Write a 'C' program to read in a 24 bit file. 2) In the same program, convert every sample to a 32 bit float. 3) Write that file out. 3.1) Bring up the resulting file in a .wav editor to make sure it's scaled properly. 4) Write a different program to read in the 32 bit float file. 5) Convert each sample to 24 bit. 6) Write that back out. 6.1 Bring the result up in a .wav editor... 7) Literally take the difference signal between the original 24 bit file and the resulting 24 bit file. IOW, for each sample s in each file, subtract one from the other and then look at *that* result. If you have CoolEdit*, you may not even have to write any 'C' code. *others may do this as well, but I don't know that. You may need to scale things. And really, you should dither. It's been forever since I had done this, but I do not recall any loss at all. And what we're both not talking about is: as you do math with 32 bit floats, you get *less error* in things like plugins. The 'error spectrum' for 23 bit float is way better than for pure PCM samples. For high accuracy in other types of computer processing, very large integers are often used rather than floating point--although that's also a question of performance and decimal precision, and the latter probably isn't important for audio. Bigints have their place, but I've never been in that place.... to be brutally honest, everything I do is still 16 bit, so.... You'll get a pretty accurate picture of the analog noise of the recording chain at 24 bit. This being said, with 32float, you're more likely to survive level mistakes than in pure linear PCM without damage. I guess with the poor quality of my gear I'm splitting hairs, but I still worry about accuracy and precision. That's a good thing. But it's important to do experiments so you know what to worry about. Very nearly all gear made in the last 10 years or so simply doesn't *have* any digital signal processing problems. -- Les Cargill |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... So, when did you first decide to switch to CD audio over phonograph records? I decided to switch to digital audio over analog in 1981 or so, based on hearing PCM-F1-based recordings that a certain unnamed and unnamable engineer was bootlegging from events he worked. I switched to CDs as my favored medium in March 1983. I bought a CDP 101 (one of the first few sold in Detroit). There were a whopping 16 different CD titles at the local record store (now long departed). I bought them all. In those days I did quite a bit of business travel, and found any number of new titles in various places like Chicago (obvious) and Bismarck North Dakota (not so obvious). It turns out that there were a goodly number of wealthy farmers who were interested in the arts but were cut off from them from the standpoint of broadcast audio and video by their location. Many parts of the great plains had maybe 1 TV station that delivered a substandard picture even with heroic antennas and receivers. So, they were early adopters of various formats of pre-recorded audio and video. BTW, AFAIK the most heroic personal TV reception system I've seen belonged to a farmer in Ontario who lived north of 403 between Sarnia and London. He had a 300+ foot tower built and put the best Yagi he could find on top of it. This was a six-figure project, if memory serves. Of course the yagi was on a rotator and the feed line (over 600 feet long) had booster amps. It turned out to be only marginally successful. No serious problems with signal strength, but he was never able to find a commercial VHF antenna that had enough directivity to separate stations in Detroit, Toledo, and Cleveland. There were stations on alternate channels (Detroit/Toledo) or the same channels (Detroit/Cleveland) that interfered with each other. Some problems with propagation. I'll third the CDP-101. Bought it used in (I think) 1985. First CD was "Turn of a friendly card", by Alan Parsons, which my girlfriend bought me for Christmas. I had to wait a month or so to play it, as I had bought the CDP-101 on layaway and hadn't finished paying for it. Still have the Sony and it still works. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... PStamler wrote: snip. When did I buy my first CD player? Actually, I didn't; it was given to me by my parents when they got a better one. It was about 1990, which was also the time the improved Sony DAT machines came out. One reason I waited: most of the music I was interested in didn't start coming out on CD until the 90s. (I had a buddy say he wouldn't buy a CD player until he could get a CD of Robert Jr. Lockwood. It was the mid-90s before that happened.) I bought a 14-bit Philips when the 16-bit ones came out, on the advice of Audio Amateur. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Likewise - a CD350 in fact. Ran faultlessly and rather better then many of that era for 15 years plus. Dave --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to --- |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote: I am generally not a pioneer when it comes to new technology. I prefer to let someone else spend the big bucks and pay to get the bugs out of new gadgets. However, one important exception I made was audio CDs. When they first came out, they seemed to have so many advantages over phonograph records--and so few disadvantages--that I was literally one of the first people in the city to buy a CD player and a CD (Vivaldi, which I still have). It seemed like a technology that just couldn't lose. So, when did you first decide to switch to CD audio over phonograph records? Or, if you'eve never switched, what made you stay with records? And if you've always preferred some other technology (reel-to-reel tape, or whatever), why did you/do you prefer it? I bought a Yamaha CD player in 1986 along with a few new classical recordings. The speakers I had clearly did not do justice to the music, so I got a pair of Klipsch Cornwalls. I was quite pleased with the results and never really looked back. Hank |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
On 1/27/2012 1:14 AM, PStamler wrote:
One reason I waited: most of the music I was interested in didn't start coming out on CD until the 90s. (I had a buddy say he wouldn't buy a CD player until he could get a CD of Robert Jr. Lockwood. It was the mid-90s before that happened.) That sounds like a good reason. I decided that when someone gave me a CD that I wanted to listen to, that would be when I would buy a CD player. I don't remember the year, but when one of my best friends, a recording engineer from California, came to visit me and brought me a copy of his first project that had been made as a CD (it was an analog recording of a jazz band), I figured that would be a good time to get a player. So we went to the local appliance store together and came home with a Magnavox, which has a S/PDIF output and which still works - which is more than I can say for the Yamaha that a friend gave me (it has a tray problem that can be dealt with using a finger). I rarely play music that I own any more, but I still get something out on occasion. Mostly I listen to radio over the Internet these days and I don't let the lack of audiophile fidelity spoil my listening experience. -- "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 http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... I am generally not a pioneer when it comes to new technology. I prefer to let someone else spend the big bucks and pay to get the bugs out of new gadgets. However, one important exception I made was audio CDs. When they first came out, they seemed to have so many advantages over phonograph records--and so few disadvantages--that I was literally one of the first people in the city to buy a CD player and a CD (Vivaldi, which I still have). It seemed like a technology that just couldn't lose. So, when did you first decide to switch to CD audio over phonograph records? Or, if you'eve never switched, what made you stay with records? And if you've always preferred some other technology (reel-to-reel tape, or whatever), why did you/do you prefer it? I was always interested in digital audio as a concept, and as soon as CD players dropped below the $200 mark I bought one - 84 or 85. And despite the flaws, which I couldn't hear, CD's sounded vastly better than the LP and cassette tape systems *in that price range*. For me it was a trade of flaws which were constant distractions for flaws that weren't. If I had been used to listening to a high end system with a good reel-to-reel, I might not have been so impressed. Sean |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
On Jan 26, 4:53*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
So, when did you first decide to switch to CD audio over phonograph records? Or, if you'eve never switched, what made you stay with records? And if you've always preferred some other technology (reel-to-reel tape, or whatever), why did you/do you prefer it? ___ 1988. Didnt really 'switch' to CD, that was just the year I got a player and started buying discs for it. -CC |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
Mxsmanic wrote:
Soundhaspriority writes: Does this apply at both ends? Will old CDs sound better on newer equipment, or was the damage done when they were made, permanently leaving them with poorer sound? It surprises me how many CDs of 70s and 80s pop/rock music have essentially NO LOW BASS to speak of. Was there none recorded or were these taken from a dodgey master ? Can't think of a title off the top of my head, but will try. And then there are ones likeOscar Petersen's 1965 'We Get Requests' which has wonderful bass (such asw You Look Good To Me), but tinny piano .... geoff |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... I've personally gone back and analyzed and carefully listened to some of the most damned digital recordings (e.g. Ry Cooder's Bop Till Your Drop), recorders (PCM-F1) and players ( CDP-101) and the bottom line is that they both represented dramatic advances in terms of sonic accuracy as compared to where analog was before, during and even after them. That's true, but it's not the same thing as being perfect. I won't disagree that digital represented a significant improvement over analog, but the idea that early digital equipment was therefore necessarily perfect is an invalid conclusion. In fact, it's simple intellectual foolishness. I made simultaneous recordings with the Nakamich version of the PCM-F1 and the dbx 700. The recordings did not sound the same (the Sony was harder and brighter-sounding), so they could not have both been perfect. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message news Soundhaspriority writes: The A/D converters weren't good enough, noise shaping wasn't in wide use, and the DAW chains weren't good enough. Audiophile myth. Prior to the introduction of the CD we did DBTs of an Ampex digital delay that was designed to assist with vinyl cutting. No matter how we examined it with high resolution playback systems, and no matter how we stressed it with live feeds and playback of high speed wide track analog masters, it was simply audibly perfect. I've personally gone back and analyzed and carefully listened to some of the most damned digital recordings (e.g. Ry Cooder's Bop Till Your Drop), recorders (PCM-F1) and players ( CDP-101) and the bottom line is that they both represented dramatic advances in terms of sonic accuracy as compared to where analog was before, during and even after them. The noise shaping comment is a red herring because noise shaping isn't needed for sonic transparency with 16 bits: 1 LSB unshaped TPDF dither suffices. The evidence that can be heard in the many fine recordings of the era is the There was widespread use of entirely adequate production techiques . OK, there were screw ups but what technology is immune to screw ups? On a superficial level, they didn't have enough resolution, False claim. but there were many internal problems, related to incomplete engineering knowledge. The many fine digital recordings from the early 80s onward belie that. If the technology had inherent or even common implementation flaws, then there would not be so many fine-sounding recordings from that era. Modern A/D converters are much more refined, using combinations of techniques to provide excellent high and low level linearity. In fact, the only signfiicant thing that has happened since the late 1970s is that sonically transparent digital converters have gotten smaller and cheaper by several orders of magnitude. There were sonically perfect converters in the late 1970s, but they were physically large, contained inherently expensive parts, required careful care and feeding, weren't the rule, and weren't sold on every street corner for $40 or less in finished products. Today, all those problems have been solved, and have been solved for at least 5 years. The first good A/D converters had a lot of custom chips and high parts counts, so they were extremely expensive, and available only to the well-heeled. So the best recordings of the 80's were still analog, mixed to two channels before conversion. Not the rule the author pretends it is because many of the finest classical and some pop and jazz recordings of that era were being made using minimal-microphone techniques. IOW there was no analog mixer, just two mics, two mic preamps, and a digital recorder. This trend had evolved well before digital, and as far as classical recording was concerned, it was the most generally accepted way to do things. Many of the first generation of practical digital recorders that were in use supported 4 channels which is pretty much all that existed in the way of analog recorders just 15-20 years earlier. The Soundstream Digital recorder that was used for Telarc's earliest digital recordings (from 1978 onward) had 4 channels and used a 50 KHz sample rate. 4 channels allows the use of one channel per mic for most generally accepted high quality orchestral recording techniques to this day. By 1987, there were some good digital recordings, and these were distinguished by advertising and labeling. There were good all-digital recordings from the onset. Does anybody remember Telarc? Does this apply at both ends? Will old CDs sound better on newer equipment, or was the damage done when they were made, permanently leaving them with poorer sound? IME the CDs that sounded great in 1983 through 1985 still sound great. On the DAW end, mixing was originally done with 16 bits, then 24, and finally, floating point. Before floating point, mixing introduced additional quantization error. False. It is trivial to do good digital mixing with fixed point arithmetic. Furthermore, when as few as 16 bits are used, the remaining analog components of the production chain (ncluding irreducable sources such as microphones and rooms) have more than enough noise for self-dithering unless there is gain riding and/or fade-outs. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:03:48 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:
Soundhaspriority writes: The A/D converters weren't good enough, noise shaping wasn't in wide use, and the DAW chains weren't good enough. Audiophile myth. There were sonically perfect converters in the late 1970s, but they were physically large, contained inherently expensive parts, required careful care and feeding, weren't the rule, and weren't sold on every street corner for $40 or less in finished products. I don't doubt that there were perfect converters in the late 1970's, when they were more of a research item, designed by people who knew what they were doing, and cost didn't matter much. However it also seems pretty clear that the subsequent rush to go digital resulted in a lot of cheap and poor products by designers who didn't understand digital conversion and processing properly, or were simply under pressure to cut corners. Today, all those problems have been solved, and have been solved for at least 5 years. Sure; the dark ages were somewhere in 80s and 90s. -- Anahata --/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk +44 (0)1638 720444 |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
In article ,
geoff wrote: Mxsmanic wrote: Soundhaspriority writes: Does this apply at both ends? Will old CDs sound better on newer equipment, or was the damage done when they were made, permanently leaving them with poorer sound? It surprises me how many CDs of 70s and 80s pop/rock music have essentially NO LOW BASS to speak of. Was there none recorded or were these taken from a dodgey master ? In many cases there was none recorded. Low end extension makes it hard to cut LPs, so often tracking and even arrangement was done with the basic intention of not having a huge amount of low end. Some of this, though, was the result of the push in the 1970s to build rooms that were severely damped at high frequencies without any low end control. Everybody wanted isolation and I don't think people really understood what was happening to the bottom end at the time. And of course some of it was cocaine. On the other hand we get "Itchykoo Park" with this weird cardboard-sounding kick drum that was a great test for tonearm setup... cheap turntables just couldn't track it without skipping because it was all sub-bass. The CD reissue is totally different sounding on the bottom. Can't think of a title off the top of my head, but will try. Well, here's a counterexample: Leon Russell Live, where the LP had no low end and the CD had far more extension. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
"geoff" wrote in message ... Mxsmanic wrote: Soundhaspriority writes: Does this apply at both ends? Will old CDs sound better on newer equipment, or was the damage done when they were made, permanently leaving them with poorer sound? It surprises me how many CDs of 70s and 80s pop/rock music have essentially NO LOW BASS to speak of. When you are producing music for cutting on LPs, particularly LPs you know are going to be played on cheap players, any kind of serious bass is your enemy. In some recording studios, the bass disappeared in the console channels. I happen to personally know 2 of the 3 top tech people at Motown when they were in Detroit. They tell me that their consoles had high pass filters right in the input stages. If memory serves, the filters were 4th order with a corner frequency of 80 Hz. This feeds back into things like micing because if you can't hear it on the monitors, there's no need to worry about how it is played or miced. Was there none recorded or were these taken from a dodgey master ? Often, none recorded. Can't think of a title off the top of my head, but will try. Check the Motown catalog from before they moved to LA. And then there are ones likeOscar Petersen's 1965 'We Get Requests' which has wonderful bass (such asw You Look Good To Me), but tinny piano .... Many possible causes, but in fact the piano might have been tinny. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
When did you switch to CDs, and why?
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote: "Mxsmanic" wrote in message news Soundhaspriority writes: The A/D converters weren't good enough, noise shaping wasn't in wide use, and the DAW chains weren't good enough. Audiophile myth. Prior to the introduction of the CD we did DBTs of an Ampex digital delay that was designed to assist with vinyl cutting. No matter how we examined it with high resolution playback systems, and no matter how we stressed it with live feeds and playback of high speed wide track analog masters, it was simply audibly perfect. If you mean the Ampex ADD-1, it did some interesting trickery. 14-bit converters running really fast to avoid having sharp slope anti-aliasing filters, and aggressive pre-emphasis and de-emphasis to deal with the distortion issues. There must have been a million inductors in those filters. I am pretty surprised it passed a good DBT.... it was very clean for its day, but it sure wasn't clean by modern standards. Studer made a similar unit at the time. For a really interesting experience, try and run signal through something like this with the peak level at -50 dBFS or so. You very quickly get a sense of what units were well-designed and what ones were not. I've personally gone back and analyzed and carefully listened to some of the most damned digital recordings (e.g. Ry Cooder's Bop Till Your Drop), recorders (PCM-F1) and players ( CDP-101) and the bottom line is that they both represented dramatic advances in terms of sonic accuracy as compared to where analog was before, during and even after them. The noise shaping comment is a red herring because noise shaping isn't needed for sonic transparency with 16 bits: 1 LSB unshaped TPDF dither suffices. The evidence that can be heard in the many fine recordings of the era is the There was widespread use of entirely adequate production techiques . OK, there were screw ups but what technology is immune to screw ups? You can point the blame at the technology or you can point the blame at the equipment or you can point the blame at the users and sometimes it can be hard to really know what is responsible. But so many of those recordings just sounded so bad.... In fact, the only signfiicant thing that has happened since the late 1970s is that sonically transparent digital converters have gotten smaller and cheaper by several orders of magnitude. There were sonically perfect converters in the late 1970s, but they were physically large, contained inherently expensive parts, required careful care and feeding, weren't the rule, and weren't sold on every street corner for $40 or less in finished products. Today, all those problems have been solved, and have been solved for at least 5 years. Not really. An enormous amount of research has gone into making converters with good linearity, most of it in the 1990s when people started noticing how bad the early digital stuff was. A couple things happened: first of all, we started getting oversampling converters, then we started getting sigma-delta converters to deal with the filtering issues. At the same time there was a big push to make everything monolithic for low cost, and that has some real advantages for ladder converters because you can keep the whole ladder at the same temperature. Things have changed a _lot_ in converter design since the seventies, beginning with having actual stability and not having to constantly tweak offset values all the time. That's something else sigma-delta systems finally eliminated completely. But even more importantly, it wasn't until the 1990s that people actually realized what attributes were needed to make a good-sounding converter. A lot of crazy stuff happened early on.. and some of the crazy stuff turned out to be a good idea (such as the 14-bit oversampling systems turning out to sound better than 16-bit systems, which surprised everywone), and some of the crazy stuff turned out to be really bad (such as Wadia's converters without reconstruction filters). On the DAW end, mixing was originally done with 16 bits, then 24, and finally, floating point. Before floating point, mixing introduced additional quantization error. False. It is trivial to do good digital mixing with fixed point arithmetic. Yes, but Sony didn't. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Lever Switch or Key Switch suppliers (UK) | Vacuum Tubes | |||
AB switch with XLR I/O? | Pro Audio | |||
Looking for this switch (Midas Venice solo switch) | Pro Audio | |||
A/B switch | Tech | |||
Kill Switch | Car Audio |