[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 18:20:54 -0700, MIKE--- wrote
(in article ):

Back in the mid '80s, Bob Carver introduced the "Digital Time Lens"
which was supposed to make CDs sound more like Vinal (I still have one
but I don't use it). It did soften the brightness of CDs but I didn't
care for the effect.
=20
---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=3DB0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Mostly, the problem with early CDs was misapplication of the technology a=
nd=20
not the underlying technology itself. On the recording end, it was the=20
ubiquitous (and awful-sounding)l Sony 1610, 1620, and 1630 A/D and format=
ting=20
processors which took analog in and outputted 16-bit, 44.1 KHz digital=20
formatted as a video signal (to send to a VCR =AD usually a U-Matic beca=
use=20
that was the mastering standard of the time, but it could have been a Be=
ta=20
or a VHS recorder).

On the playback end, it was D/A converters that were not able to do a ful=
l=20
16-bits linearly (early Philips players (Magnavox) didn't even try. They =
used=20
14-bit D/A converters and the little Magnavox FD-1000 sounded MUCH better=
=20
than the Japanese 16-bit units of the day). They also had really crude=20
multi-pole anti-alaising filters and produced, what would be considered=20
today, unacceptable levels of quantization error. The first generations o=
f=20
Sony CD players were just terrible and even with good, modern CDs, they s=
ound=20
simply wretched. I have an acquaintance who still uses a Sony CDP-101 (th=
e=20
first publicly available CD player, IIRC) and thinks it's just fine. Of=20
course, he's 84 and deaf as a post. Anyone would have to be to put-up wit=
h=20
that wretchedness!

Bob Carver's attempt to "fix" early CD with his "Digital Time Lens" was a=
=20
noble effort, but ultimately, no more than a band-aid. The first improvem=
ent=20
in CD sound was on the production end. When the industry moved away from =
the=20
aforementioned Sony 1600 series of processors, CD sound started to improv=
e=20
dramatically. The damned things were filled with literally a half-dozen o=
r=20
more (per channel) 741-style op-amps and cheap Japanese electrolytic coup=
ling=20
capacitors IN THE SIGNAL PATH! It didn't have a chance of producing dece=
nt=20
CDs. I have some of these early efforts, still. Even though modern playba=
ck=20
equipment makes them sound better than they did back in the day, the=20
strident, over-bright and somewhat distorted nature of early CD sound is=20
still very evident. One particularly nasty example, that still resides in=
my=20
collection is Richard Strauss' "Alpine Symphony" with Von Karajan and the=
=20
Berlin Philharmonic on DGG. One of the worst sounding orchestral recordin=
gs=20
ever released. I bring it up, because that's the CD I took to local stere=
o=20
store at the time to see what the Digital Time Lens could do for it. I re=
call=20
that it DID make the horrid thing sound "different" but I couldn't, in al=
l=20
honesty, say that it made it listenable!

I just played a bit of it on my Sony XA777ES SACD player, you know, as=20
"research" for this reply. The Sony renders it more listenable than I=20
remember, but it still has that ear-bleeding brightness that I remember s=
o=20
vividly. It's still a no thanks!=20

But thank you, Mike, anyway, for that trip down memory lane. We all need =
to=20
take that trip occasionally to show us how far we've come. It certainly=20
illustrates why so many audio hobbyists and music lovers hated CD when it=
=20
first hit the scene. Today, a modern recording hobbyist can make CDs that=
=20
sound better than this by a country mile with about $500 worth of cheap=20
Chinese condenser microphones, a small, cheap mixing console, and a digi=
tal=20
recorder like Zoom H2, as well as a cheap computer with a CD burner buil=
t-in=20
along with a free copy of a software program such as "Audacity"!=20