This discussion reminds me of an interview that Fremer did with Rick Rubin. Apparently Rubin feels vinyl is superior, although this was certainly a fluff piece and has nothing by way of a technical discussion. It is also enlightening in that Rubin clearly gives the audiophile crowd a big finger on the issue of compression. Bottom line is that compression is good for business and audiophiles ain't. That said, Rubin, who can clearly afford to indulge himself in such things, uses fancy pants power cords to the great dismay of snake oil theorists. http://www.musicangle.com/feat.php?id=38

 Arguments about the inherent media - devoid of the material on it - aren't that interesting. Whatever the potential is, or was, of CD, it is only rarely achieved, as is true for vinyl and tape too. If you want a 100 pcs of media to listen to, get your Chesky CDs or Sheffield LPs and listen to them endlessly. Mostly, the specialized labels have a lot of "who cares?" artists. If your listening world is "demonstrating" your exotic stereo to others, those items are fine. How many times are you going to want to hear Billy Burnette or Dave Grusin? If you like good sound and you like good music (whatever that is to you) then what counts really is what does the "average" CD, LP, 8-track or master tape sound like? Not the few primo examples, but the ones with music on it that you want to hear. 

There is a fundamental underlying reality that engineers in the "LP era" didn't use as many "deadly" means as engineers do today in the CD era. By which I mean compression and all the rest that we now understand make the modern CD. So really, the media is not the issue at all. It's about the production of crap for throwaway consumption. The modern CD (including the music on it) is like the equivelent of the upiquitous plastic resin lawn chair. Yes, you can still find a few craftsmen making Adirondack chairs, but they are not where the real market lies.  

mdeneen:

Whatever the potential is, or was, of CD, it is only rarely achieved, as is true for vinyl and tape too. If you want a 100 pcs of media to listen to, get your Chesky CDs or Sheffield LPs and listen to them endlessly. Mostly, the specialized labels have a lot of "who cares?" artists. If your listening world is "demonstrating" your exotic stereo to others, those items are fine. How many times are you going to want to hear Billy Burnette or Dave Grusin? If you like good sound and you like good music (whatever that is to you) then what counts really is what does the "average" CD, LP, 8-track or master tape sound like? Not the few primo examples, but the ones with music on it that you want to hear. 

There is a fundamental underlying reality that engineers in the "LP era" didn't use as many "deadly" means as engineers do today in the CD era. By which I mean compression and all the rest that we now understand make the modern CD.

Great comment!  From my standpoint, the leading edge of digital and CD recording technology is somewhat of passing interest, since if I want to listen to Mendelssohn's Scottish or Italian symphony by a fine orchestra and conductor that I know, it doesn't matter to me that I might be able to get more string detail and presence with a cutting-edge digital recording technology, if that work and that kind of performance isn't available with better technology.  It takes years and decades to build that kind of library as you know.

My reactions are to what I hear from average CDs and average LPs in my collection and what I buy new.  After Those are the only ones I can get, and I'm not going to toss out that collection.  For me, an LP still has an edge in reality, and being closer to music and the way instruments and voices actually sound.  Yes, in SMALL group instrumental and vocals, CDs are sometimes superior.  However, I had to have a LOT of modding done to my CD player to get it to be comfortably close and sometimes superior to my LP system.

mdeneen:

There is a fundamental underlying reality that engineers in the "LP era" didn't use as many "deadly" means as engineers do today in the CD era. By which I mean compression and all the rest that we now understand make the modern CD.

 

I really think that the "deadliest" thing that happened was the use of 8, 16, 24, track tape. Heck, you could slave as many tape machines together as you needed for as many retakes as you wanted. And you could do "flying switches" between several takes to assemble one "good" track. Multitrack production exploded because of the "perfection" that was attainable. This occured before CDs came on the scene and got worse after digital recorders were made for studio use. 48 and 96 track became common, and of course, they could also be slaved. The talent realized that no matter how "off" the performance was "it can be fixed in the mix". So subconsciously, perhaps, the performers stopped trying to nail a good performance in the studio.

Then came the boxes. There is now a box out there to fix any problem. Vocalist singing flat? Put er through a pitch shifter, voila!, magically in tune. Kinda dry from close micing? Digital reverb to the rescue. Timing off? Line it up in ProTools. Etc, etc.

Looks like a skill issue. Or several simultaneous skill issues. Performance skills, recording skills, mixing skills, mastering skills. And the chain always breaks at the weakest link.

 

 

 Hey Don---

We have to stop agreeing like this.

All that process you described is what I call "making sound instead of music". I suppose we could program a robot to take a photo with it's "eye" and then grind out a "painting" using say, the Vincent Van Gogh brush, or the Vermeer brush, but that don't make it art. And, I don't think this rubbish sound coming out is music either.

It did occur to me earlier thinking about this that we have entered a new aesthetic in many ways. One which is defined as much be the media and technology as by any of the performing arts. So, movies are now mostly CGI, and music is all digital made up and corrected, and most TV shows are cartoons and so on. In food, there is the "slow food" movement - - -maybe some backlash will evolve in this artificial entertainment too? 

1) Lp v CD: I found myself doing the same thing in the Lp and CD eras ----- creating two storage areas, one for acceptably good recordings, and one for recordings that were so bad that I would very rarely listen to them. The most painful situation was/is when a great performance was imprisoned by a lousy recording. Those usually ended up in "good" area, but stirred some sadness and anger when played. 2) Compression: Many Lps -- especially classical/orchestral -- were either compressed or recorded with limiters in the 60s and 70s, which drove people to buy dynamic range expanders (which weren't very successful). To avoid compression, but still deal with big crescendos, the recordists sometimes set the level so that the very loudest passage would not be overrecorded (as Mercury often did, especially in the Fine era around 1962). The cost would be hiss coming through during soft passages (sometimes minimized by using 35 mm magnetic film), and any pops or clicks on the record being more noticeable during the soft parts. I preferred this to compression or limiting. Some of the best sounding phono cartridges of the early 60s (e.g., Ortofon SPE, elliptical moving coil) could not track -- without a clear increase in distortion -- very loud, "heavily cut" passages, so some audiophiles had a "cartridge caddy" which contained some slightly worse sounding cartridges (Shure V-15) that could track almost anything out there. Nothing is simple.

Having said more that once in these pages that I'd rather listen to a first class recording on a boom box than a poorly engineered one on the world's finest system it should come as no shock that engineering is much more important to me than medium.

However, to return to the original question poseed by the originator of this thread:  Is the CD good enough? 

I must assume he refers to the the format, not the contents, so:

NO, it is not.  All things equal (engineering, that is), vinyl will sound better and any higher resolution digital format will as well.  Further, the highest level digital resolutions will sound better than the analog due to dynamic range, S/N, and the vagueries of the analog medium.  

Point is, I like them all, and I HATE all badly engineered recordings no matter how they are presented. 

Dave

Mallette:

 If the equipment were there, I'd record at 24/352.8.  Why?  Why not!! Is there such a thing as too much accuracy? 

Hmmm, as I recollect the AES article does not add much constructive to the CD vs DSD discussion.
Not a very well designed ABX test if it was trying to claim inaudibility....but maybe it was not.

The prime article Don links has some misinformation:
High sampling rates do NOT provide more accurate timing resolution.
Redbook timing is in the nanosecond range--timing resolution is NOT constrained by sample rate.
Maybe I'm nit picking but that incorrect contention breeds constant false implications.....

Mallette,
Am I misinterpreting you?...or are you falling into the 'higher sample rates capture more detail' fallacy?
Rates have nothing to do with what is usually implied by 'resolution'.
A good converter should NOT sound better at very high rates.  Quite the opposite in fact.
If your CardDeluxe seems to sound better--it may be it's way of suggesting that you one day invest in a better converter :-)

Mark

Rivendell61:

Mallette:

 If the equipment were there, I'd record at 24/352.8.  Why?  Why not!! Is there such a thing as too much accuracy? 

Mallette,
Am I misinterpreting you?...or are you falling into the 'higher sample rates capture more detail' fallacy?
Rates have nothing to do with what is usually implied by 'resolution'.
A good converter should NOT sound better at very high rates.  Quite the opposite in fact.
If your CardDeluxe seems to sound better--it may be it's way of suggesting that you one day invest in a better converter :-)

Mark

I was pushing it with the 352.8.  However, there is no question that increasing the high frequencies captured has an audible impact on the sound...or prehaps it is something else we can hear but not yet quantify that we (or I) assume to be related to wider ultrasonic bandwidth. 

I am only in a position to stand that in tests of the same material recorded through the same mikes at the same time that 24/196 sounded clearly, if subtlely, better than 24/88.2 and that 24/88.2 sounded definitely better than 16/44.1. 

In LP recording, 16/44.1 sounds very good, like a first rate CD.  24/88.2 sounds just like vinyl. 

I've been dubious of measurement as a gauge of "quality" since the absolute scientific proof that SS was superior to tubes in the 1970's.  Only the brain can sort this out until our science becomes less about measurement and more about understanding of the functioning of the human brain. 

Dave

 

 

I think that the AES paper shows that few people can hear a difference in digital storage sample rates. When people don't hear differences they don't buy. Low sales is the reason that the guy at the store thinks the hi-res media will fail at the consumer level. It is my theory that the music industry wants these formats mostly for better copy protection, not increased performance.

Don:

I have absolutely no doubt that the AES paper is correct and also your other conclusions.

However, I do not record either to make money or to cater to a consumer audience. Since my 58 year old ears clearly hear these differences (though quite deaf to magic cables and such) and I have no doubt that many who frequent this Forum can as well, I elect to record at higher resolutions. Sheesh, I can hear the difference in a 78 recorded at 16/44.1 and at higher res. I don't do this to make money, and it's a darn good thing since I'd have been broke a long time ago. I don't think those who spend a small fortune to purchase a hand made preamp that is flat from DC to light are going to want to feed it source material that isn't as wide range as technology can provide. Whether one hears it or not, the CD has limits that are unnecessarily restricted at this point in history. The nice thing is that audiophiles are no longer tied to whatever the music industry decides is a format. It is my desire to both provide material at a higher standard and do what I can to make it easier for audiophiles to enjoy it. Dave

Mallette:

Don:

 

I have absolutely no doubt that the AES paper is correct and also your other conclusions.

 

However, I do not record either to make money or to cater to a consumer audience. Since my 58 year old ears clearly hear these differences (though quite deaf to magic cables and such) and I have no doubt that many who frequent this Forum can as well, I elect to record at higher resolutions. Sheesh, I can hear the difference in a 78 recorded at 16/44.1 and at higher res. I don't do this to make money, and it's a darn good thing since I'd have been broke a long time ago. I don't think those who spend a small fortune to purchase a hand made preamp that is flat from DC to light are going to want to feed it source material that isn't as wide range as technology can provide. Whether one hears it or not, the CD has limits that are unnecessarily restricted at this point in history. The nice thing is that audiophiles are no longer tied to whatever the music industry decides is a format. It is my desire to both provide material at a higher standard and do what I can to make it easier for audiophiles to enjoy it. Dave

The reason I went to the high end audio shop was to demo hi-res audio to see if there was any difference that I could hear. Despite being engouraged to stay away from hi-res digital, I think I am going to get a universal player anyway, to see for myself.

Oppo, here I come.

You will be happy with an OPPO, IMHO.  However, remember that just having the ability to play high res digital and having material that does it justice are two different things.  I have several DVD-A's with which I am not overly impressed.  In fact, I think some of my own CD's sound better.  However, I heartily recommend the Linn high res downloads.  I REALLY like the Dunedin Consort "Messiah." 

Dave

Mallette:

You will be happy with an OPPO, IMHO.  However, remember that just having the ability to play high res digital and having material that does it justice are two different things.  I have several DVD-A's with which I am not overly impressed.  In fact, I think some of my own CD's sound better.  However, I heartily recommend the Linn high res downloads.  I REALLY like the Dunedin Consort "Messiah." 

Dave

Thanks for the info, Dave. OPPO seems to have a good reputation and good reviews. And I'll definitely be downloading some "good stuff" to try.

 

Thanks for starting this thread.  Some of the "auld school" here groan and run away everytime this comes up.  However, over the past years every time it does we get a bit closer to learning something useful.

While I have my opinions, what I come here for is to learn. 

Dave