A standard L-750 could record 4:45+ in BIII. Vs. 6:00 max for VHS. (Very unfortunate that it was under 5:00 as that prevented recording an hour long show M-F on a single tape.) But commercial VHS tapes were usually recorded in SP mode for 2 hours (if they cared about quality at all). While commercial Beta tapes were recorded in BII for up to 3 hours. Hence some movies took two VHS tapes but only one Beta tape.
(And no, I can’t believe I’m actually posting this.)
Unless you did a sufficient number of double-blind tests, your statements are subject to too many biases to have any validity whatsoever. The audio field is rife with claims about one gadget sounding better than another, with no proof. Not long ago, there was a claim that if you put a $50 plastic disk the size of a coin on top of your digital CD player, it would “treat” a CD to decrease bit errors. :rolleyes:
I can’t really argue the point - all music listening is subjective. Hmm - no real way out given the fundamental truth to what you say. How is that supposed to work, then? I mean, it all boils down to wine words at some point - “the space between the instruments is more defined on a cobalt ribbon tweeter” - on one hand - what the heck does that mean? On the other, darn it, there are differences that can be hard to describe with sane-sounding words but are replicatable. I have heard the difference between digital and analog media - many recordings, many systems - but readily grant you that descriptions like “the silences between the notes sound flat on a digital recording” sound like hogwash…
Thanks. When I ran across the articles myself, I thought it seemed a bit weird (I don’t recall being particularly blown away by PS1 CD playback), and wondered if someone was unloading a bunch on eBay and wanted to boost their price. At the same time, I was thinking “hey, I have that model!”
Then again, I thought the late 90’s claims that combo LD players somehow imparted high-quality sound to CDs were bunk (especially when “audiophile” LD players were modified $1000 players being sold for $10000!).
I’d rather buy vinyl, and if CDs and vinyl were sold side-by-side (and for the same price), I’d buy the vinyl. Not because the vinyl is inherently better, but because I’d be worried the CD would be recorded at 2002 or so on the Rush scale (See Case Study about a quarter way down). And yeah, I’ve looked at tracks ripped from CDs, and for the past 5 or so years, they’ve looked like that.
Then I’d record it on my computer (at maybe 1985 or 1993), remove clicks, pops, and hiss, and burn it to CD myself. Seriously. ETA: Ooh, and pick up a sweet new power cord 
As it is, I’m afraid to buy new CDs for just the above reason, so mostly I just don’t.
CDs don’t have tape hiss. They don’t have clicks and pops that I have to scrub out or listen to. They sound maaaahvelous to my ears. They store in a very small space and with proper care, are almost indestructable. They play in my car, can be ripped to a computer and stored in a portable player that can go anywhere. The only thing better might be digital downloading. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to go back to an older medium. Edison would be overjoyed.
In spite of extraordinary media care on my part and expensive equipment, for 40 years I put up with hiss, clicks, scratches and pops. I heard every one of them. I don’t want to hear any of them again, and thank Og, I don’t have to.
So there.
Me, I buy something and play it. Period. CDs can go in the car, too. I’d never go back.
I don’t understand why. Assuming that a cheap, 9.99 CD player is connected to a decent receiver/amp/speaker setup, how is a cheap player degrading the digital signal to noticeable levels? At what point does the CD player not matter anymore?
I think/guess/assume a reason why equipment is much more geared towards theater sound is that most (or at least a slight majority) people listen to music in the same room their television is in.
This may be a ridiculous question with regards to the issues brought up in digital recording noted above, but is there a site that has examples of the difference in sound between tube and tubeless amps? As in the same guitar patched into each and playing the same thing.
Oh, one area that CDs pale in comparison to vinyl: Album art.
A CD player decodes the information on the CD into analog form. The same process (only in reverse) means that not all studio recordings are the same because the information is translated from analog to digital. From what I’ve read, it matters how a recording is produced based on the final medium.
The point at which a CD player doesn’t matter is when the signal is sent directly to the amplifier in digital form. Then it becomes the quality of the amplifier to decode the information.
This was a huge source of discussion during the '80s.
The following description isn’t perfect, but I think this is how it all works.
The CD player has to convert the digital signal, which is given at discrete instances of time, and using integer values only, into an analogue voltage signal for every instant of time. If you have what should be a linear signal, say, rising from 0 to 8 over 8 samples, because of the way the electronics work, it won’t be a straight line, it will look more like stair-steps. But if you have a stair step signal, you’ve now got a lot of high frequency components in your signal that you have to filter out. If all you do is use the CD’s sample rate (44,100 Hz) and discretization (16 bits), those unwanted high frequencies are not very far above the actual frequencies you want to hear, so you need filter with a very sharp cutoff, which tends to mess up the signal in the highest frequencies.
If you have four times oversampling, now you have four times as many samples. If you have 18 bit AD conversion, now you can have signals quantized to every 0.25, instead of to integers. You still have stair steps in our example, but now you have four times as many steps, each 1/4 as tall. You still have unwanted high frequency components, but those are very high above the frequencies you want, so you can use a much broader filter, which doesn’t corrupt the desired audio frequencies.
Thanks for helping me out here, but I’m still a bit lost as to where the degradation takes place. I’m not trying to be obtuse (and maybe I should just start a GQ thread to avoid too much of a hijack), but I thought decoding was based on a set of standards (white or red book?) for interpreting the digital imprint into analog sound.
Then again, in looking at HowStuffWorks, it seems that the weakest link may be in the digital-analog-converter. Looking at the Wikipage for that (not understanding, mind you, just looking), it seems there are several different types of DACs and several performance variables:[ul][li]Resolution;[/li][li]Maximum sampling frequency;[/li][li]Monotonicity;[/li][li]THD+N; and[/li][li]Dynamic range.[/li][/ul]
Is that where the difference is? What I still don’t get is that this technology has been around since the eighties. High-end chips from that era–or even the nineties after some maturation–should be in the bargain boards of today’s cheap technology (I think); hence my confusion.
ETA:
Thanks ZenBeam, you posted while I was typing. So 9.99 CD player can’t keep up with the incoming digital signal? Or it can’t read that many bits off the CD?
They can keep up with the CD, but might not have the circuitry to go beyond that. A CD has 16 bits per sample (for each of left and right). To get 18 bits, you need to be interpolating between samples, and then for that to help, you need an 18 bit AD, instead of a 16 bit AD. All of that means more circuit elements, so presumably more expense.
In general, for all the performance variables, to improve them you either need more circuit elements, more accurate circuit elements, or both.
**ZB **- thanks for adding to this thread. Am I reading your posts correctly that you are focusing on CD’s only - in terms of the diff between analog and digital signals? I haven’t seem much mention of compression algorithms associated with mp3 and other electronic file formats, which add a different level of “stuff” (that’s the technical term) to the signal over and above A-to-D-to-A converting, right?
**Musicat **- again, I agree with you. I only have CD’s or mp3’s and have no intention of going back to vinyl - heck, I never really had any, since I invested all of my spare music $$ on guitar gear as a kid. And I agree that the convenience and basic sound quality of CD’s and mp3’s make them a far superior choice 99% of the time. But there is an aural difference between vinyl and digital, and I can see how a vinyl geek would prefer their format as part of their particular form of music geekery (just like I prefer a real tube guitar amp for my form of music geekery) - and if they wanna invest a buncha $$ and maintain their collection so the LP’s play nice - that’s their call, and I enjoy it when I get to hear them slapped on a turntable…
It’s all good.
Yes. Unfortunately, though digital is extremely easy to take shortcuts with and it is simply a tool that can be either used well or used poorly like any other. I would rate my digital remasters of Pink Floyd far higher than any vinyl, for example, there are incredible sounds and workmanship there that are simply lost in the analog muddle and hiss. Pearl Jam has always cut vinyl releases of their works along with the digital, and the digital sounds far more alive and powerful while the vinyl sounds flat.
I have many vinyls that are engineered great, and others that sound like complete shit, though it always annoys me when analog apologists would still hold aloft even the shitty ones as having that intangible “warmth and fullness”. I don’t like tasting packaging container material in my food, and I don’t like hearing hiss and hum in my music.
That being said, the fact is that digital has far more dynamic range than analog and is able to reproduce an equivalent analog recording to a precision beyond what human hearing can discriminate. However, the sound engineer’s job is still a specialized skill, and I would always pick a quality-engineered vinyl over a poorly engineered level-boosted range-clipped digital work.
Yeah, compression is yet another step, but all the same issues apply. I think of it as A to D to C to D to A, where the two Ds are different. You could also have lossless compression, A to D to L to D to A, where the two Ds are equal. I don’t think there’s any way of going directly from C to A.
You have to be careful in attributing differences and limitations to the recording medium versus the mastering. I have Blind Faith’s vinyl album. I also have Eric Clapton’s digitally remastered box set from 1989, also on vinyl. This has two of the songs from the Blind Faith album, and when I was transferring my vinyl to CD, I recorded both copies of them to WAV files. I don’t have audiophile equipment. I was playing the albums on about a $100 turntable (estimated). I was listening to the differences on my PC, through an extra stereo amplifier I happened to have, and through $60 (for the pair) speakers. Still, the difference was enormous. If I had the box set on CD, I might be saying just what you said above about Pink Floyd.
With no way of controlling for the mastering (for us consumers), we simply don’t know why Pearl Jam’s vinyl is flat.
I am not an audiophile. Most of this technical talk goes straight over my head. I do like good, clean-sounding audio, however. I grew up with vinyl 33 1/3’s and 45’s. I moved on to tape because I hated the clicks and pops that vinyl records inevitably got, along with the noise made by the friction of the stylus against the vinyl. Tape sounded better, but had its own problems. 8-tracks would eventually wind so tightly the music would play slowly or stop. Cassettes would sometimes get eaten, which put a crinkle in the tape once you eventually rescued it. I was happy to move on to CD’s, and once I got a computer, learned how to make mp3’s and move them around. I think that mp3’s sound just fine, despite being compressed files. To me, it’s worth not having to listen to hissing, clicking and popping.
This was brought home to me last night as I was moving some music from my MP3 player to my PC. I had originally ripped the mp3’s from my own store-bought CD, then moved them on to an mp3 player. I eventually bought a better mp3 player (more capacity, better features), so I recopied the music to the new player. Last night I was moving the music yet again from the mp3 player to a different computer. I observed that with analogue forms of music reproduction, you get a loss in quality every time you copy from one tape to another. Yet with digital music, I was able to move my music, a third generation copy, which was virtually identical to the first mp3, with almost no loss in quality. Yes, I know there is a loss from a .wav to an mp3, but each successive mp3 was identical to the first one. And if I had kept the original .wav format, there would have been no practically no quality loss whatsoever. And the digital files will play almost indefinitely. It is impossible to clone analogue recordings unless each copy is made from the original master, yet digital recording makes it possible to clone a recording without going back to the original source.
Go ahead and nitpick this, but as I said, I am not an audiophile. I am easily satisfied. I play my mp3 player through three-volt speakers, for crying out loud. But it is my experience that digital recording is a thousand-fold improvement over analogue and I would not go back.
Not true. iPods support uncompressed AIFF (the format CDs are natively recorded with) and WAV files. Unprotected AAC is an open format, and is not exclusive to Apple. MP3 is definitely not exclusive to Apple and became the standard format only because it was ubiquitous by the time most electronic music players were even on the market.
With free open-source legal software you can easily transcode CDs or other lossless files like FLAC to Apple Lossless if you want to use them on an iPod, with no loss of fidelity. Only stuff downloaded from the iTunes store is locked in to the player, and most people do not have very many files from there. I’ve got over 150 ripped CDs on my iPod, compared to about 5 albums off iTunes. I’ve personally made a point of buying only iTunes Plus files, which are not wrapped with DRM and are higher bitrate than the standard files, so none of my iTune Store music is locked in.
Even if you’re an idiot who doesn’t look into any preference changes, the standard out-of-the-box setting for iTunes is set to rip 128 bps AAC, which usually comes out sounding good in comparison to even higher bitrate MP3. Almost every single player available on the market supports AAC, so it’s trivial to use files ripped using iTunes on a different player.
With any recording and reproduction, audio or video, the results depend on the weakest part of the chain. There are a lot of “ifs” involved. If the recording was done with great equipment in the first place, mastered properly, recorded onto a medium correctly, has not degraded on the medium, has been read without errors, translated from the medium to a signal with high faithfulness to the original, and finally reproduced in a form you can perceive, then you’re obviously going to have an extremely good listening or watching experience. The problem is that every single component in the chain has to be good.
For example, is the recording equipment the Beatles had in the 60s as good as today’s? I doubt it. Was the original recording medium capable of the kind of fidelity we have now? Almost certainly not. What processing did the music go through from original to vinyl or CD? If it’s not an original pressing or a re-press from the original, even on vinyl there’s probably been some remastering or manipulation.
Stipulating modern-equivalent equipment would limit you to maybe the last 30 years of music. Even recordings destined for vinyl have probably been subjected to digital processing at some point since at least the late 70s or early 80s, and every single remastered album has by definition been manipulated digitally at some point. I find most of the the claims of audiophiles pretty ridiculous due to the realities of the recording process. If the touch of digital was the mark of death that they claim for fidelity, then vinyl would be affected too.
The argument might be made that the fidelity of the end recording is what they’re concerned with. The problem is that to extract the benefit from that, you need reproduction equipment that rivals that of a professional recording studio. Almost no one can afford that. Home sound systems can be relatively affordable (less than $10,000 in audio circles = affordable) but still represent an investment of income and time devoted to component research that, again, very few are willing or able to make.
For portable music, I’d argue that the popularity of players is actually driving a different kind of audio technical revolution. Prosumer earbuds and earphones are taking off while home audio is declining slightly. No surprise, people would rather spend money on things they use in lieu of those they don’t. Lots and lots of people listen to iPods or other players all the time, and a growing segment are willing to pay $100 or more for earphones that sound good. I know a few people who have invested $300+ on earbuds. It’s reasonable from the point of view that they probably spend more time out of the house than in, and so get more use out of a decent player and earphones than they would out of a more expensive home system that may or may not sound as good.
Even regular consumer non-audiophiles express interest in learning what format is optimal for their purposes. There have been several double-blind listening tests regarding lossy codecs. For most listeners on most equipment, virtually any of the major lossy compression formats will start to be indistinguishable from CD at bitrates about 192 bps or higher. You have to have a very good equipment and earphones, as well as good ears, to hear the difference. That means that compressed music easily meets or exceeds the standard for casual listening and does pretty darn well even in more formal settings. Remember, most of the people interested in participating in something as rigorous as a double-blind study like those are likely to be audiophiles with better than average equipment, and even they start to perform at no better than chance at this point.
Very cool - I consider my ignorance fought. Thanks, Sleel - you work in the business?
This isn’t really fair. Digital recording studios don’t do their processing using 16 bit, 44 KHz data. One could reasonably argue that 24 or 32 bits, and 48 or 96 KHz, are sufficient, and believe that audio mastered using that bit depth and sampling is superior on the final vinyl medium rather than on a standard CD.
Also, did you look at the link in my post 45? It’s kind of hard to blame someone for preferring vinyl when CDs are recorded like that.
Nope, no special insider information. Audiophile friends and curiosity.
ZenBeam, I absolutely agree with your link since it’s a great illustration of something I’ve been aware of for years. Over-emphasis on loudness and reduced dynamic range are serious problems that have very real effects on sound quality. It’s one of the things that hopefully will resolve itself as the power of the music moguls continues to erode.
As far as digital recording and mastering, the problem is that there are a significant number of audiophiles who insist that even SuperAudio CD is inferior to vinyl, or who say that they can hear differences introduced by various specific pieces of equipment. I personally think that while there might be theoretical imperfections introduced even at higher bitrates, those imperfections would be absolutely undetectable by normal humans. As I pointed out, even lower resolution lossy encoding starts to be indistinguishable to almost everyone at much lower bitrates than is recorded on a regular CD. But there are still audiophiles who claim to be able to detect the “taint” of digital in anything they listen to.
End-user equipment is a much, much tighter bottleneck than anything in the recording process for most people, and even with the best equipment it’s highly debatable whether anyone can actually resolve the kind of minute differences we’re talking about. Better mastering and process control with attention to fidelity over loudness is what I think they’re actually hearing in vinyl recordings; it’s not the bitrate, it’s the mix.