High resolution audio(not impressed)

[Frank Harvey]

I think you're being overly sceptical Dave.

And yes, I do get that on the whole, any business out there is out to get your money.

CD is now worthless, it is a throwaway format. If CDs sounded as good as hi-res downloads, more would buy them, prices would be up (along with profit margins), downloads would only be 16/44 (because there would be absolutely zero detectable difference to higher sampling rates and bit depths), and the embarrassing vinyl comeback may well not be happening.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Agreed. If CD can be, and is so much better than vinyl, and if 16/44 is all our ears need, then why aren't we getting CDs with the same quality as The Doors' hi-res L.A. Woman on CD? I have a few hi-res albums that sound stunning (and more on par with vinyl), so why isn't this possible on CD, particularly if people are downsampling SACDs to CD quality and not able to tell the difference?

For info purposes, I'm progressing with the research I mentioned earlier, I just have a few more questions before I post anything up.

Which version of LA Woman are you talking about?

Sorry, hi-res download.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Agreed. If CD can be, and is so much better than vinyl, and if 16/44 is all our ears need, then why aren't we getting CDs with the same quality as The Doors' hi-res L.A. Woman download? I have a few hi-res albums that sound stunning (and more on par with vinyl), so why isn't this possible on CD, particularly if people are downsampling SACDs to CD quality and not able to tell the difference?

For info purposes, I'm progressing with the research I mentioned earlier, I just have a few more questions before I post anything up.

 

[BigH]

I think you're being overly sceptical Dave.

And yes, I do get that on the whole, any business out there is out to get your money.

CD is now worthless, it is a throwaway format. If CDs sounded as good as hi-res downloads, more would buy them, prices would be up (along with profit margins), downloads would only be 16/44 (because there would be absolutely zero detectable difference to higher sampling rates and bit depths), and the embarrassing vinyl comeback may well not be happening.

How many hi-res downloads are sold? I suspect its very small number. CD and hi-res can sound the same unless the mastering is different. Not all hi-res sound better some sound worse. So if you buy hi-res for say £20 and you can buy cd for £5 and they sound the same, who is the mug? Hi-res also have a very limited availability and no resale value. Easier to lose also. CD are not worthless, mp3s maybe are. CD sales are down because people are buying more mp3s or just streaming mp3 music.

 

[Frank Harvey]

How many hi-res downloads are sold? I suspect its very small number. CD and hi-res can sound the same unless the mastering is different. Not all hi-res sound better some sound worse.

So why not produce CDs better and not bother with hi-res then? I'm sure sales of CD would increase if they sounded like many hi-res downloads.

So if you buy hi-res for say £20 and you can buy cd for £5 and they sound the same, who is the mug?

What's the resale value of a £5 CD? You're lucky to get 50p nowadays unless it is fairly obscure or was a limited run. Worthless.

Hi-res also have a very limited availability and no resale value. Easier to lose also. CD are not worthless, mp3s maybe are. CD sales are down because people are buying more mp3s or just streaming mp3 music.

I agree with the last sentence, but who is at fault there? Over the past 20 years or so, we have been subjected to inferior sound quality, so much so it has become the norm. This is why after all this time, people are hearing systems now with sources like vinyl and they sound great to them, better than they've heard for a long time. I think many people have forgotten how good their records sounded back in the 70s and 80s. With advancements in turntable engineering, they can now sound even better.

I want both. I want vinyl, but I also want digital too, and I want it sounding as good as it should do, not worse than it did in the 80s.

 

[BigH]

How many hi-res downloads are sold? I suspect its very small number. CD and hi-res can sound the same unless the mastering is different. Not all hi-res sound better some sound worse.

So why not produce CDs better and not bother with hi-res then? I'm sure sales of CD would increase if they sounded like many hi-res downloads.

So if you buy hi-res for say £20 and you can buy cd for £5 and they sound the same, who is the mug?

What's the resale value of a £5 CD? You're lucky to get 50p nowadays unless it is fairly obscure or was a limited run. Worthless.

Hi-res also have a very limited availability and no resale value. Easier to lose also. CD are not worthless, mp3s maybe are. CD sales are down because people are buying more mp3s or just streaming mp3 music.

I agree with the last sentence, but who is at fault there? Over the past 20 years or so, we have been subjected to inferior sound quality, so much so it has become the norm. This is why after all this time, people are hearing systems now with sources like vinyl and they sound great to them, better than they've heard for a long time. I think many people have forgotten how good their records sounded back in the 70s and 80s. With advancements in turntable engineering, they can now sound even better.

I want both. I want vinyl, but I also want digital too, and I want it sounding as good as it should do, not worse than it did in the 80s.

You really don't get it do you!

You think music sales revolve around hifi.

Most people don't care, most are not played on hifi systems.

As for buying cds I tend to buy used ones as you say its cheap.

Whats the resale value of your hi-res download then?

If they produced better cds then no one would buy the more expensive hi-res, apart from the ones who are conned its better. It's about making money.

In the 70s/80s most music was played on a system, today thats not the case, most play it on the move.

 

[Frank Harvey]

You think music sales revolve around hifi.

No, I don't, but those who invest in systems that run into many thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, expect their music to sound better than the average CD is providing at the moment. It isn't a case of producing music as well as possible because a small niche of hi-fi enthusiasts want it, it should be done as a matter of course. These captures and masters are going to have to last for, well, as long as possible - we shouldn't find that in a hundred years time that the music of today sounds crap because it wasn't produced or archived properly. You expect that with music from the 1920s, but not today. Just for info pruposes, most digital music is archived at 24/192 (minimum).

Most people don't care, most are not played on hifi systems.

I agree, most people don't care. But as I said previously, who do we blame for that? People used to care. Something happened.

Whats the resale value of your hi-res download then?

Why would you want to sell it if it is as good as the album will ever sound?

If they produced better cds then no one would buy the more expensive hi-res, apart from the ones who are conned its better. It's about making money.

But you questioned how many sales there are of hi-res downloads. If it's a small number, it's not being done for monetary reasons. SO why not drop the hi-res downloads, produce CDs better, and in turn sell many more CDs, paerticularly to those who would like better music but don't like downloading music (of which there are a lot).

In the 70s/80s most music was played on a system, today thats not the case, most play it on the move.

Music was played on the move in the 80s too, but that didn't really affect sales of any pre-recorded format. Music seems so important to so many people - more of them would buy a decent system if music sounded better. Instead, when they hear a high quality, relatively accurate system, they don't like it because CDs sound so bad on them (or not as good as expected).

 

[BigH]

You think music sales revolve around hifi.

No, I don't, but those who invest in systems that run into many thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, expect their music to sound better than the average CD is providing at the moment. It isn't a case of producing music as well as possible because a small niche of hi-fi enthusiasts want it, it should be done as a matter of course. These captures and masters are going to have to last for, well, as long as possible - we shouldn't find that in a hundred years time that the music of today sounds crap because it wasn't produced or archived properly. You expect that with music from the 1920s, but not today. Just for info pruposes, most digital music is archived at 24/192 (minimum).

Most people don't care, most are not played on hifi systems.

I agree, most people don't care. But as I said previously, who do we blame for that? People used to care. Something happened.

Whats the resale value of your hi-res download then?

Why would you want to sell it if it is as good as the album will ever sound?

If they produced better cds then no one would buy the more expensive hi-res, apart from the ones who are conned its better. It's about making money.

But you questioned how many sales there are of hi-res downloads. If it's a small number, it's not being done for monetary reasons. SO why not drop the hi-res downloads, produce CDs better, and in turn sell many more CDs, paerticularly to those who would like better music but don't like downloading music (of which there are a lot).

In the 70s/80s most music was played on a system, today thats not the case, most play it on the move.

Music was played on the move in the 80s too, but that didn't really affect sales of any pre-recorded format. Music seems so important to so many people - more of them would buy a decent system if music sounded better. Instead, when they hear a high quality, relatively accurate system, they don't like it because CDs sound so bad on them (or not as good as expected).

Again you are missing the point. Most people play cds or mp3 in cars or in noisy environments. Why make cds that may be played on a decent hifi system for about 1% of buyers when this actually maybe worse in noisy environments. People in the old days had little choice, you did not have turntables in cars or to carry around, you put up with tapes. Music is produced to sound good but then its compressed (mastered) for the market. Most Hi-Res I have seen do have much higher dynamic range than the cd version. Take L.A. Woman, you still have not answered which version you are talking about there are quite a few around, the 4 hi-res versions on DRdatabase are as or more compressed than the 1993 cd version. The record companies also believe that loudness sells, so until that changes I can't see that changing. Even artists complain when other music sounds louder. Many think louder is better.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Again you are missing the point. Most people play cds or mp3 in cars or in noisy environments. Why make cds that may be played on a decent hifi system for about 1% of buyers when this actually maybe worse in noisy environments. People in the old days had little choice, you did not have turntables in cars or to carry around, you put up with tapes. Music is produced to sound good but then its compressed (mastered) for the market. Most Hi-Res I have seen do have much higher dynamic range than the cd version.

If the studios are so wrapped up in pandering to people listening to music in cars or noisy environments (as well as making money any which way they can out of us, as has been stated), then why not produce two masters? Do it properly and produce a high quality version (which should be the norm anyway), and it should be easy from there to produce a highly compressed version with boosted quiet passages and a higher level to please those that still drive Mini Metros - let's face it, cars nowadays are pretty quiet, so this argument is shrinking.

Would you buy a compressed version to play in your car?

Take L.A. Woman, you still have not answered which version you are talking about there are quite a few around, the 4 hi-res versions on DRdatabase are as or more compressed than the 1993 cd version.

The only info I have is that it is 24/96. Whatever the compression is or isn't, it sounds stunning, as does the Analogue Productions vinyl copy.

And it's the music that sells, not how loud it is. All music playback systems have a volume control, so the level of the music on whatever format you care to mention should be entirely irrelevant.

 

[MajorFubar]

It's impossible for me to say that CD is technically better than vinyl.

Depends of course what the word 'technically' means to you. To me it means hard facts. CD has 100db DR (or thereabouts). Dead silent background. No surface noise. No crosstalk. No distortion. No wow and flutter. Perfectly flat frequency response across the human hearing range. No inner groove/end of side deterioration. No sibilance. No SQ variance between pressings. CDs are massively less susceptible to physical damage affecting the sound and are completely immune to wear.

No one can stop you preferring the sound of records and I don't think anyone's trying to. Certainly not me. But but technically, CD wipes the floor with them. This is an ancient battle that was first fought 34 years ago and was won unequivocally by CD. Asking for a re-match won't change the results.

 

[BigH]

Again you are missing the point. Most people play cds or mp3 in cars or in noisy environments. Why make cds that may be played on a decent hifi system for about 1% of buyers when this actually maybe worse in noisy environments. People in the old days had little choice, you did not have turntables in cars or to carry around, you put up with tapes. Music is produced to sound good but then its compressed (mastered) for the market. Most Hi-Res I have seen do have much higher dynamic range than the cd version.

If the studios are so wrapped up in pandering to people listening to music in cars or noisy environments (as well as making money any which way they can out of us, as has been stated), then why not produce two masters? Do it properly and produce a high quality version (which should be the norm anyway), and it should be easy from there to produce a highly compressed version with boosted quiet passages and a higher level to please those that still drive Mini Metros - let's face it, cars nowadays are pretty quiet, so this argument is shrinking.

Would you buy a compressed version to play in your car?

Take L.A. Woman, you still have not answered which version you are talking about there are quite a few around, the 4 hi-res versions on DRdatabase are as or more compressed than the 1993 cd version.

The only info I have is that it is 24/96. Whatever the compression is or isn't, it sounds stunning, as does the Analogue Productions vinyl copy.

And it's the music that sells, not how loud it is. All music playback systems have a volume control, so the level of the music on whatever format you care to mention should be entirely irrelevant.

You still are not getting it, if the music has quiet parts and loud parts, and you increase the volume for the quiet pieces you then get blasted out on the louder pieces, its one reason I don't play classical music in the car the volume is going up and down too much. I agree that there should be 2 masters, one for tpeople who want it loud and one for hifi systems. That is probably where we are heading with hi-res but you sure are going to have to pay for it, same if you want vinyl.

 

[Al ears]

Again you are missing the point. Most people play cds or mp3 in cars or in noisy environments. Why make cds that may be played on a decent hifi system for about 1% of buyers when this actually maybe worse in noisy environments. People in the old days had little choice, you did not have turntables in cars or to carry around, you put up with tapes. Music is produced to sound good but then its compressed (mastered) for the market. Most Hi-Res I have seen do have much higher dynamic range than the cd version.

If the studios are so wrapped up in pandering to people listening to music in cars or noisy environments (as well as making money any which way they can out of us, as has been stated), then why not produce two masters? Do it properly and produce a high quality version (which should be the norm anyway), and it should be easy from there to produce a highly compressed version with boosted quiet passages and a higher level to please those that still drive Mini Metros - let's face it, cars nowadays are pretty quiet, so this argument is shrinking.

Would you buy a compressed version to play in your car?

Take L.A. Woman, you still have not answered which version you are talking about there are quite a few around, the 4 hi-res versions on DRdatabase are as or more compressed than the 1993 cd version.

The only info I have is that it is 24/96. Whatever the compression is or isn't, it sounds stunning, as does the Analogue Productions vinyl copy.

And it's the music that sells, not how loud it is. All music playback systems have a volume control, so the level of the music on whatever format you care to mention should be entirely irrelevant.

You still are not getting it, if the music has quiet parts and loud parts, and you increase the volume for the quiet pieces you then get blasted out on the louder pieces, its one reason I don't play classical music in the car the volume is going up and down too much. I agree that there should be 2 masters, one for tpeople who want it loud and one for hifi systems. That is probably where we are heading with hi-res but you sure are going to have to pay for it, same if you want vinyl.

I'd tend to agree with that last sentiment and you ideas on the music industry selling tactics. CD s could be so much better than many are which is why, if I want a definite sound, I will by hi-res or DSD downloads if the music I want to listen to is available. I am not double-buying stuff I already own in a different format, that's a big mistake.

I know it can be expensive but not as bad as new vinyl.

P.S.: Only Inspector Morse would endeavour to listen to Classical recordings in a car whose stereo set ups are about as unhifi as you can get . ;-)

 

[Frank Harvey]

You still are not getting it, if the music has quiet parts and loud parts, and you increase the volume for the quiet pieces you then get blasted out on the louder pieces...

I DO GET THAT, so cease with the implications that I don't. You worry about your own image rather than trying to belittle mine.

 

[BigH]

You still are not getting it, if the music has quiet parts and loud parts, and you increase the volume for the quiet pieces you then get blasted out on the louder pieces...

I DO GET THAT, so cease with the implications that I don't. You worry about your own image rather than trying to belittle mine.

Haha, I don't need to worry about my image.

If you got it why are you saying things like "All music playback systems have a volume control, so the level of the music on whatever format you care to mention should be entirely irrelevant."

 

[Frank Harvey]

.

If you got it why are you saying things like "All music playback systems have a volume control, so the level of the music on whatever format you care to mention should be entirely irrelevant."

It is the answer to those who argue that a CD is too quiet. Want to listen to Brother In Arms or Rain Tree Crow? Turn it up a bit.

 

[lindsayt]

It's impossible for me to say that CD is technically better than vinyl.

Depends of course what the word 'technically' means to you. To me it means hard facts. CD has 100db DR (or thereabouts). Dead silent background. No surface noise. No crosstalk. No distortion. No wow and flutter. Perfectly flat frequency response across the human hearing range. No inner groove/end of side deterioration. No sibilance. No SQ variance between pressings. CDs are massively less susceptible to physical damage affecting the sound and are completely immune to wear.

No one can stop you preferring the sound of records and I don't think anyone's trying to. Certainly not me. But but technically, CD wipes the floor with them. This is an ancient battle that was first fought 34 years ago and was won unequivocally by CD. Asking for a re-match won't change the results.

The background noise in my room is 30 dbs. When I turn up the volume as loud as I feel comfortable with, I might get transient peaks at 80 to 90 dbs. For normal home listening a dynamic range of 60 dbs is fine. Let's allow some extra and go for a dynamic range of 70 dbs.

My record player has a DIN weighted signal to noise ratio in excess of 70 dbs.

It would appear that vinyl has sufficient dynamic range for my needs.

Maybe it's a bit like some people obsessing over the difference betwee 0.2% THD and 0.002% in amplifiers? Amplifier THD is inaudible at 0.2%. Just as inaudible at 0.2% as at 0.002%.

And this 100 odd DB dynamic range of CD - that's based on the 16 bits used to represent the voltage of any particular sample. Power = Voltage squared divided by resistance. Therefore a doubling of voltage gives you 4 times the power. 4 times the power equals a 6 db increase in volume.

16 times 6 dbs equals the oft quoted 96 db dynamic range of CD.

What happens if we have a particular dynamic pieces of music - say Ravels Bolero - where the recording level was set too low on CD? So that we are in excess of 70 dbs below maximum recordable voltage during the opening bars? How's that going to sound on CD?

We'd be down to representing the voltage of the signal with only 5 bits. Which gives us only 32 different possible voltage levels. How's that going to sound for recreating our single flute and lightly tapped snare drum intro?

Someone please go ahead and do this and post a link on this forum.

I have a feeling that with 5 bits or less, we may well have a coarse, low fidelity representation of our flute and drum.

This means that for high fidelity purposes, CD most certainly does not have a USEABLE dynamic range of 96 dbs. My rough guess is that 71 dbs - possibly less - would seem to be a more reasonable figure.

This seems to be something that would be quite easy to decide. All we need is a series of progressively quieter recordings of the same performance. We could then listen to these - with appropriate volume adjustments as we listen to them to level match them. And we could then decide for ourselves what we thought was the USEABLE dynamic range of CD.

Seems a bit daft to me, that over the years, hundreds of hours have been devoted to debating the pros and cons of CD and yet this simple experiment has never been conducted.

 

[lindsayt]

When CD was first introduced 34 years ago, to my ears it sounded worse than even my mediocre sounding Linn LP12.

I wasn't the only person who thought so.

Almost every hi-fi critic of the time said the same thing.

Those were the days before the Loudness wars cut in. When you would have expected the music business to make a good effort at mastering CD's as well as they could.

My understanding is that the digital recording equipment of the time had some technical flaws. At least some of which have been rectified since then.

I'm keeping an open mind. I think it's possible that modern digital recording and playback equipment may still have some technical flaws. Flaws which may explain why CD, to my ears, has lacked the low level detail resolution of vinyl.

Let's be honest here. No one here on this forum is able to explain how moder ADC's and DAC's work on a nuts and bolts level in laymans terms.

The big assumption amongst the "CD is technically better" brigade is that ADC's and DAC's work flawlessly. That's something that I'm not willing to take on trust, nor on someone's say so. Not when every other transducer I've come across has been technically flawed in some way.

There are some people that say that they can make digital recordings of their vinyl that sound exactly like their vinyl. I've never been able to do so. All of my digital recordings of vinyl have sounded worse than listening to vinyl direct. Again we're coming back to my statement - if CD is technically better than vinyl - show me.

 

[The_Lhc]

And it's the music that sells, not how loud it is.

Not according to the OP of this thread.

 

[TomSawyer]

Crikey, it's all kicking off!

Since the beginning of recorded formats there have been format wars. The first was cylinders vs flat discs (I'm sure someone will know of one before that so perhaps I should have said the first I know of). What characterises every format war there has ever been is that the public chose convenience over quality.

Someone said earlier that people listened to music on the move in the analogue days and that didn't affect sales of pre-recorded music This is a little bit disingenous because there was no download option available so the only avenue to aquire music was to buy a physical format. However, given that cassette was the biggest selling pre-recorded format of that time, it's clear that again convenience was preferred over quality. I'm sure no-one is going to suggest that cassette was superior to vinyl in terms of SQ.

As for the technical superiority of CD over vinyl - there can't be any serious argument but as many have already said, the format can only degrade the master, not improve on it so if the master is poor, so is the finished CD but then so would a record or a hi-res download made from the same master.

As for the two master solution - the sales of the high quality one would be unlikely to wash its face commercially.

Face facts, guys, the music industry is run for profit, not the beauty of the endevour; and peple who make time to sit down in a quiet room to listen to music are a commercially negligible market.

 

[CnoEvil]

When CD was first introduced 34 years ago, to my ears it sounded worse than even my mediocre sounding Linn LP12.

I thought they sounded worse than my RP3....but it was probably the CDPs that I heard.

When I had a LP12, it took the Karik/Numeric to replace it (due to having kids).

 

[Frank Harvey]

Once compared a highly regarded £1,000 CD player to a Pioneer PL12D - guess which sounded "better"?

 

[davedotco]

Once compared a highly regarded £1,000 CD player to a Pioneer PL12D - guess which sounded "better"?

Proving that you really do not have a clue...

What does your preference have to do with the subject at hand? The discussion is about resolution and dynamic range and whether increasing either (or both) improves the quality of the playback. All the evidence suggests that CD standard has sufficient resolution and more than sufficient dynamic range to handle any known commercial recording.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Just as irrelevantly, I had a PL12D, brand new in the early 70s. I thought it was the dogs doodahs until I had the opportunity, after a week or two, to turn it up a bit. The sound just fell apart, the bass was soft and overwhelming, virtually on the edge of feedback, quite unlistenable.

 

[BigH]

Agreed. If CD can be, and is so much better than vinyl, and if 16/44 is all our ears need, then why aren't we getting CDs with the same quality as The Doors' hi-res L.A. Woman download? I have a few hi-res albums that sound stunning (and more on par with vinyl), so why isn't this possible on CD, particularly if people are downsampling SACDs to CD quality and not able to tell the difference?

For info purposes, I'm progressing with the research I mentioned earlier, I just have a few more questions before I post anything up.

CDs can sound the same, its the mastering that maybe different, if you had the same mastering on cd and hi-res I doubt you could tell the difference. In tests I have seen very few can tell the difference, only a few sound engineers, interestingly hifi reviewers were the worst group at spotting Hi-Res. I think you implying that Hi-res is better is incorrect, some are better but its nothing to do with the format, some are worse. Mastering is the key. I would rather have a well re/mastered mp3 320kbps than an average remastered 32 bit 192kHz download.

 

[lindsayt]

As for the technical superiority of CD over vinyl - there can't be any serious argument...

And that is where I beg to differ.

My previous 2 posts in this thread. Is there anything I've written in there with which you disagree?

If you agree with what I've said then you agree with me that there are some big question marks over whether CD really is technically better than vinyl.

 

[lindsayt]

Once compared a highly regarded £1,000 CD player to a Pioneer PL12D - guess which sounded "better"?

Proving that you really do not have a clue...

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Oi, less of the personal insults!!! Please!!!

Yes, David's evidence is what he's heard with his own ears from a humble record player. One that sounds significantly worse than state of the art record players. And yet one which was still good enough to beat a CD player in a bake-off.

That is evidence that I am prepared to accept. Especially when it's the same result as what I've been getting when I've done similar tests.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.