evolution of audio recordings

[Ken Herrick]

It is a shame that the "standard"for CD assumed that a steep roll off which meant longer playing time could be achieved while supposedly being "unnoticeable was adopted.

Back in mid 60s, while at Northwestern an AR turntable, Dyna amp and pre-amp, Stanton cartridge and some custom built 12" 3way speakers gave very enjoyable sound. Only REAL advantage with CD is non deterioration repeared playing. Solution was to dub to tape using the Roberts deck on first play and put the record away.

2track stereo with phantom middle when set up right beat a lot of current CD play back for real "presence".

Building the amp and pre-amp from kits and making the speaker enclosures was good fun as well as economical. Used to get a lot of visitors for first play of latest CSO releases.

[Matt Ransom]

Agreed.

Hard to match the sound of a properly set up turntable with a good cartridge and stylus.
I own thousands of cds and lps and almost always default to listening to vinyl.

I'm not an analog purist. As a matter of fact, some of my favorite recordings are vinyl pressings of digital recordings.
The Polygram labels (DG, Philips, London) still released a fair amount of their earlier digital recordings on vinyl and cd simultaneously.
Comparing them presents two distinctly different listening experiences. If you are able to make the comparison yourself, the answers to the vinyl vs. cd debate will be unavoidably obvious.

IMO, the compression of MP3, etc. files makes for a flawed listening experience. There has been a some improvement over the years, but the depth and soundstage are compromised. That is assuming the recording is well engineered in the first place.

[Tubaryan12]

Well,

As I've gotten older, I have noticed 2 things: my hearing has gotten worse, and the quality of playback equipment has gotten worse. Even to me, a guy that fell in love the first time he heard a CD, it has been a steady downhill slide ever since. Agreed, MP3 and MP4 aren't great, but I don't know how much of that lost magic is due to my fading ears and embellished memories, or cheap playback equipment and crappy engineering. I can tell you this: the same cd sounds much better in my boss's Lincoln, than it does in my Kia.

[taylorbeaty]

digital recordings are more convenient. Many people say vinyl recordings sound better than anything digital but it all relies on equipment, wiring, cables, speakers, power, eq settings, etc... i think both sound pretty amazing with the right setup.

[greatk82]

Audio recordings have not evolved. They are, and always have been, intelligently created.

[Michael Woods]

The devolution is certainly not accurate if you are an audiophile like myself. Most audiophiles are putting all there cd's onto home music servers and if possible downloading better than cd quality recordings from places like http://www.hdtracks.com" target="_blank. You can down load music that have bit rates as high as 24bit at 192khz sound files, the cd standard is 16bit at 44.1khz.

If you have the proper associated equipment for decoding these higher bit rates and gear that will reveal a difference it is worth the price.

[termite]

I'm a wannabe audiophile (I can't afford to be a real one) and I'm also in the process of putting all my CD's onto computer.
I must confess that my Thorens turntable hasn't been plugged in for many years so I can't make any comparisons between it and my current digital equipment.

For many years I thought that all CD players were equal and that digital was digital. I've only recently discovered that this could not be more wrong.

Anything which plays digital music files - computer,iPod, CD player, etc. uses a digital to audio converter (DAC) to turn the digital information (a description of sounds waves written in computer language) into actual sound waves.

A digital music file is like sheet music, the DAC is like a pianist reading the sheet music and your amp and speakers are like the piano. Variations in the quality and specification of the last two parts of the process have the same effect in either a stereo system or live piano performance.

DAC's vary enormously in quality. A DAC is a fairly cheap little thing to make, however manufacturers tend to not put a decent one into any CD player selling below several thousand dollars.

Audiophiles use stand alone DAC's (often referred to as an external sound card) in computer based systems. Pretty good ones start at three hundred dollars or so. The difference one of these makes compared to the average CD/DVD player is quite dramatic.

People talk about digital coldness and analogue warmth. Early CD players were pretty cold sounding. Some DAC's have a warm sound; some have a more analytical sound, as do different amps and speakers. If you put together a system using components selected for having a warm sound signature you won’t hear any digital coldness.

The real stereo system of the 1970’s seems to have been replaced by either the cheap all in one bookshelf system or the dreaded 7.1 home theatre system complete with boomy subwoofer.

Both of these rely on digital effects to try to improve the lousy sound produced by a second rate DAC, amp(s) and speakers. They both sound impressive at first listen but are very lacking in detail and depth compared to even the lowest entry level audiophile type system.

Be aware that most current pop music is mastered way too loud with a compressed dynamic range and lots of distortion due to missing peaks in the digital signal. Look up “loudness war” on Wikipedia. This is to give the recording more impact when played in Mp3 format on low quality iPods and earbuds, and to try to make the recording sound louder than rival releases on radio. (Which doesn’t work anyway as radio stations apply their own normalization and compression).

Some current stuff is released both on CD and vinyl. The CD will be a too loud, compressed master whereas the vinyl will be much softer with the full dynamic range intact. Try opening any pop song in Audacity and notice how the peaks are missing. The screen’s not too small – the information is missing from the file.

As I said, I haven’t made any valid listening tests to compare vinyl to digital but I do think that most people have never heard good digital.
N.B. – I don’t claim to know much about this stuff. I discovered most of the above very recently in the course of trying to improve my own equipment.

Regards

Gerard

[saktoons]

Years ago I took a course in the history and techniques of recorded music. (This was way back when digital meant having to do with fingers, only.) We were taught about the original techniques for acoustic (non-electronic) recording where the whole ensemble would crowd around in front of the opening of the cone that tapered down to the needle on the master platter. The all-acoustic recording was not sensitive enough and did not have a wide enough frequency range to pick up string bass, so most recordings used tuba or bari sax for the bass. And a tuba with an upright bell would not be picked up on the recording as well as a tuba with a front-facing bell. And that's where the name "recording bell" comes from.

(OK, at least that's what I remember being taught some 38 years ago, or so. If my memory has failed me (which it seems to be doing much more frequently these days), please correct me. I was just happy to take a course that actually merged my chosen course of study with my tuba playing...at least for a few minutes.)

[taylorbeaty]

Seems like I always see people using analog cables (such as rca "composite" cables) with digital equipment. Sometimes, especially with older equipment, that's the only choice. I mean it still sounds good, but in my opinion people should use digital cables (hdmi, fiber optic) with their digital equipment. I guess a lot of people still don't know much about cables, I didn't until probably 3-4 years ago.

[termite]

I think you’re confused. (Sorry that sounds rude, but this is Tubenet).
I stand to be corrected but this is how I understand it.

If you run RCA cables from your DVD player to your AV receiver then you are using the digital to audio converter built into your DVD player to change the digital stream into audio ready to be amplified by the amp built into the receiver.

If you run something like a TOSLINK cable from your DVD player to your AV receiver you are then bypassing the DAC in your DVD player and sending the digital stream straight to your receiver and instead using the DAC built into your receiver to turn the digital stream into audio.

If a TOSLINK cable from your DVD player to your AV receiver sounds better than RCA’s between the two it means that your receiver has a better DAC than your DVD player. I don’t think that it means that digital cables are better.

I hope I’ve got this right.

Regards

Gerard (Who’s stereo cost a LOT less than $100,000.00 but still sounds alright and might sound even better if I fixed my disastrous speaker placement).

[termite]

Oops - just had another read of that. Are you comparing older style cables carrying a digital signal to HDMI etc. carrying the same digital signal? In that case I imagine the more modern cable would be better.

Regards

Gerard

[taylorbeaty]

Well, I'm no expert on the subject, and you probably know more than I do. I didn't know using a fiber optic cable would bypass the DAC in the player. I just knew with equipment like blu-ray players, newer video games, and things of the like, (i know we were talking about audio and those relate more to video) using cables like hdmi and fiber optic usually render better picture and can support surround sound formats. And yeah, I think some newer cables are better than old ones. But again, I'm no expert on the matter. I'll look up more info next time.

[termite]

G'day. You've got me interested in the whole AV thing now. From looking at pictures of rear panels on Google it looks like many players have multiple alternative outputs including analog audio RCA, digital video/audio RCA (similar looking but different cables??) and HDMI digital, and maybe TOSLINK (prety old now) and SPDIF - both digital.
Too many options! I'm guessing that your point is a good one, that something like an HDMI cable would work a lot beter than an RCA for carrying a digital signal.
We do all our gaming and DVD watching on the computer, often running the audio to the stereo. I'm a bit primitive when it comes to video. Most of my favourite movies were made in the 1970's.

Regards

Gerard (I'd better go do some work).

[GC]

There was some earlier equipment that sent digital signals over RCA cables. As long as the digital signal arrives intact, it does not matter if it is somewhat more attenuated by being run through RCA cables. Digital is not like analog; you don't lose treble or harmonics by your choice of cables. If the signal makes it through, it has the same quality as with HDMI or alternatives, and you can't tell the difference in the sound. If it's too attenuated or has dropouts, the sound just quits or stutters. If you can tell a difference in the sound, the DAC is probably the culprit.

Of course, if you're running analog through the RCA cables, you do get attenuation and change in the signal. Most people can't tell that much difference, though.

And in the long run, cheap digital cables function pretty much the same as high end cables for average length runs in normal environments. The only real need for expensive cables is for very long runs or in environments with a lot of RF interference.

[taylorbeaty]

And that's why companies like Monster get crap all the time, for making super expensive hdmi cables when there's not much difference in a $5 and a $150 cable. AV equipment has interested me for a while now, but can't say i know much about it yet.

[GC]

I buy my digital cables through Amazon. I've paid as little as $0.99 for a 6-foot HDMI cable and under $3 for an optical cable, and they both work beautifully.

[Michael Woods]

GC-

There was some earlier equipment that sent digital signals over RCA cables. As long as the digital signal arrives intact, it does not matter if it is somewhat more attenuated by being run through RCA cables. Digital is not like analog; you don't lose treble or harmonics by your choice of cables. If the signal makes it through, it has the same quality as with HDMI or alternatives, and you can't tell the difference in the sound. If it's too attenuated or has dropouts, the sound just quits or stutters. If you can tell a difference in the sound, the DAC is probably the culprit.

Of course, if you're running analog through the RCA cables, you do get attenuation and change in the signal. Most people can't tell that much difference, though.

And in the long run, cheap digital cables function pretty much the same as high end cables for average length runs in normal environments. The only real need for expensive cables is for very long runs or in environments with a lot of RF interference.

The RCA cables that send digital signals are called coaxial cables and are 75ohm, you can use regular ol RCA's but you may loose some data. Coaxial cables are fairly common and most dvd/cd players have coaxial outputs.

I think the only way to decode Dolby True HD or DTS HD master audio is through a capable Bluray player or an AV receiver via the hdmi cable.

[GC]

If the signal is digital, you lose none of it or all of it. Signal strength doesn't really matter, since there are no delicate waveforms to lose. It's all either 1's or 0's, and it's either all picked up, or there are interruptions. High-quality cables are not really necessary.

If you're running high-bitrate BD, 3D, or 4K source material, a high-speed HDMI cable may be needed, but you can still get them cheap.

But as always, high quality cables for analog material definitely do make a difference. It's a matter of balance between your ears and the price point.

[Michael Woods]

If the signal is digital, you lose none of it or all of it. Signal strength doesn't really matter, since there are no delicate waveforms to lose. It's all either 1's or 0's, and it's either all picked up, or there are interruptions.

That is actually incorrect. Hdmi cables, which are digital cables, can not stand long runs and will start loosing information the longer the wire, the "snow" effect. The same thing goes with USB audio cables, shorter is better in digital cable land. Just read cable reviews and experiment at home.

I will say that depending on how high end of a system you have cables may or may not matter.

I have found that on my home system cables do matter. I have found a difference in sound quality between some solid core RCA's and stranded/braided RCA's. I have also found a difference in the sound of a long run of usb cable and a short run of usb cable from my computer to the dac.


http://www.amazon.com/NuForce-uDAC-2-Bl ... ds=nuforce" target="_blank" target="_blank

[GC]

Actually, no, in return. With the earlier standards, 15' or so used to be the practical limit. With HTML 1.3 and above, the signal processing technology has improved to allow considerably longer distances. It's not hard to find 50-75 ft. cables, but they get expensive quickly since the construction and materials have to be much, much better.

In a recent test with the best cables available, 1080p was run up to 125' and 480p to 175'. If you need really long distances, you can find HDMI bridges and repeaters that use cat6 ethernet cable or fiber optic cable.

And yes, braided vs solid core RCA cables make a huge difference, but again, only for analog signals.