Digital Front Ends with Classic AR's

[Guest postjob62]

Hello all,

A recent turntable thread seemed to spark significant interest. I personally left vinyl behind when CD's came out, and until now have never looked back. But after getting some 3a's really nicely restored (thanks again Roy) and updating my amps, I'm becoming a little frustrated with some of my CD's. The quality of the recordings themselves, not the content, is what bothers me. Some of my CD's sound great, really terrific-I couldn't ask for better sound. But many,most notably many of my favorites, just sound terrible. Weak bass, muddy sounding, low volume level, you name it.

I'm sure the restored 3a's have accentuated the issue.

My systems consist (in addition to 3a's, 2ax's and 4x's) high-current solid state amps and Toshiba DVD players used as CDP's. Continually trying to minimalize, I am using no preamps. I run the source directly into one amp which has level controls, and with the other one I'm running the CDP into a Creek passive attenuator then to the amp- basically the same thing. If all or even most CD's sounded edgy, I would fault the system. But as I said, the good ones sound great so I have to assume it isn't my collection of components.

Anyone have any ideas? Should I consider SACD? I know there's a limited amount of program matter available. Would investing in regular but remastered versions of my early '90's CD collection help?

I guess vinyl is an option, and I know that it is supposed to sound "warmer". But weren't most early CD's cut from the vinyl masters anyway? If so, it seems that vinyl wouldn't improve the recording quality or dynamic range. And "warmness" isn't an issue- it's the clarity and range.

And in thinking of a real preamp with tone and contour controls, remember that the good CD's sound really good as is- and come to think of it, some of them were from the early '90's too, so the march of technology wouldn't seem to be the only issue either.

In the end, maybe I just need to face the fact that some recordings sound crappy and that's how it is. But I thought maybe others could chime in. All thoughts appreciated.

Ed

[Guest tdeutsch]

I have the same problem --even with my modest little AR4x speakers. I had some responses to my topic in this forum ("newbie asks...").

I don't really want to go to vinyl -- I'm just not into the maintenance -- plus there are the issues of recent title availability and the fact that a vinyl recording can be poorly mastered or pressed as well.

I may look into a more expensive cd player to see if perhaps that might make a difference (and return it if it doesn't!). Don't know if the Toshiba players you are using are considered "audiophile quality" or not, but I know my 15-year-old JVC 6 disc changer most likely isn't!

[soundminded]

I have two recent Toshiba DVDs employing their 24bit 192khz audio chip used as cd players and a 1991 vintage JVC 1 bit 8x oversampling player and careful comparisons with synchronized duplicate discs have convinced me that they sound identical in every respect, even the fixed level voltage output of the JVC unit is identical to the output levels of the Toshiba units. This leads me to believe that these units perform their functions flawlessly and any deviation from them is a deliberate distortion introduced to lure audiophiles looking to compensate for typical shortcomings of their often shrill loudspeakers and WOW newbies by standing out from the crowd in rapid fire AB demos in showrooms.

It takes a while to become accostomed to the sound of cds after a lifetime of listening to vinyl phonograph records. Without compression, much music will sound softer because much compression is done by increasing the sound of the softer parts of music rather than peak limiting. This makes wide dynamic range music difficult to listen to in a car or even at home because the softer passages are masked by ambient noise (my car cd player has a switchable compressor circuit.) Also, in the last part of each musical phrase, vinyl amplifies the last bit of reverb as it dies out which can be very pleasing but there is not that amount of reverb to same extent on cds, again because of lack of compression. This may explain why some people feel vinyl has more "airiness." Engineers who performed final mixdowns of vinyl records were very skillful at tweaking their sound to make it as pleasing as possible often in the service of the music itself in order to exploit the limited capabilities of vinyl technology to its greatest advantage. OTOH, may re-releases of older recordings are mere dubs right off the master tapes. Having comparably sized collections of both cds and vinyls (about 3000 each) I appreciate the characterics of both but listen almost exclusively to cds. Once I became accostomed to it, for me there is also no going back.

The installation of a turntable with sound systems having high gain capabilities at low frequencies such those incorporating AR 12" woofers can be tricky because acoustic feedback can be a real problem as can turntable rumble to a far greater degree than is evident on lesser sound systems. Something to be aware of.

>Hello all,

>

>A recent turntable thread seemed to spark significant

>interest. I personally left vinyl behind when CD's came out,

>and until now have never looked back. But after getting some

>3a's really nicely restored (thanks again Roy) and updating my

>amps, I'm becoming a little frustrated with some of my CD's.

>The quality of the recordings themselves, not the content, is

>what bothers me. Some of my CD's sound great, really

>terrific-I couldn't ask for better sound. But many,most

>notably many of my favorites, just sound terrible. Weak bass,

>muddy sounding, low volume level, you name it.

>I'm sure the restored 3a's have accentuated the issue.

>

>My systems consist (in addition to 3a's, 2ax's and 4x's)

>high-current solid state amps and Toshiba DVD players used as

>CDP's. Continually trying to minimalize, I am using no

>preamps. I run the source directly into one amp which has

>level controls, and with the other one I'm running the CDP

>into a Creek passive attenuator then to the amp- basically the

>same thing. If all or even most CD's sounded edgy, I would

>fault the system. But as I said, the good ones sound great so

>I have to assume it isn't my collection of components.

>

>Anyone have any ideas? Should I consider SACD? I know there's

>a limited amount of program matter available. Would investing

>in regular but remastered versions of my early '90's CD

>collection help?

>

>I guess vinyl is an option, and I know that it is supposed to

>sound "warmer". But weren't most early CD's cut from

>the vinyl masters anyway? If so, it seems that vinyl wouldn't

>improve the recording quality or dynamic range. And

>"warmness" isn't an issue- it's the clarity and

>range.

>

>And in thinking of a real preamp with tone and contour

>controls, remember that the good CD's sound really good as is-

>and come to think of it, some of them were from the early

>'90's too, so the march of technology wouldn't seem to be the

>only issue either.

>

>In the end, maybe I just need to face the fact that some

>recordings sound crappy and that's how it is. But I thought

>maybe others could chime in. All thoughts appreciated.

>

>Ed

[frankmarsi]

>Hello all,

>

>A recent turntable thread seemed to spark significant

>interest. I personally left vinyl behind when CD's came out,

>and until now have never looked back. But after getting some

>3a's really nicely restored (thanks again Roy) and updating my

>amps, I'm becoming a little frustrated with some of my CD's.

>The quality of the recordings themselves, not the content, is

>what bothers me. Some of my CD's sound great, really

>terrific-I couldn't ask for better sound. But many,most

>notably many of my favorites, just sound terrible. Weak bass,

>muddy sounding, low volume level, you name it.

>I'm sure the restored 3a's have accentuated the issue.

>

>My systems consist (in addition to 3a's, 2ax's and 4x's)

>high-current solid state amps and Toshiba DVD players used as

>CDP's. Continually trying to minimalize, I am using no

>preamps. I run the source directly into one amp which has

>level controls, and with the other one I'm running the CDP

>into a Creek passive attenuator then to the amp- basically the

>same thing. If all or even most CD's sounded edgy, I would

>fault the system. But as I said, the good ones sound great so

>I have to assume it isn't my collection of components.

>

>Anyone have any ideas? Should I consider SACD? I know there's

>a limited amount of program matter available. Would investing

>in regular but remastered versions of my early '90's CD

>collection help?

>

>I guess vinyl is an option, and I know that it is supposed to

>sound "warmer". But weren't most early CD's cut from

>the vinyl masters anyway? If so, it seems that vinyl wouldn't

>improve the recording quality or dynamic range. And

>"warmness" isn't an issue- it's the clarity and

>range.

>

>And in thinking of a real preamp with tone and contour

>controls, remember that the good CD's sound really good as is-

>and come to think of it, some of them were from the early

>'90's too, so the march of technology wouldn't seem to be the

>only issue either.

>

>In the end, maybe I just need to face the fact that some

>recordings sound crappy and that's how it is. But I thought

>maybe others could chime in. All thoughts appreciated.

>

>Ed

Dear Ed, with all due respects to you and your components, to minimalize by not using a pre-amp is like a minimalizing of a car and taking out the steering wheel to make more room in the front seat. Control over the maladies or bias of a recording engineers tastes, knowledge or equipment and room requirements and effects are what a pre-amp is commonly used for. I realize running a system without a pre-amp sounds like a good idea for an absolute 'purest' with mega-buck components which themselves might be enough, but in mostly every case a control pre-amp is recommended. The only time I can think of using a 'straight-wire' is with earphones where room acoustics and any other distractions are minimized.Unless the 'program material' is so superbly recorded whether its CD or vinyl leaving what I listen to to chance is not how I personally like to listen to music. If I want more edge to the cymbals, or more rosin on a bass's bow, I augument it with my tone controls, the same way a recording engineer would do in a studio.

Respectfully,Frank Marsi

P.S. going back a number of years Phase Linear introduced their #4000 pre-amp which had a number of circuits devised especially for vinyl listening. Personally I thought these circuits were great as my whole vinyl collection benefitted emensely because of them. In addition to these points I can plainly admit that I have some great quality vinyl records that beat the crap out of a lot of CDs that I own in terms of naturalness and any other parameter. And lastly I refuse to listen to any recording the way it was recorded if I feel it needs more of something, or less of something else, just like salt and pepper to my tastes with an egg.

[roundhome]

hello this is a good one

Early CDs were recorded 16 bit leaving some of the harmonics off thus the lack of wormth. some of the music was gone.other wise slow done an old movie and you get flickering. others compresseed the music this sounds dead. you can now take records and reacord them using your computer at 24 bit 96 hz sampling basically getting master quality clean up the pops, and burn it to dts or dvd.

sacds dts and dvd all have the same problem it depends on how they were recorded and produced. even some of them sound bad on a good AR speaker system. I have recordings from 8 track tapes that will make you think it was recorded yesturday with the best stuff out there.

also they need to be played back with a good unit with a high sample rate A to D decoder. like the one talked about above.

A 4 year old top of the line dvd player is not as good as a 98 dollar one today becouse of these A to D decoders. Some times you will find a disc will play in one unit but not another. I like records but will convert them to save them from damage.

[soundminded]

I think it's interesting that some when tyros listen to cds and find much of the music softer than what they are accostomed to hearing from vinyls, they ascribe it to compression when what they are experiencing for the first time is lack of compression.

Some early D/A and A/D chips were not particularly linear and did tend to sound harsh, especially those 16 and 18 bit chips in cd players made in the 80s and early 90s. The first acceptable cd player (to me) was my Denon 1520 which had a 20 bit 8 times oversampling technology. Once the JVC unit came out, IMO the game was over and the Toshiba units convince me I was right.

One problem for many recordings including vinyls was that they were made to satisfy certain markets to make some types of equipment sound good at the expense of making more accurate equipment sound bad. So early vinyls may have had users of mass produced consoles in mind or reflected the fact that they were mastered using Altec A-7s and compensated for their shortcomings. Played on AR3s, these recordings may have come off as dull especially when retailers were pushing other brands like KLH and could cut back the treble making them sound artificially muted. The unwillingness of many audiophiles to use active preamplifiers and equalizers to compensate for these variables IMO reduces their potential enjoyment of these recordings and skews their ability to make valid judgements about other equipment. But that's their choice and they don't particularly agree with mine either.

[Guest postjob62]

Thanks folks for the ideas and comments.

Soundminded, my Toshiba's are recent as well and also employ the 24 bit/192khz chips you reference. 50 bucks never sounded better. tdeutsch, if your CDP is suspect, you can eliminate that variable cheaply with one of these.

And Frank, yes I could improve some of the worst sounding CD's with tone controls, at least to some extent. I have in fact used a preamp with these in the past. But my experience is that even with tone controls and loudness contours, etc., the bass becomes somewhat bloated and boomy in addition to becoming more pronounced. I probably should have been more specific; my primary complaints are low overall volume and lack of bass. And again, the fact that so many of my CD's sound so good makes me want to think the variable is the recording quality, not the equipment. On one of these better recordings, I honestly can't think of one thing I could change to make it sound any better.

I'm beginning to think maybe the answer is that there is no answer-perhaps I just need to suck it up. There's just some irony that some of my favorite program material sounds the worst.

Ed

[Guest ben101]

I bought a Wadia cd player years ago (used) and it had inputs so you could bypass the pre-amp. It sounded good to me, so I bought it for about 1200. I think it was the 860 or something like it. Well, it was a nice cd player, but I found I was not listening to music as much as I was with a MSB Link (Nelson upgrade) with lots of fancy upgrades. It was a 24/96 and I sold it so I could afford the Wadia.

In the meantime, I wanted a BAt cd player because everyone just raved about how it sounded so fantastic. I sold the Wadia for more than I paid, and bought a (used) Bat for around 1700 that had just been serviced (new transport).

With NOS )(Amperex) tubes, almost every record (except for old classics i.e. Sinatra, Miles Davis etc) sounded much better. I had a very nice turntable, but the BAT was truly unique...Warm and deep sounding, tuneable (6 tubes for the output and just so fantastic sounding...This is an older 1999 model, and I might keep it forever.....!!! Too much money, and not so good with cheap russian tubes, but still my favorite of all time. 20bit, 44.1 and just an absolutely amazing cd player.What a beautiful sounding cd player! Not the best transport though. The best I have heard for the money though was my California Audio Labs MKll with the HDCD upgrade and 20 bit package, built like a tank. The gentleman who bought it went and sold his fancy Sony $5500 cd player because itsounded so much nicer...I sold it for $350.... A very nice cd player, and still being serviced. I hope this helps....

[Guest Bret]

Well Ed. . . get a cup of coffee and prepare for tome.

Ed -

There is so much involved here it isn’t funny.

If you have a turntable, the vinyl guys will tell you that the tonearm and proper arm setting will make a difference. The table itself obviously makes some differences at a gross level - the AR turntables solving some problems previously inadequately addressed. A recording will sound the *most* different, however, depending on the cartridge. The vinyl guys will tell you that the cartridge has to be right for the tonearm and the phono preamp has to be properly loaded for the cartridge. It’s all true, of course. It’s also a matter of degree.

You can get a phono preamplifier from Radio Shack (or could) for $15 if all you wanted was music. If you wanted amazing stuff to come off of your records you could spend hundreds just on the phono preamp. For the most part, the more you spend on the preamp the better it sounds provided that the cartridge is as good or better. There’s hardly any reason to put a $24 cartridge on a bad tonearm on a $400 phono preamp.

CDs with 16-bit, 44.1kHz encoding were supposed to be the be-all, end-all of audio reproduction. The maths say this is so - sort of. In order to comply with the “Redbook” standard (the information had to fit on the size disc that Philips and Sony said it had to) they had to do it this way [at the time]. It’s theoretically an axiom that we can get a good analog signal reproduced from that digital information.

As with most things in life, you can’t build a DAC with math.

Better DACs sound better than poorer DACs and the analog section of the equipment the DAC is in can be compared to the phono preamp. What’s the use of having a 110db CD if the S/N of the audio output is 88db? If it hums or hisses or is slow on the uptake or has crappy components in it with high crosstalk numbers or whatever - you aren’t getting the full result of the DAC which is already not giving you full benefit of the CD.

The DAC itself is extremely important. Why? Because the clock has to be spot-on with the D/A converter. This is not conjecture. All the bits have to be turned into analog in the right order with precisely the correct amount of space between them. You don’t have to goof that up but a tiny, tiny amount and you’ve muddied this “perfect” 16-bit, 44.1kHz signal. But that doesn’t much matter if your analog section was so bad that it’s smearing stuff all over the place anyway.

So the problem isn’t with the theory. The big problem is in execution. Just like not every phono cartridge sounds alike, and not every phono preamp sounds alike, not every CD player sounds alike, either.

Very smart and reasonable people will say that a $99 Panasonic receiver off the shelf at “Low Ball Eddie’s” does not sound like a $4,000 Musical Fidelity rig, but the same people want to insist that all CD players sound alike. Okay, guys - bull - they do not. They all work the same in theory, but in practice some get it righter than others.

My experience of this has been an evolution, but I will spare you years’ worth of iterations. The more I learned about what was going-on in decoding the digital information the more room I could see for error. Due to my great respect for my wife, the WAF is important. She lets me keep a pair of 9s in the living room, afterall. So she says, “Get a changer and get these jewel cases out of here.” I hear and obey. I had two changers, both Sony, one a DVD/SACD/CD player, the other a Redbook player only. The difference in sound in those two was dramatic. I hated the way the newer of the two sounded comparatively speaking . (I am skipping three other Sonys, an RCA, two Toshibas, an NAD, Meridian, Rega Planet, Jolida 100A, and a Philips.)

This lead me to buy a Perpetual Technologies P3-A.

http://www.av123.com/products_product.php?...ors&product=2.1

I attached this to all sorts of CD players and there was an unquestionable, immediate, improvement in whatever it was attached to. No, not some audiophile “phantom” improvement in “air” but a down-and-dirty “wow.” It sounded different attached to different players. “Well, that can’t be right," I told myself. "1s and 0s are 1s and 0s. . . something’s wrong. This should sound identical in every case,” but it didn’t.

“Huh? What? How? Now, wait a minute. . .”

More research.

“Ah. . . clock jitter. . . I didn’t know that was a problem. . .hmmmmm. Upsampling to cave the noise floor? Hmmmm.”

So, I bought a Perpetual Technologies P1-A; one of these:

http://www.av123.com/products_product.php?...ors&product=1.1

While I was at it I picked-up a Monolithic power supply for the P1-A, P3-A pair that had been “modded” by Dan Wright of ModWright. It was too good of a deal to let pass, and while you’re experimenting, for Pete’s sake, experiment!

I did all this on the used market, BTW, knowing that I could sell this equipment for what I paid for it should it not work-out. I was more than slightly skeptical about all this and really thought I’d be getting my money back shortly. I just wanted to try it.

The P1-A and P3-A combination is nothing short of a miracle. The two of them connected to almost anything made every player sound almost identical. The one exception was a Toshiba DVD/CD player that I got free with the purchase of a TV set. That one was just a little inferior. But connected to multiple players from multiple manufacturers the combination was just outstanding, and lead me to wonder what all the hype was surrounding various “transports.” I never spent the money to experiment there. If I had won the Powerball, maybe.

Between my buddy and I, we’ve had NAD, Meridian, Jolida, Toshibas, the Rega Planet, Sonys. . . a lot of CD players to play with over the past couple of years (rolling them into and off-of eBay, mostly). I can safely say that these do not sound alike. The Meridian and Jolida sounded the best without the P1-A, P3-A, but with it. . . there’s not enough difference to spit at between the two and the outboard DAC and re-clocker *always* sound better than the stock unit. The 24/192 Toshibas smoked the old Sony (both DVD/CD players) with or without the outboard DAC setup.

Frankly, the Jolida (even with tubes) sounds so good that spending the money on the outboard stuff would not be a good cost/benefit purchase. But the Jolida itself is $750+. The free Toshiba with the outboard stuff attached is as good as the Jolida, but even with a “free” CD player the outboard stuff costs a multiple of the Jolida ($20 tube upgrade necessary).

“Ah, Bret’s bragging on his equipment ! We aren’t impressed!”

Surprise, surprise, that’s not where I’m going. But I fully expect someone with religion will tell me it’s all in my head, anyway. This person will never have tried it - of course not - that would be a sin in the church of “Our lady of the Perpetual Sliderule,” and they like hearing their shrill voices in that choir. Besides, they don’t have all this fancy junk and their system sounds sooooo good that they instinctively know that what I’m saying can’t possibly be true. They’ve tried Panasonic, and RCA, and Sony, and Pioneer Elite players and they all sound the same.

All I can say to that is: “Like, DUH !, dude.” And what are we running this through?

So. . . one night while the wife was away I completely rearranged the livingroom. I invited the buddy over and we set-up my Sony DVD/SACD/CD changer with the outboard stuff on it. It’s run into a ModWright SWL 9.0 preamplifier and then into a Sunfire Symphonic Reference amplifier - then into AR 9s - bi-wired. Why not, wire’s cheap right? (AFAICT it's a waste of time)

He had recently acquired a Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs recording of Blood, Sweat, and Tears -3 on a hybrid SACD/CD disk. For the occasion I went out and bought two DVD-As and between us we have a fair number of 20-bit re-mastered, and Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs Redbook CDs. And we have all night to listen.

In SACD my changer has no output to the digital outputs during SACD playback. The only way to get that DSD signal out of the changer is using its analog outputs. I have a button I can press to change “layers” of a hybrid disk, from Redbook to SACD and back. It takes about 2 seconds to change-over.

We listened to CDs. We listened to DVD-As. Both of those are PCM using the same onboard DAC (although at different bit-depths) so we were able to listen with and without the outboard gear, with and without up-sampling on the CD comparisons. This is a pain as you have to be sure not to down-sample the DVD-A and the Perpetual Technologies stuff is not the easiest thing in the world to get setup properly. When correctly set it made a *vast* improvement to Redbook and “substantial” improvement in DVD-A.

We turned-on the Blood, Sweat, and Tears hybrid SACD/CD in CD mode, thru the PT gear. As you would expect from a new Mobile Fidelity disk, it was just awesome. Really, really, good. Not quite up to the DVD-As, but then, this was recorded in something like 1968 - how good could it be regardless of what Mobile Fidelity did to it?

Then I reached-over and hit the CD/SACD button and selected the changer’s outputs as “source” on the preamplifier and it clicked and whirred while it configured itself to play that layer of the hybrid disk. I expected the sound to be no better than what we had just heard - afterall, at new retail I was running the CD player through about $2,000 worth of techno-magic. This was going to just be the Sony changer’s sound, no extra high-tech stuff. . .

It took both hands to pick my jaw up off the floor. Yes, it was that much different and that much better. Holy cow, holy mackerel sapphire, holy moly, golly gee, and mighty decimality, Batman. Much rapid blinking (complete with “doink-doink” cartoon sound effects) as the aural part of the brain fugued almost to the point of seizure. Knees began feeling somewhat weak and spacial relationships were lost - there was temporary confusion and lost reference. . . the world around me started to turn black and I was swirling into a pit of spiraling "1"s and "0"s.

Oh, not that the sound was so good that you didn’t know where you were ! All this confusion and loss of capacity for reason was caused by my realization that this inexpensive changer, with this SACD in it, was vastly, vastly superior to the PT gear decoding a Redbook CD. The PT gear with a DVD-A was very close, but this SACD was unreal. It sounded too analog. . . like there was a TASCAM deck in the room. . . something’s weird here. . .

There were recording artefacts from the 1960s, a few. But you heard them like tape artefacts first-hand.

Back to research. . . read, read, read - “OOOOOhhhhh !” says me.

“SACD is not PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) and all those 16-24 bit DAC filters aren’t being used to decode it! Ohhhhhhhhhhh! Oh hoooo!” 1-bit decoding (every itsy-bitsy bit) at a huge sampling rate. OHHHHH!”

Well, of course, this is how I convince myself that the superiority of SACD makes some sort of sense that I can understand. Then someone has to blow it all for me; enter stage left, David Rich , Stereophile, November 2000 -

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/374/index.html

There you will find lots of calculations and explanations. You’ll even find, “Well it would be, if. . .”s. You can read how DVD-A in PCM has to be better than SACD, or could be or should be, and you’ll also see that Sony can’t possibly allow a DSD stream out of a player straight to an amplifier because of copyright problems.

I encourage all of you to read all of that AND AND AND the links at the bottom of the article. Even if you go glassy-eyed at some of the technical jargon you cannot help but be informed by the gist.

Now, we all know, or should, that David Rich is an extremely bright fellow. Extremely. So I’m not going to venture into the land of “yeah-buts” with David Rich on any point of his analysis; especially those that make me re-read them ten times, then stare blankly like a deer into the headlights of an on-coming Peterbilt.

Arguing with David Rich about this would show the same lack of wisdom challenging William F. Buckley Jr. to a public debate on the subject of The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would; particularly if you don’t know what the Fifth Amendment is.

I can only report that I think Sony did something right. I believe that they were correct in saying that they could make less expensive DACs to get better D/A conversion from DSD (SACD). Also, I must confess that DVD-A’s all sound like someone’s “fiddled-with” the master, whereas the DSD/SACDs sound like I would expect an analog tape of the original master to sound.

Perhaps six years later problems in SACD encoding and decoding have been fixed. But Sony’s original contention, that the DAC could be better/cheaper certainly seems true. Also, a system has been developed to send the DSD signal directly to a digital amplifier - which I find as unlikely as Mr. Rich found it.

Frankly, Ed, I don’t care if the data-bits must first be passed through the digestive system of a cat, then sifted out of clay litter before being transferred to my amplifier via ox cart. What I care about is the final result. I don't even care if I can explain it. I'm a user, not a designer.

Thus far, SACD has provided me with outstanding results (when the SACD is exceptional, the result is exceptional) at far, far lower a cost in “front end” hardware. My guess is that given another ten or fifteen years we will have reached a point where a $99 Panasonic will sound exactly like a $4,000 Musical Fidelity. For now, the closest I think I have come to outstanding reproduction has been the SACD.

It might surprise you to hear that I don't think all this is necessary for perfectly nice reproduction. My "usual" system is my 2nd with less invested in it total than I have in my "main" preamplifier. It sounds fine, but still finer with SACD. Would DVD-A be as good? I'll know soon. I'll have Steely Dan's Gaucho in three formats soon.

Bret

[Wally]

I have to play devil's advocate here.....I think.

I enjoy both CD and vinyl.... most days vinyl more but the cd is sure convenient.

I'm going on memory here because I was thrilled with the advent of the cd but lost some of my enthusiasm after living with cd's for some time.

Anyway, someone correct me if I'm wrong but you can get as many bits as you want in your cd player and electronics but the reality is the limitation is the cd.... it is a 14 bit recording (redbook standard?)and the last 2 bits are used for error correction or something like that. All your 20 bit players etc... are processing internally at 20 or however many bits but the original material is still 14 bits.... you can't change that. I can't remember the math but that limits the dynamic range and the high frquency response capability. Anything beyond 14 bits is synthesized or enhanced in your equipment...... it's not part of the original recording. You can't get frequencies higher than 22khz out of a cd if that. Many phono cartridges

can read beyond 40khz..... that's how they encoded the old surround sound on records... it was at 48 khz if I remember correctly. Somewher there is an article on dynamic range of vinyl and cd and guess what.... vinyl trounces cd. I think one of the reasons cds sound so abrasive is the sampling in the high frequencies only catches a portion of the complex sine wave. You just can't get a good representation of a 20khz signal with a 44.1 khz sampling rate.. then the filters used to filter the 44.1 and harmonics also do nasty things to the high frequencies.

OK, I started this row, now one of you engineers jump in here and explain the 'redbook' standard, 14 bits and all the rest of that stuff like sampling only at 2 points on a 20khz signal and then reproducing a sine wave to look like a set of stairs and expecting it to sound the same.......

whew, had to get that off my chest, I feel better now.... LOL

Let the flames begin....

[roundhome]

Bret

Thank you I'm a tech a vary old tech IBM punchcard type all the way to the cruise missle stuff but noy much of a talker you said it vary well.

I have records 8 tracks reels cd dts sacd dvd A. and a vary good sytem you can here them all and I have to switch players to play some. A 1000 buck yamaha 4 year old could not play some of my dts yet a new 98 buck one could.

my turntable is a AR Es-1 with a grado gold not the top but a good player the first thing is that the records have to be cleen. I can switch between AR3As and 58s or 9ls all recaped and extras done to them the 9ls reveal the most. I can also say that if your gear is 10 years old or more it needs to be recaped you will not believe the diff there also. my freinds are always saying that they hier stuff in a old songs that they didn't know was there. and some of them do sound checks for every band that comes into town.

I hope this is going to be a learning topic not a war we all have good information to share.

Thank ou Bret and others

Jim

[soundminded]

I was surprised that there weren't a lot of heated postings defending vinyl. That's usually what I read on other message boards. I really hadn't intended to get into the technical justifications behind cds but I'm convinced that the 16 bit 44.1khz RBCD system is more than adequate to record and play back every frequency and combination of frequencies at every loudness level a human being is capable of hearing with inaudible noise and distortion. And my experience is in agreement with what those who developed it and justify it theoretically claim. After all, the people at Philips and Sony were not stupid or indifferent, they were audiophiles themselves and knew that a technical failure on their part to satisfy other audiophiles would be a financial catastrophe. When a new technology like this first appears, it is expensive and only dedicated audiophiles will make the sacrifice to buy it. And then they have to convince recording companies to make a major investment in new plant and equipment. That it was an overwhelming success IMO was not merely due to its durability and convenience but for many people its sound.

"Somewher there is an article on dynamic range of vinyl and cd and guess what.... vinyl trounces cd."

I can't agree with this. Measurements and experience convince me that exactly the opposite is true. CDs have the capacity for 1000 to 10,000 times the dynamic range of the best vinyl phonograph records, 90 db vs 50 to 60 db. That is why there is no need for compression and one reason they sound so different. Before the consumer's ability to burn his own cds, the only way we had to compare cds to vinyl was to buy a re-released vinyl on a cd and for a large number of reasons, they sounded different, often inferior if for no other reason than the original source tapes had deteriorated in the intervening years. Re-releases were the stepchild for most record companies (except specialty labels like Chesky) and usually these were straight dubs without the time and skill devoted to creative knob twirling that made the original vinyls so likeable. Audiophiles should consider that most vinyl phonograph records were processed through multiple equalizers and many stages of signal level amplifiers before they dismiss using equalizers and active preamplifiers themselves. But now the consumer has a way to test the merits of the RBCD system himself by burning a vinyl on to a cd and comparing it to the source just as with a magnetic tape recording.

While vinyl phonograph records can theoretically record any frequency including those well above audibility, in practice this is not usually practical or necessary. Among the first advocates of extending recordings and playback into the ultrasonic range were Audio Fidelity records who claimed response to 25Khz with their "Frey Stereophonic Curtain of Sound", Harman Kardon whose tube amplifiers had power bandwidths and frequency response extended out to 50 and 70 khz, and University Sound whose "Sphericon" super tweeter claimed response to 40 khz. Actually, it takes a very special phonograph cartridge not to shave these high frequencies off the record in a few plays. Empire claimed with their 999VE that a 20 khz tone was only down 1 db after 1000 plays...tracking at one tenth of a gram. In the real world, the stress of styli tracking at much over a gram especially with eliptical geometries or even higher stress "micro ridge" types wipe them out fairly quickly. I think this is especially true for the relatively low compliance moving coil types audiophiles like so much. As for CD-4 quadraphonic discs extending response out to nearly 50 khz, only a relative handful were made probably most by RCA), only a few cartridges had the special geometry styli to track them properly (I still have an Empire 4000D/III), and if they were played with conventional cartridges, the out of band signal was wiped out pretty quickly.

I think that the value in practical terms of extending response beyond 20 khz has been largely dismissed by all by die hard audiophiles. And I'm old enough to remember when you could often test your hearing by listening to the high pitch of vibrating tubes in horizontal oscillator circuits in TV sets.

[ninohernes]

For digital front end, I have a Pioneer SACD/DVD player with an Ultech Audio DAC for Redbook CD's and other PCM material. However, I spend most of my time listning to vinyl. I have an AR-XB turntable with a Shure V15VxMR cartridge. My preamp is a McIntosh C-33, and my amplifier is an Eico HF-89.

I still prefer vinyl over all of the current formats. SACD comes in second. Most of the music I buy is on either vinyl or SACD. Acoustic Sounds (www.acousticsounds.com) seems to have the best selection of new vinyl and audiophile vinyl. I think that they have more of my money than I do...:-)

[Steve F]

I have to agree with virtually everything said in Soundminded's post. Although there may have been some early re-issues from LP to CD that sounded harsh (due to being early on the CD recording learning curve rather than any inherent shortcomings of the medium itself), the CD is vastly superior in virtually every relevant characteristic to the LP.

That said, the hobby of audio is so strongly tied to emotions and ego that it can be very difficult to separate that aspect from objective fact. Nor SHOULD it necessarily be separated--the emotions are what makes it such an enjoyable undertaking.

I've been party to many a tightly controlled double-blind A-B session and virtually all of the supposed "big, noticeable" differences in sampling rates, bits, etc. quickly fall into the random 50-50 category. But there is no difficulty in discerning the higher background noise, limited dynamic range, restricted FR, etc. of LP vs. CD.

There is a certain "romance" to a beautiful turntable, a slow, smooth cueing action, that big, shiney, freshly-cleaned 12" record spinning slowly at 33 1/3 RPM.A CD player is so ,well, antiseptic by comparison.

And again, this is a HOBBY, it's fun, it's relaxing. If a turntable's operational elegance puts you in such a state of mind that an LP actually does sound better to you, then it does. Each person's reality is their's alone.

For me, the day I no longer had to clean my stylus, no longer had to use the Discwasher, and no longer had to tiptoe across the floor was a great day. I gave away my Dual 701/Shure V15 Type V MR the next day and have never looked back. But that's just me.

Steve F.

[Guest Bret]

>I've been party to many a tightly controlled double-blind A-B session and virtually all of the supposed "big, noticeable" differences in sampling rates, bits, etc. quickly fall into the random 50-50 category.<

Steve -

This always fascinates me . Can you describe the way this is done, usually?

I'm particularly interested in the brass ring of these tests. Is the listener allowed an A/B switch? Is the goal to "hear a difference" or is the goal to identify the different sources? Pink noise? Solo instruments?

I'm not referring to the "trick tests" where listeners are duped. I'm referring only to the "real" tests.

I'm *really* surprised that HK can train listeners to blindly identify good speakers as being better/worse with a high degree of correlation to whether they *are* better or worse, but just about every double-blind test I've ever heard-of draws "no conclusion" or "same as random" results.

Were these done on real, consumer-available, products or lab equipment where the bit-depth could be altered?

Bret

Just to prevent their being any chance that this post invites a "fight" from anyone, I agree with you and soundminded that from all I can read there should be no differences I can hear. Hell, the CD players and CDs all have better s/n and bandwidth specs than the amps they are connected to. The amp is capable of way, way more than I can hear.

That being said, the David Rich article I pointed-to in my message contains some interesting tid-bits (pun intended) if you read it carefully.

[Guest Bret]

Steve -

Knowing that the Stereophile article would take a long time to read, I just wonder what your take on just this page might be:

http://www.stereophile.com//features/282/index2.html

Bret

[Guest postjob62]

Thanks Bret, for the insightful response and thanks to all other responders as well. I seem to have a knack for starting threads that wind up a bit over my level of technical expertise, budget or both!

But what I'm taking from this is not too far from what I thought answers might be:

1) Looks like switching to vinyl, while a very satisfying sub-hobby in and of itself, probably wouldn't significantly produce that which I find lacking.

2) Given the ever dropping price of SACD players, one option might be to go that way and try to find appropriate SACD recordings of the material I'm after. I know a couple already exist.

3)I could stick with my Toshibas and look for more recent remastered regular CD's of the ones I currently find lacking.

[Wally]

Like I said, I use both vinyl and CD. We haven't heard from any of the engineers regarding the merits or drawbacks of CD's. They're smart enough to stay out of the analog vs digital debate.... LOL

>>I was surprised that there weren't a lot of heated postings defending vinyl. That's usually what I read on other message boards. I really hadn't intended to get into the technical justifications behind cds but I'm convinced that the 16 bit 44.1khz RBCD system is more than adequate to record and play back every frequency and combination of frequencies at every loudness level a human being is capable of hearing with inaudible noise and distortion. And my experience is in agreement with what those who developed it and justify it theoretically claim. After all, the people at Philips and Sony were not stupid or indifferent, they were audiophiles themselves and knew that a technical failure on their part to satisfy other audiophiles would be a financial catastrophe. When a new technology like this first appears, it is expensive and only dedicated audiophiles will make the sacrifice to buy it. And then they have to convince recording companies to make a major investment in new plant and equipment. That it was an overwhelming success IMO was not merely due to its durability and convenience but for many people its sound.<<

The selection of the 14 bit 44.1 khz standard was not based on how accurate it was but how economical it was to bring digital sound to the masses in 1980(?). The choice of format was certainly influenced by the technology of the day. Does anyone really believe that the Philips and sony engineers would slect the redbook standard today because it is 'as good as accurate as possible' ... not likely... look at the higher standards for DVD audio and SACD.... because improved technology is now affordable.

Far as the engineer audiophiles, I'm sure they did the best they could given the technology of the day and the economics of the format they selected. Case in point... why did VHS succeed over Beta when Beta was (and still is in pro applications) the superior format. Remember in it's day, people said Edison's wax cylinders sounded 'exactly' like the original material. The acceptance of CD by industry had more to do with ease of manufacture and profit than sound quality.... big companies do things to make money, not to satisfy people's needs for higher quality. CD's are cheaper to make than records or cassettes.... So why do they cost more???

Two more examples.......

Take home theater......... there is tons of that crap...oops stuff being sold as the latest audio panacea.... thank goodness for us (members of these 'antique'forums), we get to buy up discarded quality equipment...amplifiers,turntables and AR speakers... for a song....

Please raise your hands those of you who believe that home theater is a step forward in realistic reproduction of music. (Yes I have Home Theater for the TV and I enjoy it for some movies... a decent sytem using quality speakers...not one of those all plastic throwaways).Last point... I believe Apple sold 40 million Ipods.... big improvement in audio....???? I think not. Just because something is marketted successfully or accepted by the masses, does not make it better.

For every decent sounding CD, I have 10 awful sounding ones. That ratio is about 5 good to 1 bad vinyl record.Most of my vinyl sounds better than my cd's where I have replaced the vinyl...

Far as analog processing, there is more processing of the recorded material now than there ever was in the heyday of analog... why, because there is more equipment available, producers can do it and because they are each trying to produce a 'unique' sound that will sell more cd's and distinguish their artists and recording abilities. BTW...many studios now use good old analog tube equipment to 'warm' up the sound before the final mix to two track digital.

The cd is not about better audio quality but about profit, ease of manufacture and consumer convenience.

I'm not arguing about your preference for CD's, just setting the record straight on some of your statements.

I'm happy with CD's because I certainly use and enjoy them but also the cd has provided me with a cheap source of software....discarded vinyl.

Now let's talk about the next big 'leap'.... digital radio.... convenient.... profitable..... but better???? LOL

Strangely enough... there does not seem to be any argument that digital video is a step forward!!!!!

[Wally]

You're right ED. There are good and bad recordings in both Vinyl and CD... just a greater percentage of bad sounding CD's.

[Guest Bret]

>Some of my CD's sound great, really terrific-I couldn't ask for better sound. But many,most notably many of my favorites, just sound terrible.<

Can you give us multiple examples of both, or describe the differences you are hearing, or something more to go on?

Are you finding things "too forward" or "too laid-back" or "too stark" or flappy or what?

Bret

[Guest Bret]

>Now let's talk about the next big 'leap'.... digital radio.... convenient.... profitable..... but better????<

Let's please not.

I can't wait to not-participate. Like they care.

Bret

[Guest postjob62]

>>>

Can you give us multiple examples of both, or describe the differences you are hearing, or something more to go on?

Are you finding things "too forward" or "too laid-back" or "too stark" or flappy or what?

Bret<<<

Yes Bret, I can give you a pretty good non-engineer's description. The problem CD's to which I refer usually exhibit the same symptoms:

1. A low level of volume in the recording itself. Easy enough I suppose, just turn it up, right? But these particular CD's almost always have other attendant issues to go along with this-read on.

2. A decided and prominent lack of bass in the recording. Now before one says "maybe there was no bass in the live material", let me say that in many cases I was there when the original material was played, and there was plenty of bass. Case in point: many Allman Brothers recordings ( a personal favorite) both old and new show this problem. But believe me, it does not exist live. When one complains about lack of bass with a good solid state amp pushing 3a's, and you know your CDP is up to the task, then the recording must be suspect.

3. An overall character that your words "too laid back" would describe. Just flat, dull and lifeless-perhaps even a little muddy.

Keep in mind that a "good sounding" CD, even one released during the same time period, when played back-to-back with one of these "duds", sounds terrific. The best way to describe one of these good ones is to say that even with a Creek passive preamp going straight into an Adcom GFA-5400, I could not add one thing to the music to make it more enjoyable. It has plenty of volume, outstanding bass, and a (perceived) wide dynamic range accentuated by outstanding clarity. Not even a need to adjust the balance, if I could. After having mentioned my favorite band, I'll risk the onslaught of perjorative comments regarding my personal tastes by telling you that one of the best-recorded CD's I have ever heard is Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Endangered Species" from 1994. It's from that whole "unplugged" era and has to be heard to be believed.

Hope that helps clarify my thoughts. By the way, I had no intention of starting a vinyl vs. digital thread, but if I thought it would solve my issues I would probably go to vinyl. But it seems that a dud is just a dud, no matter what the medium. I'm just trying to improve the odds.

Ed

[Guest Bret]

>Hope that helps clarify my thoughts. By the way, I had no intention of starting a vinyl vs. digital thread, but if I thought it would solve my issues I would probably go to vinyl. But it seems that a dud is just a dud, no matter what the medium. I'm just trying to improve the odds.<

I had Aqualung - original pressing. Sounded great. Wore it out. Bought a half-speed mastered, sounded fantastic. Had it cleaned on a Keith Monks machine and it never sounded right ever again. (this makes no sense, but it's true) Bought a new "normal" pressing and it sounded awful. Bought a CD - it was awful. Bought a remaster. It was equally awful. Relatively recently I bought a new, remastered, "greatest hits" and the same tune sounds wonderful. On the CD was an interview as a bonus track. Anderson explained that they had lost track of the master tapes, but he has many of them back now. Ahha! Get a good tape, you can make a good record or CD.

Vinyl, CD. . . yes, a dud's a dud.

For *now* I would guess that DVD-A or SACD would improve your odds, but that may not last long. My main complaint with DVD-A is you have to "setup" the disk which is a pain in the rump unless your DVD player is connected to a TV.

Last point - The SACD I was most impressed with? Check this out:

http://www.mofi.com/adcon.htm

Might be 90% marketing hype, but it does deal with the problems cited in Stereophile - and sounds terrific.

Bret

[roundhome]

>>Hope that helps clarify my thoughts. By the way, I had no

>intention of starting a vinyl vs. digital thread, but if I

>thought it would solve my issues I would probably go to vinyl.

>But it seems that a dud is just a dud, no matter what the

>medium. I'm just trying to improve the odds.<

>

>I had Aqualung - original pressing. Sounded great. Wore it

>out. Bought a half-speed mastered, sounded fantastic. Had it

>cleaned on a Keith Monks machine and it never sounded right

>ever again. (this makes no sense, but it's true) Bought a new

>"normal" pressing and it sounded awful. Bought a CD

>- it was awful. Bought a remaster. It was equally awful.

>Relatively recently I bought a new, remastered, "greatest

>hits" and the same tune sounds wonderful. On the CD was

>an interview as a bonus track. Anderson explained that they

>had lost track of the master tapes, but he has many of them

>back now. Ahha! Get a good tape, you can make a good record

>or CD.

>

>Vinyl, CD. . . yes, a dud's a dud.

>

>For *now* I would guess that DVD-A or SACD would improve your

>odds, but that may not last long. My main complaint with

>DVD-A is you have to "setup" the disk which is a

>pain in the rump unless your DVD player is connected to a TV.

>

>Last point - The SACD I was most impressed with? Check this

>out:

>

>http://www.mofi.com/adcon.htm

>

>Might be 90% marketing hype, but it does deal with the

>problems cited in Stereophile - and sounds terrific.

>

>Bret

Bret setting up a dvd A can be a pain that is why I picked up a fosgate fapt+ it has a display in it and top of the line A to D and D dt A converters in it.

Jim

[Guest OldRelayer]

OMG Bret. I am saving this and the next time my wife says a word about my ever so limited involvement in stereo equipment, I will have this bookmarked and force her to read it.

However, I am like others here and elsewhere that are not as happy as they could be with CDs. And it may have been you that suggested SACD in one of the posts. I must admit I haven't a clue what an SACD is. So maybe you can give us a little primer on what it is(ever so briefly) and how you would go about setting up a cost effective system and of course where do you get good material.

Funny you should mention SD's Gaucho, a fine album btw, because I have been seriously thinking about getting "Everything must go" on the limited edition LP pressing, pricey of course. It would be interesting to see how something that was produced for CD sounds on Vinyl rather than the other way around. While on the subject of old music, I was at my local music store and there it was a 30th Anniversary “Dark Side of the Moon”, yes I bought it, haven’t opened it yet, not sure if I should. As far as I can tell it is just the original no remastering.

It also has been stated here that this company or that company is releasing great vinyl but they never say how to reach the company. For people that have done that, could you post an internet address or even a mailing address or what music stores carry them, or just what labels. My local store can usually find and get me most anything.

Thanks

Barry