Did Sony and Philips make the right call with the cd format being 44.1/16?

[KG10]

I personally think they did given that 44.1/16 was the format used on pcm adapters which meant more cheaper and accessible mastering.

While it would have been nice to have had a enhanced cd format in the mid to late 90s akin to s-vhs with 24bit 48khz, I feel this would have been negligible to the advantage listener who would have not only been more than happy with standard cds but also would have much preferred the convenience of mp3s (which of course blew up in popularity at the time)

 

[par4ken]

I have always felt that the CD should have been 48kHz rather than 44.1kHz. The reason for the different sample rate was reportedly to make direct 1-1 copying (at that time) impossible.

Would improvements to sample frequency and bit depth make a noticeable difference in sound quality? Likely not to the average person. As a music delivery system I suppose that it is a bit dated. It is sad that it has seldom lived up to it's promise of greatly increased dynamic range. Instead most modern releases are squashed to death!

 

[KG10]

I have always felt that the CD should have been 48kHz rather than 44.1kHz. The reason for the different sample rate was reportedly to make direct 1-1 copying (at that time) impossible.

Would improvements to sample frequency and bit depth make a noticeable difference in sound quality? Likely not to the average person. As a music delivery system I suppose that it is a bit dated. It is sad that it has seldom lived up to it's promise of greatly increased dynamic range. Instead most modern releases are squashed to death!

I agree with that and I could see record companies not wanting the end consumer to have a perfect copy of the digital stereo master.

But then again I read somewhere that 48k came about as it synced better with video frame rates and that it was introduced along side 32k with dat.

Although saying that I feel the cd could have really benefited with those frequencys also being available for it instead of just 44.1k especially 32k for audio books.

 

[DuncanS]

I read years ago that the 44.1kHz came about because of the use of VHS tape for the production masters to pressing plants.

I just found this https://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/audio/44.1.html

Explanation of 44.1 kHz CD sampling rate​

The CD sampling rate has to be larger than about 40 kHz to fulfill the Nyquist criterion that requires sampling at twice the maximum analog frequency, which is about 20 kHz for audio. The sampling frequency is chosen somewhat higher than the Nyquist rate since practical filters neede to prevent aliasing have a finite slope. Digital audio tapes (DATs) use a sampling rate of 48 kHz. It has been claimed that thier sampling rate differs from that of CDs to make digital copying from one to the other more difficult. 48 kHz is, in principle, a better rate since it is a multiple of the other standard sampling rates, namely 8 and 16 kHz for telephone-quality audio. Sampling rate conversion is simplified if rates are integer multiples of each other.

From John Watkinson, The Art of Digital Audio, 2nd edition, pg. 104:

In the early days of digital audio research, the necessary bandwidth of about 1 Mbps per audio channel was difficult to store. Disk drives had the bandwidth but not the capacity for long recording time, so attention turned to video recorders. These were adapted to store audio samples by creating a pseudo-video waveform which would convey binary as black and white levels. The sampling rate of such a system is constrained to relate simply to the field rate and field structure of the television standard used, so that an integer number of samples can be stored on each usable TV line in the field. Such a recording can be made on a monochrome recorder, and these recording are made in two standards, 525 lines at 60 Hz and 625 lines at 50 Hz. Thus it is possible to find a frequency which is a common multiple of the two and is also suitable for use as a sampling rate.
The allowable sampling rates in a pseudo-video system can be deduced by multiplying the field rate by the number of active lines in a field (blanking lines cannot be used) and again by the number of samples in a line. By careful choice of parameters it is possible to use either 525/60 or 625/50 video with a sampling rate of 44.1KHz.
In 60 Hz video, there are 35 blanked lines, leaving 490 lines per frame or 245 lines per field, so the sampling rate is given by :
60 X 245 X 3 = 44.1 KHz
In 50 Hz video, there are 37 lines of blanking, leaving 588 active lines per frame, or 294 per field, so the same sampling rate is given by
50 X 294 X3 = 44.1 Khz.
The sampling rate of 44.1 KHz came to be that of the Compact Disc. Even though CD has no video circuitry, the equipment used to make CD masters is video based and determines the sampling rate.

(Reference kindly provided by Kavitha Parthasarathy.)
Also, David Singer noted that 44,100 can be factored as 2^2 * 3^2 * 5^2 * 7^2, i.e., the product of the squares of the first four prime numbers.

 

[jimfisheye]

24/60 would have nailed it enough to walk away and never need an upgrade. And including any and all edge case "difficult" audio.

A sample rate of 60kHz would have left enough of a margin between the sampling frequency and the audio band to eliminate the need for the difficult analog low pass (anti aliasing) filter that is the bane of many AD and DA converters.

24 bit gives you 100db dynamic range where the lowest signal level still gets 8 bits resolution. (The 1 - 8 bit range in 16 bit isn't very meaningful or useful if you want to try to claim 16 bit has 100db range. It's more like 50db. Neck and neck with a lot of above average vinyl pressings on an above average turntable/cartridge setup.)

Everything finally landing on 24/48 at present isn't so bad though. Consumer AV products that might have poor analog components upsample as SOP to passively avoid the low pass filters. Sample rate conversion with SOX or r8brain is transparent. We can record at 96k if we decide it's important. (Even though we have studio quality converters that genuinely perform as well at 48k.) The consumer end is handled with upsampling. And the ratty cheap facsimile products from Worst Purchase and Amazon have more fundamental problems. The low pass filters in their cheap converters don't even hit the radar next to all the other cheapness issues. A soundbar doesn't have issues with it's converters. It has issues with the idea that bouncing sound off a wall instead of putting a speaker there was a remotely reasonable idea.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

I feel 16-bit 44.1kHz is satisfying enough for a lot of music. Anything past 24/48 I cannot tell a difference. I have numerous 16-bit 44.1kHz records that outperform anything recorded in much higher qualities.

Although I do agree it should have been 48kHz. 44.1 is such a weird number. And I do wish 20-bit instead of 16 because sometimes things get mastered/tracked way too low (either by accident or out of necessity).

 

[4-earredwonder]

I feel 16-bit 44.1kHz is satisfying enough for a lot of music. Anything past 24/48 I cannot tell a difference. I have numerous 16-bit 44.1kHz records that outperform anything recorded in much higher qualities.

Although I do agree it should have been 48kHz. 44.1 is such a weird number. And I do wish 20-bit instead of 16 because sometimes things get mastered/tracked way too low (either by accident or out of necessity).

I think the audio world would indeed be a different landscape if SONY/PHILIPS had waited a year or two before introducing the compact disc format! Too bad they didn't learn their lesson from the failed launch of QUAD. The concept was solid ... Perfect Sound FOREVER from a 5" polycarbonate disc without the inherent anomalies of vinyl but like QUAD which was initially vinyl based with not ready for prime time decoders it had one fatal flaw: It failed to satisfy the 'audiophiles' who termed its sound brittle and uninvolving!

Sony's partner, Philips, initially wanted to go with 12 bit [?] but SONY resisted and thus the 16 bit/44/1 standard was adopted for the launch. And those early players: OUCH! Priced at $1K they were flimsy at best and I agree with those audiophile rags who pummeled its lackluster sonics.

Had they adopted a minimum of 20 bit/48 kHz standard from the start and had more carefully crafted those early players it might've had a fighting chance to satisfy its most divisive critics!

And I do find it very curious that in AD 2024, those same audiophile rags still devout endless pages to VINYL ...... megabuck turntables, tone arms, step up phono transformers and cartridges and boutique "one step vinyl' with the outrageous asking price of $125 for a technology which could've been curbed or even eliminated had the initial compact disc format been more sonically amenable 'out of the gate!'

Which is why to this day, STEREO is still the preferred listening format even with the introduction of state of the art SACD/BD~A multichannel technology which, IMO, delivers in spades what the major hardware/software manufacturers failed to deliver in the early 70's.

And with the pervasive introduction of Dolby ATMOS, will the tides be turned and/or minds changed?

STAY TUNED!

 

[jimfisheye]

I agree that 98% of music could be put to 16/44.1 with no appreciable loss. The edge cases of classical or art music with a wider dynamic range (larger crest factor if you prefer) and maybe some stuff with various generation loss already baked in are the only true exceptions. Upsampling is a passive workaround for the low pass filter issue.

Just saying that in theory, if we landed on 24/60 it would have been a done deal and covered everything 100%. 98% is still pretty good! The issues are clearly operator error behind the mastering desk in anything poor sounding. Or upstream in the mix itself.

There are enough free tools for anyone interested to prove it to themselves too. Convert your 24/96 file to 44.1k and then from 24 bit to 16 bit. Now convert that to a 320k mp3. Sounds the same doesn't it? It's not suddenly volume war loud or ear piercing shrill is it? We've cut the dynamic range in half and thrown away 80% of the data and it still sounds the same.

Rogue devices that need pre-slammed program to be able to squeak out of the things could simply have a 'loudness' button wired to a brick wall limiter and mid scoop eq. Instead we throw out the baby with the bath water for those things sometimes. And 9 times out of 10 the unmolested recording still sounds better even in those things! Still not a good excuse.

If 16/44.1 was a mistake, it's a 1% argument. The volume war thing and screaming bright stuff is the 99% conversation and that stuff is pure operator error. None of these "reduced" formats alter audio into that. Not even when you cut it in half and throw 80% of it away!

 

[jimfisheye]

It's important to remember that the first 16 bit AD and DA converters were built with a combo of 12 bit chips and 4 bit chips. Because 16 bit ADC and DAC chips weren't a thing yet. The early consumer devices were essentially 12 bit devices because that lower 4 bit add-on didn't work so well. There were some really desperate moves early on like literally adding noise (called dither) to mask the coarse resolution artifacts down there. And this was before modern digital peak limiting which meant the headroom had to accommodate some stray peaks to avoid hard digital clipping. Some recordings had to be turned down 6 to 12db or more. Those early CDs and CD players were delivering more like an 8 -10 bit listening experience. Modern use of 16/44.1 has none of those issues.

 

[KG10]

I think the audio world would indeed be a different landscape if SONY/PHILIPS had waited a year or two before introducing the compact disc format! Too bad they didn't learn their lesson from the failed launch of QUAD. The concept was solid ... Perfect Sound FOREVER from a 5" polycarbonate disc without the inherent anomalies of vinyl but like QUAD which was initially vinyl based with not ready for prime time decoders it had one fatal flaw: It failed to satisfy the 'audiophiles' who termed its sound brittle and uninvolving!

Sony's partner, Philips, initially wanted to go with 12 bit [?] but SONY resisted and thus the 16 bit/44/1 standard was adopted for the launch. And those early players: OUCH! Priced at $1K they were flimsy at best and I agree with those audiophile rags who pummeled its lackluster sonics.

Had they adopted a minimum of 20 bit/48 kHz standard from the start and had more carefully crafted those early players it might've had a fighting chance to satisfy its most divisive critics!

And I do find it very curious that in AD 2024, those same audiophile rags still devout endless pages to VINYL ...... megabuck turntables, tone arms, step up phono transformers and cartridges and boutique "one step vinyl' with the outrageous asking price of $125 for a technology which could've been curbed or even eliminated had the initial compact disc format been more sonically amenable 'out of the gate!'

Which is why to this day, STEREO is still the preferred listening format even with the introduction of state of the art SACD/BD~A multichannel technology which, IMO, delivers in spades what the major hardware/software manufacturers failed to deliver in the early 70's.

And with the pervasive introduction of Dolby ATMOS, will the tides be turned and/or minds changed?

STAY TUNED!

Would you say say the same applied to the DVD format the next decade? (a format that also refuses to die)

Maybe if the DVD launched in 1998 instead of 1996 then it could have used a much more efficient codec and maybe full native support for progressive scan right out the gate (which would please the filthy rich hdtv owners at the time lol) and to make this relevant here full lossless pcm audio without having to create a spin off format.

 

[winopener]

Also, early adc/dac were going up to 50KHz max (3M) so anything over that was just impossible at the time. Keep in mind also the data rate that the player had to deliver constantly. 2x cdrom came pratically 10 years later - 1992 or so.

 

[winopener]

Quite intresting a word from another well-known forum, SH

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thre...gital-sound-harsh-an-engineer-did-it.1204097/

 

[4-earredwonder]

Would you say say the same applied to the DVD format the next decade? (a format that also refuses to die)

Maybe if the DVD launched in 1998 instead of 1996 then it could have used a much more efficient codec and maybe full native support for progressive scan right out the gate (which would please the filthy rich hdtv owners at the time lol) and to make this relevant here full lossless pcm audio without having to create a spin off format.

What, and put the hardware/software manufacturers out of business?

TIME marches on and even though we are now somewhat entrenched in UHD4K the lowly DVD format with 480p video still manages to outsell both that and even Blu~ray.

Go Figure!

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

What, and put the hardware/software manufacturers out of business?

TIME marches on and even though we are now somewhat entrenched in UHD4K the lowly DVD format with 480p video still manages to outsell both that and even Blu~ray.

Go Figure!

Oh, how many movies have never made it off the lowly DVD format...

 

[jimfisheye]

Quite intresting a word from another well-known forum, SH

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thre...gital-sound-harsh-an-engineer-did-it.1204097/

Didn't think I'd see something there I agree with but yeah, that's what I'm saying too! (Of course I only read the headline.) Garbage in, garbage out. The damage someone did there is in fact being reproduced faithfully! (And they should feel bad. Because even cutting it in half and throwing out 80% of the remains doesn't even do damage like that!)

 

[KG10]

What, and put the hardware/software manufacturers out of business?

TIME marches on and even though we are now somewhat entrenched in UHD4K the lowly DVD format with 480p video still manages to outsell both that and even Blu~ray.

Go Figure!

You mean 480i?? (OK it technically still counts as progressive since the 3-2 pull down turns 60i into 24p but you get what I mean)

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

You mean 480i?? (OK it technically still counts as progressive since the 3-2 pull down turns 60i into 24p but you get what I mean)

I'm pretty sure DVD-Video holds 480p/576p.

EDIT: No, you are right. I'm not sure how I didn't know this, but DVD doesn't support native 24fps.

 

[KG10]

I'm pretty sure DVD-Video holds 480p/576p.

View attachment 107838

EDIT: No, you are right. I'm not sure how I didn't know this, but DVD doesn't support native 24fps.

A format designed with sd crt tvs in mind is still selling in this age of 4k oled tvs.....

This is honestly a Mad World.

 

[barfle]

CDs can sound excellent. I won’t say I’m one of those golden-ears audiophiles, but of the people I hang around with, my hearing is more critical than any of them. I know a lot of the limitations of my ears, though, so it’s likely that there are people who can hear things I can’t.

That said, for a consumer medium, it’s brilliant. The goal was to fit Beethoven’s 9th symphony on a single disc in fidelity that the vast majority of people couldn’t hear artifacts, and they succeeded.

I attended a lecture by someone with credentials (apparently had a copy of the red book) who said that the spec had a four-channel version, but it never was used. Interestingly, he had never heard of the earlier quadraphonic recording formats. Remarkable bubbles some of us live in.

I’m pretty sure the increased channels would have resulted in decreased time, but I don’t have hard data.

The technical,limitations of the day would have prevented any more bits on a disc of that size, although a few more minutes were squeezed in later. The red lasers of the day required a minimum area for the pits, so higher data density would have to wait for lasers further up the spectrum or multi-layer discs.

Although quad was pretty much a dead-and-buried format when the CD came out, I would have jumped on quad CDs had they been available. But then, I didn’t buy a CD player for at least a year after the format came out. I’d given up being an early adopter. I’m still using “legacy” equipment to play obsolete media.

 

[KG10]

CDs can sound excellent. I won’t say I’m one of those golden-ears audiophiles, but of the people I hang around with, my hearing is more critical than any of them. I know a lot of the limitations of my ears, though, so it’s likely that there are people who can hear things I can’t.

That said, for a consumer medium, it’s brilliant. The goal was to fit Beethoven’s 9th symphony on a single disc in fidelity that the vast majority of people couldn’t hear artifacts, and they succeeded.

I attended a lecture by someone with credentials (apparently had a copy of the red book) who said that the spec had a four-channel version, but it never was used. Interestingly, he had never heard of the earlier quadraphonic recording formats. Remarkable bubbles some of us live in.

I’m pretty sure the increased channels would have resulted in decreased time, but I don’t have hard data.

The technical,limitations of the day would have prevented any more bits on a disc of that size, although a few more minutes were squeezed in later. The red lasers of the day required a minimum area for the pits, so higher data density would have to wait for lasers further up the spectrum or multi-layer discs.

Although quad was pretty much a dead-and-buried format when the CD came out, I would have jumped on quad CDs had they been available. But then, I didn’t buy a CD player for at least a year after the format came out. I’d given up being an early adopter. I’m still using “legacy” equipment to play obsolete media.

I think the problem with modern CDs is the compressed mastering that most albums and remasters have nowadays. Otherwise they should be sounding even better than they ever did when first released thanks to advances in all round in digital audio technology.

Although I find the lack of mono audio in the redbook audio standard pretty questionable really would have benefited for audio books. But then again I could see greedy record companies abusing this spec for compilations all because they could save money printing to a single CD in mono as apposed to two in Stereo so ultimately that saved the end consumer.