Is it my speakers? I think I'm done with CD's. Are paid-for downloadable files any better? (...and, "Can it reach 60", a quality test for CDs)

[Mr. Afternoon]

BLAH

I'm fine with Techmoan...but he promised an SACD video, and it's been over a year! If only I could find a fan email to compla...remind him.
Maybe I should make one myself!

 

[mandrix]

I still have a Technics M228X cassette deck (retired) that has dbx. Not only for tape noise reduction but also a built in phono pre-amp for plugging a TT straight into it for playing back dbx records.

View attachment 91911

I have maybe 5>6 dbx discs. First time I played one it was so quiet I questioned if I forgot to lower the tone arm. I think its amazing to consider back then, with analog vinyl, dbx & SQ encoding with a Tate 101 A we could have had something that subjectively rivaled discrete digital MCH today.

In regards to earlier statements that dbx is a 2:1 compander system, yes that's true but... the compression/expansion had certain defined level thresholds as to when it did that, or played straight. Also tape dbx was different from disc dbx and IIRC they both had different EQ than tape/disc.

Wow.
The Technics deck I owned had the transport controls on top if memory serves (IF memory serves, that was a long time ago) and was not near that large a unit. After I sold it I had some regrets but ended up buying a Kenwood to replace it, an A350 or something like that, not the top of the line model but the one just under it, again if memory serves correctly.

 

[ar surround]

I just had an opportunity to measure the DR of the dbx record.
It measured a DR14 which ties the best CD's and vinyl listed in the database.
https://dr.loudness-war.info/?artist=Supertramp&album=Even+inDBX was a definite improvement for the S/N of vinyl in it's day, pushing down
surface noise below the background noise of analog tape making them both pretty
close to inaudible.

Here is a comparison of the waveforms. Both are equalized to -0.1 dB level. The first is the early CD with the high DR. The second is the dbx encoded LP with the high DR. Both are excellent. I still prefer the dbx decode, but the reason is now apparent to me. The low end on the CD is 'fatter' giving it a bit of a less detailed dynamic sound than the dbx record. You can see the 'fatness' in the core of the CD waveform. This is something that should be easily adjusted to taste with EQ, either in real time or in a DAW.

 

[MidiMagic]

This statement is unrelated but why do they keep brickwalling their records?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't dbx patented? Has it expired yet?

Anything patented before 2003 is now expired and in the public domain. dBx appeared in the early 1970s.

My TASCAM 246 multitrack has dBx, so I am familiar with what it does to the audio.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

You've got to love all this 'tech speak'...

Cheers

 

[mandrix]

You've got to love all this this 'tech speak'...

View attachment 91950
View attachment 91951

Cheers

Ever seen a format release sans tech speak? lol.

 

[Rango]

Looks like you've managed to get everyone worked up with your post, Rango.

Yeah...I've been afk for a week and came back to find this thread has legs.

Blaming the format instead of the mastering, mix and production, is rookie mistake 101.

I am new to this; was trying to get across in my first post what it is I'm experiencing and it seems it is a "known issue":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

Call it what you will, master, mix, whatever but it's not the media. Take that same recording and put it on any digital media you like and it will sound the same. The only real answer for any of us is to purchase the best releases irrespective of the media.

I couldn't agree more, re. having to purchase the best available option, I just wish people would vote with their wallets for higher-res formats than Vinyl and/or CD; or just better produced CD's.

Respect for the medium. Bad mastering gives the CD a bad name.

But if the shoe fits...

But yeah, I think it's just a case of being aware of the problems with CD and not actually disregarding it out of hand. The Dynamic Range Database seems to be a ray of hope in all of this.

That album has very good dynamic range numbers, Album list - Dynamic Range DB

Thanks for the link; it's fantastic; I had no idea something like that actually existed.

AFAIK that's because laserdisc pressings tend to have unadulterated surround sound tracks that are identical to the theater versions. Some movies on DVD and Blu-ray have modified surround tracks to make them sound better on a plebeian's surround system.

While that might be the case, this guy was attached to the format over and above the content; my intention was to draw a comparison between that and peoples attachment to vinyl. I can't imagine it's easier to press vinyl than it is to produce a DVD-A or at this point, even a Blu-Ray; either of which have the potential to be orders of magnitude greater in quality than either vinyl or CD.

As for whether trying to enhance audio is an evil or a virtue...?...I guess that depends on what your aims are; I know of people who still maintain camera projectors and play films from cinema reel, a format I was more than happy to put behind me the moment I saw IMAX, and not something I'd personally choose over Bluray.

Personally if I could get an AI program that could take poorly produced or badly recorded source material and enhance it to sound like I'm in a studio with the musicians, I'd be absolutely delighted. Although I know of at least one experimental musician for whom the idiosyncrasies of the various media he uses (such as - for example - floppy disc) is part of his creation and his use of it in such cases is an artistic choice, I don't think corruption of sound due to media limitations is a stylistic choice for the majority of bands/artists and I can't think their aim was/is to produce poor quality recordings; I think for the most part it comes down purely to market forces.

 

[mandrix]

RE: producing optical discs vs LP's. For sure producing LP's (and I am far from nor claim to be an expert) is a longer process vs making and pressing optical discs which is more assembly line and quicker.
I believe once set up pressing optical discs with glass masters goes pretty quick from the videos I've seen,

 

[Sal1950]

I couldn't agree more, re. having to purchase the best available option, I just wish people would vote with their wallets for higher-res formats than Vinyl and/or CD; or just better produced CD's.

But yeah, I think it's just a case of being aware of the problems with CD and not actually disregarding it out of hand. The Dynamic Range Database seems to be a ray of hope in all of this.

Let me just add my personal feelings on the situation here.
It's very easy to deduce why Stereophile, TAS, and the other online bibles of high end audio
initiated the "vinyl revival", just follow the money. The LP is crippled by it's 1930s technology and forever will be. Any claim of "Superior Sound" is pure BS and supported only by the marketing arm of audio. Bottom Line, It's over 50 years since vinyl was an acceptable medium for the reproduction of SOTA Sound.

The anti-digital crowd uses the "loudness wars" as it's muscle and a sad situation it is without a doubt. But while doing so they chose to ignore all the inherit weaknesses of the
LP in any attempt to reproduce the sound of a master recording, whether analog or digital. IE (mono'd bass, restricted bass level/response, reduced separation, inner grove distortion (the sound/distortion gets worse as you approach the center of a LP) , high frequency tracking problems and distortion, surface noise, pops and clicks, there's more).
If you doubt any of this read through the "mastering for vinyl" recommendations of a couple recording studios.
https://www.sageaudio.com/blog/mastering/what-is-mastering-for-vinyl/Vinyl Mastering

Thankfully for the music I listen to, I can avoid 90% of the badly compressed music in many ways, there's usually more than one way to skin a cat.
But honestly, for me personally, when there is no avoiding making a choice, I would still rather listen to compressed digital music than listen to all of vinyls audible issues.
Not to mention it's total lack of user convenience.

YMMV

I know this site has a large number of collectors of older quad recordings, etc, both on vinyl and tape. PLEASE just ignore this post, it has NO relation to either your hobby or passion. That's a wonderful thing and I am also a collector (small time) of pre-war radios which used to also include 78 shellac records but which I no longer have the room for in my post-retirement digs.

 

[barfle]

@Sal1950 , although I have a fairly extensive vinyl collection, I also have a few boxes that go in the signal chain to reduce the noise that virtually always goes with vinyl playback.

I hang on to those tecords, not because of their superior fidelity, because they simply don’t have it, but because many of them aren’t available in a quiet (digital) format, or are historical is some fashion.

I haven’t seen anyone trying to sell me on the “warmth” of my Edison diamond discs.

 

[Sal1950]

I haven’t seen anyone trying to sell me on the “warmth” of my Edison diamond discs.

LOL,, It's a Mad Mad World we live in Master Jack..

 

[MidiMagic]

Yeah...I've been afk for a week and came back to find this thread has legs.


I am new to this; was trying to get across in my first post what it is I'm experiencing and it seems it is a "known issue":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

I couldn't agree more, re. having to purchase the best available option, I just wish people would vote with their wallets for higher-res formats than Vinyl and/or CD; or just better produced CD's.



But if the shoe fits...

But yeah, I think it's just a case of being aware of the problems with CD and not actually disregarding it out of hand. The Dynamic Range Database seems to be a ray of hope in all of this.


Thanks for the link; it's fantastic; I had no idea something like that actually existed.



While that might be the case, this guy was attached to the format over and above the content; my intention was to draw a comparison between that and peoples attachment to vinyl. I can't imagine it's easier to press vinyl than it is to produce a DVD-A or at this point, even a Blu-Ray; either of which have the potential to be orders of magnitude greater in quality than either vinyl or CD.

As for whether trying to enhance audio is an evil or a virtue...?...I guess that depends on what your aims are; I know of people who still maintain camera projectors and play films from cinema reel, a format I was more than happy to put behind me the moment I saw IMAX, and not something I'd personally choose over Bluray.

Personally if I could get an AI program that could take poorly produced or badly recorded source material and enhance it to sound like I'm in a studio with the musicians, I'd be absolutely delighted. Although I know of at least one experimental musician for whom the idiosyncrasies of the various media he uses (such as - for example - floppy disc) is part of his creation and his use of it in such cases is an artistic choice, I don't think corruption of sound due to media limitations is a stylistic choice for the majority of bands/artists and I can't think their aim was/is to produce poor quality recordings; I think for the most part it comes down purely to market forces.

I want compatibility, not mas-res. I once had 10 different players for 10 different formats in the 1970s, and I don't want that again.

All of my collection is now on either vinyl or CD. I converted everything else that I could to CD.

I kept the other formats, but can't play some of the formats.

Please! No more formats!

 

[par4ken]

I want compatibility, not mas-res. I once had 10 different players for 10 different formats in the 1970s, and I don't want that again.

All of my collection is now on either vinyl or CD. I converted everything else that I could to CD.

I kept the other formats, but can't play some of the formats.

Please! No more formats!

Even when AM stereo had something like five different formats they had a chip that would decode all of them automatically. Also with universal players it doesn't matter what the format is.

I'm not totally against what you are saying, even Dolby Surround has gone through how many different incarnations! Don't get me started about Windows!

For compatibility just convert everything to flac.

CD generally sucks as too many are brickwalled! Sadly we never got CD's with the DR that we were promised in the beginning, that which was hinted at by dbx vinyl.

 

[MidiMagic]

The LP is crippled by it's 1930s technology

What 1930s technology? The only 1930s technologies are the first record with full frequency reproduction and the eccentric trip groove.

The Berliner phono disc was invented in 1887.
Records were made of hard rubber or shellac.
Electrical (electronic) recording was introduced in 1926
The NAB standardized the record speed as 78 RPM in 1928.
The velocity trip was invented in 1928.
The vinyl LP was invented in 1946. New pickups were made for it.
The RIAA curve was adopted in 1953 and standardized (US) in 1957.
The Westrex 45/45 stereo groove was invented in 1957.
The RM quadraphonic matrix was invented in 1969.
The CD-4 system was invented in 1970.
The SQ system was invented in 1971.

I don't want the super-est form of reproduction. I want to listen to music and I want the smallest number of formats possible. I settled on the two I have the most recordings in.

I have one phono player that can play all but 2 of the over 5000 records I have (I have some 16" records). And I have several CD players - all able to play everything I have.

For videos, I settled on DVD. I must have the 2 analog RCA outputs for Dolby Surround.

I do not want the mishmash of formats discussed on this board.

 

[MidiMagic]

Even when AM stereo had something like five different formats they had a chip that would decode all of them automatically. Also with universal players it doesn't matter what the format is.

I'm not totally against what you are saying, even Dolby Surround has gone through how many different incarnations! Don't get me started about Windows!

For compatibility just convert everything to flac.

CD generally sucks as too many are brickwalled! Sadly we never got CD's with the DR that we were promised in the beginning, that which was hinted at by dbx vinyl.

I agree about Windows. I have written over 4000 programs in my life and only about 900 of those still work today. 400 of the ones that work are web pages and JavaScript. The other about 3100 cannot be used because there is nothing left that will run them. And I have rewritten the same two programs 7 times to keep using them.

I have Behringer and Alesis companders that can undo some of the brickwalling, but I usually do not use them. And I purposely make somewhat brickwalled versions of classical music and pieces like Tubular Bells so I can hear everything when I play them in the car on the highway (these are marked as such).

 

[MidiMagic]

Even when AM stereo had something like five different formats they had a chip that would decode all of them automatically. Also with universal players it doesn't matter what the format is.

I'm not totally against what you are saying, even Dolby Surround has gone through how many different incarnations! Don't get me started about Windows!

For compatibility just convert everything to flac.

CD generally sucks as too many are brickwalled! Sadly we never got CD's with the DR that we were promised in the beginning, that which was hinted at by dbx vinyl.

AM stereo had five different formats and a chip to decode all of them? Why did I never see even one piece of equipment in the stores? They discontinued the broadcasts before I ever saw a decoder.

What is a universal player? As soon as someone devises another new format, it isn't a universal player anymore.

Dolby Surround went through three incarnations. None of them changed the encoded recording. All of them play the same way.

flac is one more format!!! And if Windows is any example, that format will be gone long before LPs and CDs because there will be no player that runs on the current version. No computer formats!!!! I want a hardware recording medium.

 

[kfbkfb]

Sadly...dbx NR (on a cassette deck) can be fooled into being audible on solo piano music.

(I'll edit this later with the direct cut LP info that revealed this dbx issue)


Kirk Bayne

 

[Sal1950]

The Berliner phono disc was invented in 1887.

Opps, ok then, the 1887 technology of dragging a rock thru a ditch.
We could all just stayed there but then we wouldn't have the beautiful
immersive sound of digital Atmos recording today..
You'd be locked into a space & time of your format of choice.
Time marches on and waits for no man.

 

[jefe1]

A Space In Time

Well played @Sal1950

 

[par4ken]

AM stereo had five different formats and a chip to decode all of them? Why did I never see even one piece of equipment in the stores? They discontinued the broadcasts before I ever saw a decoder.

Yes there was a chip that decoded them all (at least four or five systems). AM stereo failed because there was no equipment. They hyped AM stereo for awhile but almost everyone was still listening in mono.

What is a universal player? As soon as someone devises another new format, it isn't a universal player anymore.

You know that I've been recommended that you get a "Universal Player" for some time now. One player does it all, no player will remain universal forever! Moot point. You can get a decent used one for as little as $50.

Dolby Surround went through three incarnations. None of them changed the encoded recording. All of them play the same way.

I have no use for any incarnation of Dolby Surround, the old quad formats were better and made for music. Even with DD I prefer DTS.

flac is one more format!!!

Flac is all that you need, covert everything and play on your PC. Great for vinyl too!
!