[TheChairGuy]

I've had a couple of meaningful dialogues with folks over the years that the issue with CD performance having little or nothing to do with 'jitter' (that's been mostly taken care of long ago and is no longer a major issue in listening).  It's that the 16/44.1 standard simply isn't enough to capture the music's essence...no matter what we do on the playback side. 

It's an okay medium, it certainly has gobs of convenience attached to it...but an interview with Recording Engineer / Designer / Manufacturer Tim de Paravicini confirms aspects of it for me:

Q:If analog tape sounds so much better than digital, what improvements should be made in A/D, D/A converters?

A:First of all, the frequency response should extend from 3 Hz to 50 kHz, because we experience those frequency limits. We are able to detect audio up to 50 kHz. We don't hear it, but we experience it in other ways. I can give you tinnitus very quickly if I run an ultrasonic cleaner at 45 kHz. You are aware that it's on, and your ears ring when it's shut off. On the low end, we detect mechanical vibrations down to 3 Hz. When a marching band walks past you, you feel the drums in your stomach and bones. And that's all part of the sound.

Ten years ago in Stereophile, I said that digital was never going to work well in the chosen format. Digital should use a 400 kHz sampling rate and 24-bit words. Then it will satisfy the hearing mechanism and won't have a digital sound. Digital has a "sound" purely because it is based on lousy mathematics. The manufacturers presuppose too simplistic a view of our hearing mechanism.

But manufacturers don't want to change - it's the lowest-common-denominator syndrome. It's like 525-line television, which allows you only X amount of resolution. With digital, you've fixed your resolution parameters, where analog never had that problem.

I still do work on the vinyl record; it still can be advanced. The number of vinyl molecules passing the needle every second is equivalent to half a gigahertz. So there ain't a lot wrong with it, fundamentally. You can carry on improving it without losing compatibility. It's like good old 35-mm films - you carry on improving films, but there's nothing to stop you from shoving them through the same old projectors!

I've been pioneering work on a CD player that runs at 88k, but it only works with CDs that were cut at 88k.

When storage density increases enough, we won't have the excuse for using only 44.1k.

Right. The manufacturers should have said, "Let's go gung ho and create a real system that works right." A 12-inch LaserDisc would have given you an hour's worth of music to the highest standard. Manufacturers try to pretend that what's good enough for Joe Doe at $5 is the state of the art.

DVD-A, with 24 bit sampling is quite a bit better than CD....but only if the original analog has been re-mastered or if the performance has been recorded at 24/192 (or even 24/96).  So, it's not a great option if you like music from the past 20 years.

So, don't spend a lot on your CD, or DVD-A (uggggg to SACD as it's really odd-sounding most of it - my opinion, at least) and here's hoping that Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is our salvation     HD-DVD I understand is gussied up DVD-V and A technology...so Blu-Ray looks to be our only ray of hope for the future (?)

In the meantime, I'll happily spin my turntable (in itself, flawed, but listen-thru flaws mostly) and hear good music made pre-1980 and an occasional post-1980 album here in my humble abode 

[Bob Reynolds]

It's my understanding that DVD-A, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray all use PCM encoding. Any clue why Sony didn't stick with DSD in Blu-Ray?

[Housteau]

That was an interesting read and I have to agree with your post.  However to be honest though, for now I would settle for CD mastering engineers putting out a product free of destructive compression schemes, one that allows us to hear all that this limited medium has to offer.  As limited as it is already, a bad mastering takes away even more.

[TheChairGuy]

As limited as it is already, a bad mastering takes away even more.

Amen to that, brother 

Bad mastering can only serve to harm a medium of fragile self-worth to begin with.

Bob Reynolds - my guess is Sony realized DSD was critically flawed (as was their ill-fated line of 'digital' receivers a couple years ago)

Sadly, the new DVD technologies seem much more concerned with video quality over any better audio performance...such is the state we find ourselves.  We are Audio-phools with only flawed technologies to choose from now...take your pick, but don't spend a lot, and pour your money into better amplification and speakers and await for the day we might get our ultimate 'digital' technology 

[miklorsmith]

Good question.  I think most of what's "wrong" with digital isn't the sampling rate though, as there are very good examples too.

[Tweaker]

Yeah, years ago the industry discovered a cd could be manufactured much cheaper/faster  by leaving out data we supposedly can't hear. It's a medium designed for the mass-fi market where quality is sacrificed for the sake of squeezing out maximum profits. A similar thing happened back in the 70's when record manufacturers started using cheaper quality vinyl.
The problem with buying better amps and speakers is it allows you to hear better how bad most cd's sound. 

[Daygloworange]

I'll agree that I'd like to see an increase in sample rate, and cutoff frequency for CD. Analog recorders have a ton of artifacts that Digital doesn't, such as wow and flutter, higher noise floor, channel crosstalk, low frequency rumble, high frequency aliasing, analog compression, distortion, self erasure, print through etc...

None of those things improve the sound quality either, but rarely get mentioned.

I will totally agree with the overcompression of mastered music nowadays. Considering the dynamic range of digital, it shouldn't be. However, that is a trend that had little, if not nothing to do with the advent of digital.

Cheers

[WEEZ]

Regardless of the medium; analog or 16 bit digital; if studios would only produce products that live up to the potential of the medium, regardless of what it is, we would all be much happier. I've posted on this board before, that analog sounds more natural...but I've got a few cd's that are actually quite believable. There are good and bad with both. The good, are rare with either.

I have a stupid question, is blue-ray backward compatible with anything? I'm not into video, so I have no clue. My hope is, that if a 'new' format is invented that is truly superior for audio..that the industry takes full advantage of it...and not create another boondogle like they tend to do so often.

WEEZ

[Jon L]

Dont' blame the CD standard; blame the studio's.  16/44.1 done with care is plenty good sounding for even jaded ears like mine. 

Instead of spending millions and millions on format wars, they should offer studio engineers bonus $ for putting out good-sounding CD's!!

[TheChairGuy]

WEEZ - if you're asking if Blu-Ray machines will play CD's and DVD's (mp3's, too)...the answer is 'yes'.

Not SACD or DVD-A unless there is a universal machine made (of course, Sony/Phillips won't have DVD-A on their machines)

[opnly bafld]

FWIW and IIRC, Bob Stuart said in an interview a few years back that 20 bit- 50khz was all that is needed, after that they could not tell a difference.

Of course that is what S/P said about 16/44.

I also agree with WEEZ that the recording process for the most part is truly deplorable.

Lin

[Housteau]

they should offer studio engineers bonus $ for putting out good-sounding CD's!!

I think that one of the problems is that the rewards go to those that follow the louder is better method of consumer mastering.  If it sounds good in a car, personal portable system, and is at least as loud as the song the preceded it playing in the nightclub, then the man has done his job.

[WEEZ]

TCG,

Yes, that is basically what I was asking, thanks. The last thing I want is some 'new' high-falootin' format that obsoletes my music collection. That happened when tape cassettes went away. And people laugh, but a good recording is a good recording- despite the format. (I have some cassette tapes that make the cd version sound broken..). And a lot of vinyl that is irreplaceable. Thank god I can still buy vinyl playback equipment. (in fact, it appears to be thriving )

Again, I say, maximize the medium..whatever it is, and it will be good. At least good enough to momentarily suspend 'disbelief' and grab onto your soul for a while, and take you to another place.

WEEZ

[PhilNYC]

I haven't made any major changes to my system in the last year (I only have a 16/44.1 digital source), but I am continually amazed at improvements I'm able to achieve in sound quality with tweaks to speaker positioning and room treatments.  My room (fairly big at 42ft wide x 19ft deep x 8ft tall) had a full compliment of Eighth Nerve Adapt products from the get-go, as well as acoustic-insulated walls and first reflection absoption.  A few months ago, I felt my system took a major step up with painstakingly fine-tuning speaker placement.  Wasn't sure it was going to be able to get much better (I felt like I was running up against the limitation of the gear), but then last week I put in a bunch of diffusers behind my listening seat, and lo and behold, it took yet another step up...the level of nuance and delicate detail moved up another notch or two...

While I'm sure that getting more frequency extension up to 50khz would add something positive to the sound, I'm hard-pressed to believe that  it's that 20khz+ extension that is the limiting factor in my system's performance.  Admittedly, I do enjoy the sound of a good vinyl rig to that of a great digital rig, but my fathomed guess would be that frequency extension is not the culprit...I would guess along the more traditional lines that it has more to do with the presence of ultra-high frequency artifacts and other distortions that make a DAC chip misbehave.

Just my opinion...

[WEEZ]

Phil,

Your comments regarding room treatments are well taken. The improvements, however, would be obvious regardless of the recorded format, though, correct? I think your comments regarding bandwidth are likely spot on. But these 'artifacts' and 'distortions' occur in every media I own and listen to. (to great degree or none....depending...)  Is it more than that?  (we all know that vinyl and tape is more bandwidth limited than digital..yet 'nasties' exist in every format irregardless...)

If the high-end manufacturers of equipment could sit down in the same room with the 'sellers of recordings' and somehow try to convince them how awful some of the recordings really are...'ya think progress would be made? We can hope.....

WEEZ

[TheChairGuy]

Room treatment comment well taken here, as well.

I'm not so sure it's the 20hz+ extension either....but I DO think it's the increasingly bad performance with CD as you run up the registers.  Far more so than the 96db dynamic range (which should be sufficient by the very nature of most music played) are the 44,100 samples.  I think that amount is unable to cope with frequency cycles as they get ever more pronounced.  Bass has always been done well with CD....some issues with midrange and increasingly poor performance in the treble.

It may well be artifacts as well as something I as a layman is not privy to...I think 44,100 samples per second doesn't capture enough of the music after the bass notes. Your brain can't fill in those gaps to make it sound like music so it largely rejects it (mine does, at least)

44,100 is sufficient on 20-500 cycles per second (20hz)...the cycles are so slow that most of them are sampled and our brains aren't left wonderin' ....whoa happening?.  Sometime around or after that (not getting to specific, but somewhere in that lower midrange) when cycles are more difficult to replicate is where CD falters. 

Do 192,000 samples make better music...well, yes, it does improve rather dramatically in midrange and treble while bass is very, very good with DVD-A.  Maybe it will take millions of samples before our brains are relieved of the task of filly in between the digital cracks. I think the fundamental problem with CD is that it doesn't sample enough for many of us here assembled.

I have good and bad CD's, too....but the bad outweigh the good for the reason above (I think)

[miklorsmith]

My setup as constructed right now plays even "crapola" CD's pretty well.  It seems to dig out the meaningful stuff.  Wideband drivers and well-implemented tubes are great conveyors of The Big Message.  Curiously, the Lessloss rig I'm using now is also quite detailed.  My Lamm pre really brings this setup home - it isn't nearly as good direct to the RWA amps.  The Yamamoto direct is very good in a different way.  All digital gear is not so.  This setup won't cover so much that bad gear sounds good.  Digital stuff that is plagued with the problems John refers to still sounds discontinuous and digital.  I know exactly what these issues are and most digital gear has them.

Lucky for me, I so happened upon two really great and not obscenely priced choices.  My Altmann is back home but the battery is kaput.  I'll get that sucker running again in the next couple of days, then off to the races!

[TheChairGuy]

I often do wonder whether if the renewed popularity of tube gear is wholly fueled by CD playback....as I have never found music from a turntable source to be markedly better with tube gear.  But with CD, it's a near must to fully enjoy it (for me and many others these days, at least).  Do tubes add a bit of continuity that CD lacks...a continuously open vacuum optimizing a CD technology plagued by holes, chasms and pits?

10 and or 20 years ago, folks were just dumping their tube gear...along with their old turntables.  Now they're buying up old turntables and finding out there is a lot of life to that playback medium...and buying up tube gear to use for both mediums.

Mike/miklorsmith - I think you're really on the right trail using NOS DAC's...it seems at least more truthful to the original recording. Using tube gear adds the euphony and air effectively lacking without oversampling.  Not that I'm gonna' ditch my overachieving $39 COBY 24/96 CDP, mind you  which is fine 'cause it's not offensive sounding at all. Frankly, no CDP I've heard in over 5 years has been offensive sounding - clearly some progress has been made to improve the medium over the years.

I use tube amps to good measure (they're my first tube mono amps and the best that I've ever owned, for sure) ...but wonder if it at all needed if I was to only listen to vinyl (not going to happen of course as vinyl is too inconvenient for some days here in my office) 

[Tweaker]

I often do wonder whether if the renewed popularity of tube gear is wholly fueled by CD playback....

I would say without question. Tube gear helps to soften the blow. It's why the Musical Fidelity tube buffer is so popular. Most people are buying it hoping to fix the sound of their digital playback. It's why I feel so many people are constantly trying different interconnects and speaker cables. It's also an attempt to fix what digital playback has broken. Hell, it probably drives a lot of equipment purchases. I would be willing to bet the average audiophile with an analogue only system is less prone to upgradeitis than those of us with digital only sytems.

[miklorsmith]

Is 44.1/16 a limited format?  Of course it is, as is every other transfer medium/protocol.  As with every category of audio gear, there is a dizzying mix of art and science to achieve the ultimate "sound" of any piece.  More than solid state, more than speakers, more than wires, or any other thread of the Great Fabric, digital is still cutting its teeth.  Is higher resolution better?  Sure it is, there's more information there to be extracted.  Does that make redbook-standard bad?  No way.

CDPs are immensely complex beasts.  From what I read, there still is a lot of "black box" hiding in that little, black box.  Designing to the science aspect of line-level delivery is the natural tendency, plus bits is bits.  How has that bias leaned in the last 20 years of redbook design?  Almost exclusively, it has found methods to extract the tiniest of those bits and lay them bare on the stage.  Result?  Amusical products leading to threads such as this.

One backlash has been the non-oversampling architecture now favored by some.  This seemingly archaic "solution" is touted as anti-audiophile by proponents and shunned by others as lifeless.

Does this mean nobody has it right?  Or, the optimist may counter that both are working on getting it right.  The art is coming to redbook.  Finding the balance of detail extraction and smoothness/tonality is coming. 

Do tubes help with digital?  I think so, but the Attraction DAC/Sig. 70 amps would be a very nice, all SS combo. 

CD standards are fine properly implemented, and THAT's the trick.