[Imperial]

I look at todays formats and I see somehting missing...
I think we might be looking at a new format in some years.
Something audiophile... nothing today is better than 1976 anyway... really...
I think something new will emerge... I don't know why I have this feeling, but I have it!

Imperial

[Daygloworange]

nothing today is better than 1976 anyway... really...

    Tell me you're kidding.

Cheers

[Imperial]

I think something new will emerge...
I just do.
That is "not kidding..."!

Let's wait and see...

Imperial

[TONEPUB]

I don't know what you are listening to but I think the stuff today
is WAY better than what was available in 1976...

Sorry you feel that way!

[Imperial]

In 1976 they made the "bigger cassette" ...
It was just a figure of speech...

I think they are gonna make another advent.. sometime soon.
It is one of those times now I think...
Something is lurking... I just think it is!
I'd love to be wrong... but I don't think we are at the top of the format wars!!!
I think we might have another level soon! Say in 5 years!

You see, the spinning disc is on the way out... in 5 years or so..
The flash mem is on the way in...
They are gonna come up with something, I just know they are!!!

It's like this: Every time they invent a new type of storage... something new in the way of format is also invented...
But this time with flash or chip drives... nothing new as of yet has emerged...
So I believe something new will come!!!



Imperial

[doug s.]

i think imperial is referring to source improvements.  while you seem to think digital 16/44.1 playback is an imporvement, many others do not.  i certainly do not.  redbook came out in 1983, & it wasn't until the late '90's that it even began to approach the sonics of winyl playback, imo.  while you "...wouldn't waste a dime looking for analog to do anything superior to digital... i say, that, while mebbe this is technically true, analog does do one thing better than digital, imo, & that is make reproduced music sound more real.   

so, i am with imperial, as far as source equipment is concerned - no improvements since 1976 sounds about right to me.  my turntable, upgraded to better specs, was basically made in 1981, not too far past 1976.  and, i wouldn't swap it for any digital rig.  i also owned a turntable from the early '60's that was within spitting distance of my main rig, & could likely be tweaked even further...  (i still own a similar one, that i am gonna tweak someday, but it's not presently set up...)

ymmv,

doug s.

nothing today is better than 1976 anyway... really...

    Tell me you're kidding.

Cheers

[macrojack]

Just out of curiosity  ---  why does one have to be better than the other?

[TheChairGuy]

Just out of curiosity  ---  why does one have to be better than the other?

By better Doug likely means more like music as it's played -  he captured my thoughts rather precisely on the subject. 

I haven't heard a bad CD player in over 5-8 years now, they are all uniformly good, but even the best doesn't sound as 'real' (ie, live) as a modest vinyl rig for $1500 with new table, cartridge, support and vacuum record cleaner.  But, it's $1500 and bloody pain in the arse to handle it all...and you can get excellent/stellar performance from CDP's for $400 nowadays.

Or, buy gently used analog system and pay half of that and enjoy it every bit as much 

But, in so far as I'm concerned, analog hasn't advanced any except in ridiculous pricing over the past 30 years....which is mostly because of the dwindling folks that listen to it. So stuff from 1976 is as good as today's gear...and not as dear to the wallet.

I think digital has improved dramatically on a value basis over 25 years (to a point where it's all listenable now), but in absolute terms will be (likely always) inferior to vinyl for accurate and real/lifelike music reproduction.

DVD-A?  Now, that's a different (and better) story altogether 

[WEEZ]

Guys, I hate to sound redundant here, but....

Have a look at Audiovista's thread in the Music Circle titled "The Future of Music- a multimedia article.....". Click on the link and soak up the 'jist' of that article. It points out the continued use (abuse?) of compression. Listen to the comparison of the same music both ways and you might begin to understand why some of us 'cling' to analog. Now, before Dayglow points out the 'flaws' of analog....let me say that I agree that analog in and of itself is not a superior format to digital in the technical sense. In fact, it has less dynamic range capabability than digital. The point is, however, that the vast majority of digital recordings use far more compression than older analog recordings. Not all mind you...but most. Therefore, the result is less dynamic range than older analog recordings.

That might begin to explain why us 'vinyl heads' claim the format is more 'musical'. Yes, we have some 'crummy' analog recordings in our collection. Yes we have some clicks and pops. (not many ) But the vast majority of serious music sounds profoundly more realistic in analog compared to digital. In the 'old' days, the mastering engineers used less compression....simple as that. It ain't necessarily just the format.

So, whether we listen to music on a cd player; a hard drive; or even a so-called 'hi-rez' format....it often still doesn't approach 'musical'. It's just 'sound' as long as the compression trend continues. 

Are there good digital recordings? Sure. Some are stellar. And once in a while, they pop up on non- audiophile labels even. I even reasoned there were enough satisfactory recordings in digital to add cd playback to my system in 1999....a full 16 years after it's introduction.

And the playback technology for digital has finally evolved as well. And that's a good thing.

WEEZ

btw; my comments a page or so back regarding 'burned' cd's....I was NOT referring to 'ripped' cd's being played back from a hard drive. I have not made that comparison. I was referring to cdr's burned from a computer and played back on a cd player and comparing that to the original cd. There is a loss of fidelity that is clearly audible there.

[doug s.]

weez, compression can be a problem even on relatively new winyl pressings.  case in point is the santana "supernatural" album. i bought it on winyl cuz i read rewiews about how compressed the cd was. turns out the winyl is also compressed.     (i dunno if the cd is worse, but the winyl is pretty bad.)  the only way i enjoy listening to it is w/my dbx 3bx dynamic range expander in the signal path, courtesy of my preamp's tape loop.  and, the old santana "caravanserai" recording, while not so compressed on analog, has a lot of surface noise.  (at least it does on the three copies i tried.)  so, w/this recording i actually prefer to listen to it on the compressed cd re-release, again w/the help of my 3bx.  so, things aren't always so simple.

re: burned cd's, i have found that a copy of patricia barbour's "modern cool" that i burned on a computer from the original, (on a black cd), actually sounds better than the original.  go figure...  (the winyl iteration sounds better than both, tho!  )

doug s.

[TheChairGuy]

Personally, I don't think it's anything the digital engineer is doing to the CD recording...I think CD's inherent flaw is rather more simple: that 44,100 samples per second is inadequate to capture the whole chain of the music....and it has increasing difficulty capturing the nuances of real music the further up the frequency chart you go (it's apparently easier to take 44,100 samples of a 50hz tone than a 10000 hz tone...the frequency of those more frequent/faster cycles are more difficult to sample and make sound real/live, etc)

You'd think 44100 darn samples per second is enough or would be - but it seems it's not.  192,000 samples per second, with Meridian Lossless Packaging, seems much closer to ideal.  In fact, on specific 24/96 or 24/192 DVD-A recordings.....it's far superior to any analog on any system I've ever heard.  And it need not be anything more than a cheapie DVD/DVD-A player. 

Go listen to some AIX DVD-A's and you'll know the rest of music, whether on vinyl or CD, is second rate. It blows my mind how good the AIX stuff is on DVD-A.   

But, the issue is if the master was done at 16/44.1 to begin with (as 99% of all recordings for the past 20 years have been)...listening to it in DVD-A (or vinyl, for that matter), won't and can't matter.  You can't improve that much in playback when it's inadequate to start with. 

Yes, CD is inadequate to start with.  Vinyl is inadequate in many technical ways, but captures the essense of music better.  DVD-A still has the non-linear sampling issue to contend with, but it is sufficiently high at 192,00 per second that it seems well enough. But, unless the recording is from an analog master, or purpose recorded 24/96 or 24/192 it won't matter much.

SACD has some issues...I've read it's phase anomalies.  It's really very wrong sounding, despite the enhanced resolution of 2.8 million samples per second 

Like WEEZ who was late to the party, I didn't have a digital front end until 1992...and only because my wife bought me a nice Rotel RCD-965BX for Christmas.  Otherwise, I probably wouldn't have spent the $500 at that time as I didn't judge it to be much of a format in 1992. On my own, I probably would have bought the same time as WEEZ - about 1999 or so is when everything started to sound pretty decent. Not great or accurate or innately musical or like real...but listenable nowadays.

I think the best thing that's happened to high fidelity in the past 30 years is DVD-A...but in constrained by the available software for it (so almost no one understands how good it is).  CD really is a second rate format (not 3rd rate like mp3, however) due to inadequate sampling rates available at that time it was conceived.  SO is vinyl....but it gets the recreation part better, even if it fails in the technicalities.

I'm not at all anti-digital (as I've been accused of).  I just see it for what it is - and it's a little more than convenient, but not that much more no matter is if you use hard drive of ye' old spinning disc.  You can't fix the recording process that's flawed unfortunately, so why try? 

One more thing - I had no idea ole' WEEZ could even type as much as above.  He must've been very inspired tonite as I've never seen more than 3 lines from him before 

[Imperial]

It started with the wax cylinder.
Then you got your LP and some time later the audio cassette, which was a spinning or moving strip...
then you had you cd which is a spinning disc .. your harddrives which are spinning discs...

But then! Perpendicular storage on HD suddenly emerged... (I've ordered one, a Seagate, to test)
Your 500Gig drive will soon have 5TB... say in 5 years..
But in 5 years storage will also be stationary, with no moving parts...
the USB stick... 64megs ... 8Gigs... all sizes. And in the car, you can just stick it in your player and it starts... like a cd...
So far they can't store masses of data on these no moving parts storage devices... But when they can...

All we've seen so far of playable formats, are on analogue look alike mediums of storage.
Something is moving...
Today we are on the verge of a paradigm... it's about to change.

Its like star trek ... Data crystals ... or as we call them :chips are going to get better at storing and also releasing its data.
And then I believe someone will make a recorder with no moving parts. It could be Nagra, it could be someone else. I don't know.
The time frame is also uncertain, then again, it might not happen!
I, personally think it will. And then maybe, they are gonna come up with another format... And the wars will rage on.

Hey, if I could call the shots I would set some parameters:
1. There has to be no way you could ever compress the file... (hence less prone to copying or pirating..)
2. There has to be no way to convert it to another format.
3. read/write access only by one type of module... no way you could read it onto another medium. (optional.. but still)

They (the music industry) understand that small files are bad... they are to easy to copy and move around...
If the new format also was a storage device... then we are talking..

The current formats are too close. they all group around existing types of storage... the spinning disc.
Blue Ray and HD DVD, it's the picture formats that own the scene now... older formats are on the sounding side of things.
The bad news for industrie is that you can currently copy the content and convert it to another format, all that has happened lately is that they are trying to make formats that you cannot copy... but they (the firms) are in my view looking in all the wrong places
They look for the answer were too much knowledge also exist... the spinning disc..
They are gonna be able to break the copy protection no matter what...
So what is needed is something that you by nature cannot copy...

I think it is the compressing that is the enemy, you can loose data, and there will still be sound...
You can decompress the file back to its original size, and play... this is bad news in the long run for High Fidelity...
And now, the prices of music will drop... the spinning disc is going away, maybe it will still take 50 years or so, but that is not important in what I am saying here..
The current playback devices basically "reconstruct" the musical event while playing back...and they don't need a lot of data to do this.
The LP stores inferiour... it uses filters to boost and dampen some parts of the waveform so that the needle dont have to moove to much...
LP is a compressed format too! By nature... it is not an actually uncompressed format...
The Audio Cassette... however... the 1976 (Bigger cassette) only lasted 4 years because is was too big, and in 1979 came the CD...
But now with perpendicular recording on HD's you sort of have the cassette back in business... but in a zero's and one's version..
I think High Fidelity should go back to analogue... but also find some way of storing non-digital...

Reel to reel tapes... with the new perpendicular type of storage, but not in the digital domain... but in the analogue...
The magnetic particles are so small now, that if we used this on a tape type storage solution... think of the resolution!!! It would be VAST!!!
That would be cool!

Imperial

[darrenyeats]

I don't agree with any of you! Well, not quite, but I though it was a cool first sentence.

The reason we have CD is because 99% of people aren't willing to PAY for more quality. Guys like us who would care about CD vs Vinyl vs DVD-A vs SACD are the tiniest fraction of the population.

SACD and DVD-A sales are in the toilet (and that's relative to CD sales - which are declining somewhat) *after having peaked a few years ago*. Given they are much newer formats, that means they have died. Really I mean RIP, it's over already!

To my mind red book is the only mainstream stereo format. Sure if you are into listening to "amazing demo discs" or 30 year old vinyls then you have an alternative. If you like listening to anything more mainstream or modern red book is, like it or not, the reality.

Luckily, modern red book playback (disc or computer based) is better than ever. I agree it is approaching a limit to how good it can sound. Fortunately, that is "really good". I don't believe the best digi players are that different from 1-2k digital rig. I think any claims that a new digital player is a "really significant step forward" over other good current players is delusion. I would like a blind test report rather than the enthusiastic opinions of someone who is listening sighted and just invested a lot of money into their newly modified player. No insult intended, but you must admit psychological factors can come into play - and there is only one way to know they are not affecting a listening test. One way only.

IMO anyone considering a digi front end >2k should spend the money on room treatment, loudspeakers (probably active ones) or bass RC. *That* might transform their sound. There is no "transformation" available any more above 2k in digi players.

I do agree the biggest problem with playback quality is the recordings - not the formats. I think the Loudness War is our real enemy and the supposed limitations of red book are irrelevant in comparison to that massive wart on the backside of sound reproduction!
Darren

[BrianM]

It's weird to me how die-hard vinyl fans never seem too concerned about the fact that basically nothing recorded in the last 20-25 years is available on vinyl.  There've been a lot of good records since vinyl died.  Not least in the classical music world.

[Imperial]

I was just thinking...
You already have tape based backup solutions... sporting up to 90 and more Gigs...


IBM was storing computer data on tapes back in 1952...
 
Currently the speeds are at 200Megabits pr second... if they adapt the new hd based tech to the tapes... they will have 2Gigabits pr second...
That is 250 megabytes pr second writing speed. The equivalent of writing a DVD in just 19 seconds flat.

I HOPE the new format is magnetic based, and analogue in way of storage...
It would be GREAT for the music if it was!!!
Let me spell this out for y'all ...
There is a storage solution today that has a bandwith of 2 Gigahertz ... in equivalent resolution... it is currently just storing computer data...
But I'll bet it can be adapted to do other things...

This is all really floating out there.. crazy thinking..
But obviously the technology exists... the product does not, as of yet..

Well... what does this translate into?
Redbook 44khz frequency bandwith is hz described by 65 thousand levels. It would be ca 2,9 billion levels of analogue information pr second. Redbook is a VERY STRONG compression... isn't it ... of data.
If you look at it from the analogue side of things...
We are talking about a really HUGE reconstruction when playing back using digital.
But... math wise it makes perfect sense, and It works!!!
So mp3 ... that is really pale in comparison... to analogue...
Ok, so my analoge equivalent here isn't correct tech wise and so...
But it does show how incredible the digital domain can reproduce the analogue.
But also the scale of things...

How about a interesting little sidebar here?
How much data then?
A 3 minute 16/44 song would be say 15 megs pr mono track it consists of...
A 3 minute 24/96 song would be only 3.25 times the size...
So you only need like 3-4 times the space to describe a resolution 250 times higher.
Digital isn't half bad either ...


Imperial

[macrojack]

Above this discussion looms the age old question of whether the glass is half full or half empty.
I still have and play vinyl. I find CDs more convenient. I'm wondering about buying a hard drive option.
I learned years ago that digital music reproduction equipment has resale more similar to computers than to traditional hi-fi components. So I limit my digital investment to under a grand.

There are new recordings on vinyl all the time. The playback equipment does not seem to have improved much over the last 30 years and the cost of any improvement that may have been implemented is ridiculously disproportionate to the gain it provides.

Both formats offer advantages and demand compromises. And always I hear comments that it is really just about the music. And yet many purchase decisions are made on the basis of brand name and cosmetics. And many products are purchased more for sound effects than music. And many a music system is compromised by having its 2 channel potential reduced by the redeployment of funds necessary to extend to 5.1 or 7.1.

If it's really all about the music, let's just listen to the miracle we own. Let's just delight in the fact that we have the ability to bring any musician in the world into our homes for unlimited engagements on short notice. Let's be thrilled with the remarkable frequency extension and level of resolution that we enjoy.
Let's see our glass as half full and stop carping about the other half that will never become available on the open market because of the realities of mass commerce. Let's enjoy the music without the microscope.

A century ago, it was a rare treat for working people to hear any music at all except on special and rare occassions. Now we have it all, all the time.

[Double Ugly]

I think any claims that a new digital player is a "really significant step forward" over other good current players is delusion.

And this assessment is based upon what comparative experiences?

And please, Darren, try to avoid the use of condescending or otherwise derogatory words or phrases to describe anyone who believes differently.  Several in this thread agree with you in part or in whole, but unless I've missed it, no one from either side has seen it necessary to demean the other in the course of making their position clearly understood.

I would like a blind test report rather than the enthusiastic opinions of someone who is listening sighted and just invested a lot of money into their newly modified player. No insult intended, but you must admit psychological factors can come into play - and there is only one way to know they are not affecting a listening test. One way only.

I'm no longer using a Bolder-modified source, and haven't for a year or more.  Does that legitimize my comments, or do they remain compromised because I saw what I was listening to?

Virtually everyone I know who's heard the top-of-the-line Bolder equipment has made similar claims of clearly superior playback, even those who don't own it.  Are their comments rendered impotent, too, since the equipment was likely within their field of view?

You may have to perform a couple of searches to confirm my claim of "virtually everyone", but the information is there for the taking if you're inclined to look.

You also imply that anyone who hears something more expensive will believe they hear improvement, especially if "it" has already been purchased.  While I believe psychoacoustics is real and can play havoc with one's perceptions, I know *everyone* isn't *always* affected by its powers.  If that were the case, I doubt anyone would ever replace a cable or component with anything less expensive (dire financial straits excepted, of course).

FWIW, the Bolder-modified SB and Ultimate PS I owned replaced a more expensive transport/DAC combo, and it did so because it achieved a "really significant step forward" in music reproduction.  Worth noting, too, is that I auditioned the Bolder before purchasing because - like you - I didn't believe it could possibly be better than what I had.

Even so, despite widely-distributed reports to the contrary (they're lies, LIES I say!), I'm not dElUsIoNaL. 

There is no "transformation" available any more above 2k in digi players.

Again, based upon what frame of reference?  What do you know that we don't?

I don't know what the top-of-the-line Bolder units are going for these days (the "Statement" mods are probably above $2k), but as I've said in reference to my "old" Bolder source, I'd put it up against any digital rig extant, regardless of price.

As my wife is fond of saying when I suggest auditioning something new, "You can't miss what you don't know you don't have."  Paraphrased for pertinence, you can't definitively say what something is or isn't capable of if you've never heard it.  Experience is good, yes, in that it affords one the ability to reasonably predict the outcome in a given arena.  But as long as there's an unknown, there's a chance the outcome will differ from what one expects.

I do agree the biggest problem with playback quality is the recordings - not the formats. I think the Loudness War is our real enemy and the supposed limitations of red book are irrelevant in comparison to that massive wart on the backside of sound reproduction!

Finally, something upon which we can agree! 

[darrenyeats]

And please, Darren, try to avoid the use of condescending or otherwise derogatory words or phrases to describe anyone who believes differently.  Several in this thread agree with you in part or in whole, but unless I've missed it, no one from either side has seen it necessary to demean the other in the course of making their position clearly understood.

I didn't mean to be condescending. Ok I admit, "delusional" was overly harsh!
Darren

[Scott F.]

It's weird to me how die-hard vinyl fans never seem too concerned about the fact that basically nothing recorded in the last 20-25 years is available on vinyl.  There've been a lot of good records since vinyl died.  Not least in the classical music world.

To a large extent you are correct but, (theres always a but isn't there) many of the more popular releases find their way to vinyl. Nearly everything Clapton does comes out on vinyl. Same with Neil Young and NIN. When you hit some of the online record vendors, you find all kinds of artists that you wouldn't expect to see like Wilco, Springsteen, White Stipes and as much as I can't stand her Diana Krall.

Here, just take a peek at the Upcoming Releases at Acoustic Sounds.

Here is a link to their Vinyl Catalog.

When it comes to classical, you are right. Most of what is offered is just regurgitated recordings from days of yore but (theres another but), as you look through the catalog, you see some fresh recordings from the LA Guitar Quartet plus quite a few others. Same story holds true for jazz although I did see some fresh jazz recordings as I scrolled through.

The other thing, I read somewhere and for the life of me I can't find it now, that Universal was reopening a vinyl plant and was going to start repressing vinyl again (at least I think it was Universal). If so, they have one heck of a catalog to pull from. As long as they get some quality vinyl mastering engineers and have a decent plant to take the lacquers to, we vinyl guys will be extremely happy.

With that announcement and the fact that there are tons of turntables, arms and carts available at all price levels, I think it is pretty safe to say that vinyl has more than made a comeback. I think its here to stay.....again.

[TONEPUB]

I don't agree with any of you! Well, not quite, but I though it was a cool first sentence.

IMO anyone considering a digi front end >2k should spend the money on room treatment, loudspeakers (probably active ones) or bass RC. *That* might transform their sound. There is no "transformation" available any more above 2k in digi players.

Darren

Sorry dude, the really good CD players are QUITE A BIT better than the stuff at 2k.  That's just where the fun begins.
There's a lot of great players in the 1500-4000 range, but it makes a pretty big jump at around 10k and another in the 25-40k range.

That may not be music to your ears, but it's what's happening.  And I've already taken care of room treatments, dedicated power, power conditioning, cabling, racks and setup....

But the good news is the stuff on the bottom is better than ever!