rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (06/05/85)
References: <1257@houxm.UUCP> <361@petrus.UUCP> <7730@ucbvax.ARPA> [] I'm afraid someone has a wholly erroneous idea about analog distortion when claiming CD's might be more linear frequency-wise but good old analog beats digital on distortion. Take a look at test reports of cartridges and tape decks. Look at the plots of, say, intermodulation distortion vs recorded velocity for cartridges. Look at where the curves go at <low> velocities. Look at THD vs level for tape decks (reel-to-reel or cassettes). In either case it is rare to find the curves dropping much lower than 1 percent distortion. Maybe 1/2 percent in a very super duper model. This compared to the .0000000001 percent you hear amp hypers touting. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Well, it didn't used to as that was all there was. But now look at distortion figures for CD players. When listeners say that CD's have an almost unnatural clarity you can begin to see why. The only way you had to hear audio with distortion levels this low before was to attend a live performance or hear a performance live over FM radio that was <not> tape recorded. This clarity makes new demands on the whole recording chain that were not so before. No wonder recordists have to rethink there methods. We can hear lots of garbage that was masked before. Now this can have the effect of making something sound bad we thought was ok before. But this is made up for by how much better it sounds when everything is right. -- "It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg
ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (06/05/85)
>I'm afraid someone has a wholly erroneous idea about analog distortion >when claiming CD's might be more linear frequency-wise but good old >analog beats digital on distortion. >Take a look at test reports of cartridges and tape decks. Look at the >plots of, say, intermodulation distortion vs recorded velocity for >cartridges. Look at where the curves go at <low> velocities. Look at >THD vs level for tape decks (reel-to-reel or cassettes). In either >case it is rare to find the curves dropping much lower than 1 percent >distortion. Maybe 1/2 percent in a very super duper model. This compared >to the .0000000001 percent you hear amp hypers touting. Makes you >wonder, doesn't it? Come on Dick, no one in their right mind would dispute the fact that CD players have better distortion figures. But tell me, what are the distortion curves on your speakers like? Or the mike used to make the recording? But I'll give you this one, CD players are clearly superior to records in reducing distortion. >Well, it didn't used to as that was all there was. But now look at >distortion figures for CD players. When listeners say that CD's have an >almost unnatural clarity you can begin to see why. The only way you >had to hear audio with distortion levels this low before was to >attend a live performance or hear a performance live over FM radio that >was <not> tape recorded. I don't know what kind of broadcasts you have been listening to, but most of the ones I have heard (e.g. Metropolitan Opera) are terrible. Also the types of distortion present at the outputs of an FM tuner (multipath for example) are far more audible than the <1% harmonic and im distortion in phono setups. Not to mention the 30hz-17khz bandwith required by the FCC. > We >can hear lots of garbage that was masked before. Now this can have the >effect of making something sound bad we thought was ok before Bull. This is just a bunch of record company hype circulated to excuse the poor quality of many CDs. Compare the Mobile Fidelity release of Jethro Tull's Aqualung to the CD. The record is clear, clean and bright with plenty of dynamic range. The CD is dull, flat and compressed with enough hiss to drown out the music. You couldn't mask the defects in that CD with a Radio Shack flavor radio. One thing is clear from this CD vs LP discussion, people (both digiphiles and digiphobes alike) are dissatisfied with the quality of many CD releases. Dismissing this poor quality as defects on the master tape gives manufacturers the carte blanche to turn out any kind of garbage they choose. We CD buyers should band together and demand the kind of quality the medium has to offer. This means careful and meticulous transfer of the original master tape (not a dub), using noise reduction techniques if necessary of older analog recordings, and true all digital recordings of new works. It will be much easier to win over the digiphobes when each $12-16 CD expenditure is less of a gamble. Ben Broder ..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (06/07/85)
[] The removal of garbage masking noise by the CD process is certainly no excuse for lousy sounding CDs. It <is> an explanation of why <some> sound peculiar. Why others sound really awful is perhaps better explained by the documented fact (i.e., I read it in a mag) that some ignoramuses didn't care which tape they gave to be digitized. The vast majority of FM broadcasts are recorded. There is no guarantee that those few that are done "live" will be done correctly. Still, the process <is > capable of low distortion/noise. It is not the fault of the broadcaster if you tolerate bad multipath. It's up to you to buy a good antenna system and rtesistant tuners. Failing that, move to a better location. Not, of course, as low as CD, but considerably better than 1% THD. There are many fine speaker systems that will measure substantially less than 1 % THD over most of the frequency range (say down to 40-50 hz) at reasonable power levels (say below 90 db SPL). Above that level one is progressively less able to hear the distortion anyhow. Your ears start generating their own at levels above ...100 db(?). Sure there are lots of other "distortion sources." Right now I'd like to ignore them. -- "It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg