ryan@fremen.DEC (Mike Ryan DTN 264-8280 MK01-2/H32) (05/31/85)
As long as everyone else is dumping on the digiphobes, I think I'll join in.
When I listen to a recording, what I listen for is not the quality of the audio
but the quality of the music. In terms of audio quality, my only concern is
that anything that will distract from the music be minimized. This includes
things like pops, skips, sticking, and hiss. This does not include subtle
aberrations in frequency response at 22K Hz, or imperfect imaging. Speaking of
imaging, I don't care about my system sounding exactly like a concert hall -
it is the music and its performance, not the circumstances of the performance
that are relevant to me. You Golden Ears may say, "Ah, but subtle aberrations
in frequency response at 22K Hz *do* distract me from the music". Well, then,
I feel sorry for you for letting such things ruin your enjoyment of perfectly
fine performances of perfectly fine music, and I hope I never develop Golden
Ears.
Somehow, "Satisfaction" just doesn't sound right if it isn't coming through a
cheap car AM radio at full volume.
Dynamic range (one of the primary audible advantages of CDs) is important to
me - with a wide dynamic range I can hear compositions with the dynamics that
were intended by Beethoven or Stravinsky, and not compressed to fit the medium.
I don't think I need to repeat the CD's tremendous advantages in ease of
handling and durability.
So, as far as I'm concerned, the digiphobes can go join the Flat Earth Society.
I'll be perfectly happy CDing away (and I don't even have a player yet!).
Forgive me if I've rambled - it's Friday afternoon.
Ah, a request for info (don't flame me if it's been on net.audio already, just
send the info by mail so you don't bore anybody) - What is the best (????)
low-cost (say, under $350-400) CD player with good cuing capabilities (like
for making good segues for a tape for my car)?
I'll summarize to the net if I get enough info.
P.S. CR isn't so bad with audio - but I'll get to that next week (I'm sure
someone will remind me!).
Mike Ryan
ARPA: ryan%fremen.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
UUCP: {decvax,allegra,ihnp4,ucbvax,...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-fremen!ryan
ENet: {FREMEN,BCSENG,CLOUD9}::RYANben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (06/03/85)
>When I listen to a recording, what I listen for is not the quality of the audio >but the quality of the music. In terms of audio quality, my only concern is >that anything that will distract from the music be minimized. This includes >things like pops, skips, sticking, and hiss. This does not include subtle >aberrations in frequency response at 22K Hz, or imperfect imaging. Speaking of >imaging, I don't care about my system sounding exactly like a concert hall - >it is the music and its performance, not the circumstances of the performance >that are relevant to me. You Golden Ears may say, "Ah, but subtle aberrations >in frequency response at 22K Hz *do* distract me from the music". Well, then, >I feel sorry for you for letting such things ruin your enjoyment of perfectly >fine performances of perfectly fine music, and I hope I never develop Golden >Ears. The way I see it, there are two different ways that a recording can fall short of the true musical event. One is by addition such as surface noise, pops and ticks on record albums and hiss on compact discs and magnetic tapes. The second is by loss of information, most notably the subtle psycoacoustic cues that allow us to perceive a realistic soundstage when listening to two little boxes. Error by addition is annoying, but the brain can do much to ignore these imperfections, much as it learns to ignore the man three rows behind us in a concert with persistant sniffles and the fidgety kid playing with his seat a couple chairs down. But loss of information is harder to deal with. I just can't get the same level of musical enjoyment from a recording that sounds like it is coming from a flat plane on the wall or from two little boxes. And this applies equally to bad LPs and bad CDs. No, frequency response abberations at 22k hz don't bother me (particularly with CDs; they have a brick wall at 20k hz), but the lack of a realistic soundstage does. And I submit that if imaging means *nothing* to you, you are missing much of the pleasure of listening to high fi. Ben Broder ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben ..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben ..pesnta!moncol!ben
chenr@tilt.FUN (Ray Chen) (06/04/85)
Let's not be too unfair to the digiphobes. I think you'll find that most digiphobes will agree that the digital medium is potentially one of the best. It's the current implementation that we're unhappy with. I don't consider myself a "Golden-Ear". I look for a good value/dollar ration and would consider myself a mid-range audiophile. (My system is in the $2000-$3000 range.) I will probably get a CD player in the next 5-6 years. Why don't I have one now? First, there simply isn't enough of a selection of good material on CD's. Second, much of what IS there has been butchered by people who don't know how to master properly for the CD medium. Third, all but the latest generation of CD's (which I haven't listened to yet) simply don't sound as natural as my turntable. Unlike many people, I know from long first-hand experience what most instruments sound like live. Matter of fact, now that I think back not counting the percussion section, there are at most 5 instruments in a "standard" orchestra that I haven't done a lot of ensemble work with. I've also played both harpsichord and clavichord, so... I looked at the first and second generation CD players. My conclusion was that the ones I could seriously consider (I refuse to pay $1000 for a CD player) didn't sound as real as a turntable and lost something in the way of ambience and soundstage as well. From all that I've been able to gather, these are all problems which can be licked by the appropriate application of high technology. Like any new technology, CD technology has yet to mature and realize its full potential. When it does, which will probably be within 5 years, I'll be in line to get one. Until then, I'd rather have a more natural sounding system, even if it's a bit noisier. This is a trade-off that I decided I had to make. Other people will undoubtedly go the other way, especially if they aren't as sensitive to whatever it is that I can't stand about the current CD players. When debating about CDs, measurements, and specs, it's a good idea to keep one thing in mind. The human ear and brain are strange things. Nobody's quite figured out exactly what factors in audio reproduction are most important for "good" sound and exactly how important they are. Until they do, audio engineering will be an art. And even when they do, audio will still be subjective. An office worker who can only hear up to 15 kHz is going to be looking for slightly different things than a sonar operator who can hear up to 22 kHz, or a professional musician who can hear up to 20 kHz. What's good enough for one won't necessarily be good enough for the others. So can we PLEASE stop the CD argument? Let's all admit that different people listen in different ways for different things and that what is adequate fidelity for one person may not be adequate fidelity for another. As for myself, I'll be waiting to see which works out better, CD or Beta/VHS. Both have good S/N ratios and are more convenient than records, plus Beta/VHS has the added boost of a simultaneous visual signal. Life could be fun five years from now. Ray Chen princeton!tilt!chenr