mat@mtx5b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (05/05/85)
Well, I got my first chance to hear the much-spoken-of inadaqucy of CDs.
What follows is a set of subjective impressions, and some half-baked
conclusions.
Relevant parts of my system:
Yamaha P350 turntable, Dynavector mc cartridge (that red one with the
``III'' on the side), Mission Sorbothane mat.
Magnavox (Philips) original model CD player.
Carver C4000 whizzbang preamp-and-laundromat combo.
Carver m400 amp. (Not the one tweaked to the Mark Levinson transfer
function)
Boston Acoustics A100 (original model) speakers, with A40s on the
C4000's time delay outputs.
The recording in question: Pink Floyd: The Dark Side of the Moon, on
Mobile Fidelity Original Master and on CD.
The subjective results:
This recording features voices that are floating just at or above the
``noise level'' of the music and sound effects, and are just barely intellig-
able as a result (this is a deliberate artistic effect). On the CD, the
voices stand out much clearer, spoiling somewhat the effect. Further, the
CD seems rather brighter than the vinyl. The vocal timbre in ``The Great Gig
in the Sky'' is somewhat different.
Also, the imaging on the CD seems poorer. On the Mobile Fidelity
disc, I get the best results with Carver's ``Sonic Hologram'' on the
``theoretical'' setting (more crosstalk-cancelling crossfeed introduced);
on the CD, I got better results on the ``normal'' setting (less crossfeed).
In no way was I able to get imaging with the CD as good as with the Mobile
Fidelity disc. From that pressing, I get imaging to about 135 degrees to
either side of me, eg I can hear that ``car'' at the beginning driving around
past 4:30 o'clock, where it becimes a blur, and then coming back into focus
at about 7:30 (both behind me) On the CD the image seemed to circle in front
of me, and in a very shallow ellipse rather than a circle.
The half baked conclusion:
What I heard seems consistant with what Carver claims to have found,
though it does not prove it by any means. Carver's claims are that, relative
to vinyl, CDs have:
A slight peak in the upper midrange, with a slight dip just
below the peak. This could account for the voices coming
through the other sound more distinctly, and for the different
timbre in ``TGGitS''.
A reduced stereo component in each channel. This could account
for the loss of imaging.
Anyone care to comment, or know of any particular problems with that disc that
would reduce the validity of these conclusions?
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.man@bocar.UUCP (M Nevar) (05/06/85)
I don't know if this will reduce the validity of your conclusions, but here is some stuff I heard while looking for a DSotM CD. I was in a hi-end store with a friend looking for speaker stands and I saw a copy of Dark Side with a Mobile Fidelity sticker on it. I was ready to put out the bucks, when the salesman came over and started talking about the disk. He told me that this disk was not from the same master as the LP. Further, he said, the LP and the UHQR were from different masters. The CD was being made by someone else and MF was just distributing it !! He also told me that there are 4 masters to this album. An American, a Japanise, a German, and an English. The English is supposed to be the creme de la creme. He owns all four and did a ABCD test on them and the English version is the best. Whichever one MF used for their vinyl, it wasn't the English one, he said. Also, MF cannot produce any more DSotM albums (let alone CD's) because their contract allowed only so many. So, I was on a mission. I had to find the English version on CD. Well, I never found it. I did find the LP version, but I didn't buy it (19.00).. So, you may have different versions of the masters, but I don't know, and I doubt that you can find out. The salesman told me that all 4 masters were out there on CD somewhere. Now, my question. Does anyone know where I can get DSotM on CD from the English master ??????
ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (05/06/85)
>Well, I got my first chance to hear the much-spoken-of inadaqucy of CDs. >What follows is a set of subjective impressions, and some half-baked >conclusions. > >Relevant parts of my system: > Yamaha P350 turntable, Dynavector mc cartridge (that red one with the > ``III'' on the side), Mission Sorbothane mat. > Magnavox (Philips) original model CD player. > Carver C4000 whizzbang preamp-and-laundromat combo. > Carver m400 amp. (Not the one tweaked to the Mark Levinson transfer > function) > Boston Acoustics A100 (original model) speakers, with A40s on the > C4000's time delay outputs. > >The recording in question: Pink Floyd: The Dark Side of the Moon, on >Mobile Fidelity Original Master and on CD. > >The subjective results: > > This recording features voices that are floating just at or above the >``noise level'' of the music and sound effects, and are just barely intellig- >able as a result (this is a deliberate artistic effect). On the CD, the >voices stand out much clearer, spoiling somewhat the effect. Further, the >CD seems rather brighter than the vinyl. The vocal timbre in ``The Great Gig >in the Sky'' is somewhat different. > > Also, the imaging on the CD seems poorer. On the Mobile Fidelity >disc, I get the best results with Carver's ``Sonic Hologram'' on the >``theoretical'' setting (more crosstalk-cancelling crossfeed introduced); >on the CD, I got better results on the ``normal'' setting (less crossfeed). >In no way was I able to get imaging with the CD as good as with the Mobile >Fidelity disc. From that pressing, I get imaging to about 135 degrees to >either side of me, eg I can hear that ``car'' at the beginning driving around >past 4:30 o'clock, where it becimes a blur, and then coming back into focus >at about 7:30 (both behind me) On the CD the image seemed to circle in front >of me, and in a very shallow ellipse rather than a circle. > >The half baked conclusion: > > What I heard seems consistant with what Carver claims to have found, >though it does not prove it by any means. Carver's claims are that, relative >to vinyl, CDs have: > > A slight peak in the upper midrange, with a slight dip just > below the peak. This could account for the voices coming > through the other sound more distinctly, and for the different > timbre in ``TGGitS''. > > A reduced stereo component in each channel. This could account > for the loss of imaging. > >Anyone care to comment, or know of any particular problems with that disc that >would reduce the validity of these conclusions? Yes!!! The problem is not entirely with the Pink Floyd CD (although dark side of the moon, an old analog recording, is far from the best of the CD medium), it is with your Carver equipment. If you have been following the recent discussion about Bose 901s, you know that many on the net have discounted a previous review because the 901 is a gimmick speaker. Well, the Carver sonic holography circuit is an even bigger gimmick!! It adds stereo difference information (l-r, r-l) to each channel, ruining the CD players virtually perfect channel separation. Many people find this effect pleasing, but it is far from accurate, and certainly not valid for judging the imaging qualities of a source. Also, if Bob Carver really said that CD's have a upper midrange frequency response problem, then he is totally off-base. (Nothing new for Bob Carver :-) ) Digital audio is not without problems, but those problems are not caused by the Compact disk's nearly perfect frequency response. I don't think there are many (if any) phono cartidges on the market that are as flat between 20hz-20khz. Getting back to your review, I do agree that the Mobile Fidelity record sounds better than the CD. But not for the reasons that you and Bob Carver suggest. Perhaps Mobile Fidelity used more TLC in transfering the music from the master tapes? Perhaps the tapes were in better shape nearly ten years ago when Mobile Fidelity mastered its record? If you want to perform a more valid test, compare a current digital recording, like Donald Fagen's 'The Nightfly' to the regular vinyl version. Or even to the Mobile Fidelity version. And leave the sonic holography, digital time lens, time delay, and other Carver wizardry turned OFF. Ben Broder ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben ..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben ..pesnta!moncol!ben
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (05/07/85)
> Also, if Bob Carver really said that CD's have a upper midrange > frequency response problem, then he is totally off-base. (Nothing new > for Bob Carver :-) ) Digital audio is not without problems, but those > problems are not caused by the Compact disk's nearly perfect frequency > response. I don't think there are many (if any) phono cartidges on > the market that are as flat between 20hz-20khz. Bob Carver said that CDs have an upper midrange frequency response problem IF YOU USE THE CORRESPONDING LP AS A REFERENCE. In other words, the two are often different, and if you want to make the CD sound like the LP, you must remove the difference somehow.
jona@clyde.UUCP (Jon Allingham) (05/08/85)
> > Also, if Bob Carver really said that CD's have a upper midrange > > frequency response problem, then he is totally off-base. (Nothing new > > for Bob Carver :-) ) Digital audio is not without problems, but those > > problems are not caused by the Compact disk's nearly perfect frequency > > response. I don't think there are many (if any) phono cartidges on > > the market that are as flat between 20hz-20khz. > > Bob Carver said that CDs have an upper midrange frequency response > problem IF YOU USE THE CORRESPONDING LP AS A REFERENCE. In other > words, the two are often different, and if you want to make the CD > sound like the LP, you must remove the difference somehow. Why in the world would you want to make the CD sound like the record. You might as well by the record. -- Jon M. Allingham (201)386-3466 AT&T Bell Laboratories-WH "Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life down here!"
mat@mtx5b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (05/09/85)
This reply borders on a flame. It even crosses that border. '>>' My article '>' The reply to which I reply. >>Well, I got my first chance to hear the much-spoken-of inadaqucy of CDs. ... >>Anyone care to comment, or know of any particular problems with that disc that >>would reduce the validity of these conclusions? Why did you put the whole original article in your reply? For your sins, listen 65 times to all of Frank Sinatra's recordings, on Radio Shack's $1.98 tape, on a JC Whitney Krako $19.95 car stereo player, on $11.95 speakers. >have discounted a previous review because the 901 is a gimmick >speaker. Well, the Carver sonic holography circuit is an even bigger >gimmick!! It adds stereo difference information (l-r, r-l) to each >channel, ruining the CD players virtually perfect channel separation. >Many people find this effect pleasing, but it is far from accurate, >and certainly not valid for judging the imaging qualities of a source. Well, I have listened to the recordings without the Hologram, too. The results were the same, if less drastic. I don't believe Carver's box is a ``gimmick'' in the sense that you describe, and I wonder if you have heard it yourself. If you have, and you still feel it is a gimmick, fine. As to ``perfect channel seperation'', and judging the imaging qualities of a source, I agree with Carver that some of the cues that we use for imaging are lost in the two-speaker reproduction system, and for the reasons he describes. You've probably read the descriptions of the system, and you probably still disagree. Fine. If you haven't read how and why it works, I'll be happy to discuss it in private mail. Briefly, it attempts to unmask some cues that allow us to perceive the stereo effect. These cues are smeared by the two-speaker setup. If other cues are present, we can still perceive the image, but the presence of the whole set, if consistant, makes it somewhat better. Sometimes spectacularly better. Does your system allow you to hear the walls of the space within which a concert was recorded? >Also, if Bob Carver really said that CD's have a upper midrange >frequency response problem, then he is totally off-base. ... [those] >problems are not caused by the Compact disk's nearly perfect frequency >response. I don't think there are many (if any) phono cartidges on >the market that are as flat between 20hz-20khz. The CD it is the most perfect system to date, and by far. But we are used to hearing vinyl, and the people who cut masters are acustomed to equalizing for vinyl. I did not criticize the medium itself, I said that I had heard what other people were blaming on the medium, and understood their reasons. As far as discrepancies in cartridges, Carver claims to have measured the same effects with over twenty turntable/tonearm/cartridge setups, all well matched. All produced consistant results with a wide range of recordings. >... the Mobile Fidelity record sounds better than the CD. But not for the >reasons that you and Bob Carver suggest. Perhaps ... Lots of perhaps. Maybe you're right. On the other hand, if the masters have faded, then why do I get CLEARER speech coming through the other sound on CD? The reason must be that the other sound is SELECTIVELY weaker. But the other sounds are mostly at LOWER freqencies, which are LESS affected by age when recorded on tape. In any case, the masking is not by background noise, but the music and sound effects deliberately recorded, and they mask the voice LESS on CD. The only likely difference, apart from bad vinyl on the MF release, (MOST unlikely) is the differing frequency responses. Two things suggest that the vinyl reflects the original intent of the artist: 1) I have two vinyl recordings, one MF and one the pressing sold in your average record store (probably J&R in NYC, but I don't know for sure) They resemble each other more closely than the CD in the balance of recorded sound. The MF and the CD resemble each other more in the LOW background noise level. 2) The close match between the level of the voices and the level of intelligibility on this disc seems to be a deliberate artistic effect, and one used with great results. The CD is less pleasurable and less interesting to listen to. Anyhow, I think you are off base when you approach a problem ruling out a solution because it conflicts with your idea that the simple two-channel setup is the essence of perfection and can do no wrong. True, if perfection in both acoustics and electronics is pursued with tremendous vigor at tremendous expense, you will have a better system to listen to than mine. If I ever have my own house built to my standards, I'll take listening room characteristics into account everywhere. Until then, I will attempt to get the best results with my resources, and the Carver preamp produces an effect that I think is very realistic AT MY EARS -- not just on scopes at the end of the speaker leads. >If you want to perform a more valid test, compare a current digital recording, >like Donald Fagen's 'The Nightfly' to the regular vinyl version. ... But I have no interest in that recording. I don't like it. If that CD was mastered in such a way that it sounds more like the vinyl, and both reflect the intent of the artist, then I am happy for you, since you do like it. >But leave the sonic holography, ... and other Carver wizardry turned OFF. I appreciate you telling me what I should like to hear. Carver's stuff, while unorthodox, works quite well for me. You CAN do better with more conventional gear, but at a much heftier price. from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) (05/15/85)
i just got my polk audio sd-2 speakers setup right and i agree that the holography affect is better than just two separate speakers. the sd-2 has a inter-connect cable between the two speakers and incredible imaging. -- ---------- "Is anything really real?" ...akgua!galbp!bing
floyd@t4test.UUCP (Floyd Wolfe) (05/26/85)
> Here is some stuff I heard while looking for a DSotM CD. > (that's "Dark Side of the Moon") > > ( ... skipping unavailable lines ) > > He (salesman) also told me that there are 4 masters to this album. An > American, a Japanise, a German, and an English. The English is supposed > to be the creme de la creme. > > The salesman told me that all 4 masters were out there on CD somewhere. > Now, my question. Does anyone know where I can get DSotM on CD from the > English master ?????? My question is, how do you tell which is which? The CD of DSotM that I have has much on the label, including: HARVEST (with logo) BIEM/JASRAC Made in Japan p 1973 Original Sound Recordings made by EMI Records Ltd. c 1973 EMI Records Ltd. Does the EMI Records just mean that it was recorded in England, and the giveaway being "Made in Japan"?