jj@rabbit.UUCP (08/17/83)
Greg, Greg, Greg! You've missed the whole point! The purpose of net.audio is not to discuss new, state of the art advances. It is, rather, to RESIST new ideas, and to create the greatest possible quantity and (lack of) quality of superstitions regarding various analog and digital techniques. I certainly agree with your article, I have made the comparisons that you comment on, excepting Telarc vs. Telarc, and I find the digital players quite acceptable, which is more than I can say for <snap, crackle, pop> analog discs of the best quality. In addition, in the few digital discs that have been RECORDED PROPERLY, the realism (the final test, according to superstition mongers) is the best I've heard. <Miking techniques on the first releases from Sony/etc were among some of the most atrocious ever devised. Perhaps they were devised by digital engineers rather than recording engineers. Perhaps the reason for that is that the recording engineers <who do not want to learn anything new> would not work with the digital machinery until they saw that they would have to.> I am a digital signal processing engineer and acoustitian, I've published articles in net.audio that have been refuled by the most ignorant and deliberately offensive articles, and I fear that you will receive the same treatment. Good Luck. (Remember, in net.audio, it's not HOW it sounds, it HOW MUCH it costs! The stranger and more regressive the better! Back to direct mechanical recording!) (harpo/allegra/research)!rabbit!jj down the luddites!
gregr@tekig1.UUCP (08/23/83)
A couple of technical points - then THE CD CHALLANGE...
Recently someone quoted ABSOLUTE SOUND as stating that CD systems had a 60 uS
risetime. This is totally false. The product of risetime and bandwidth is
substantially constant at about 0.35. Therefore if the risetime
were 60 uS, the bandwidth of the system would be about 5.8Khz! This, of course
is nonsense. In fact all 11 test reports of CD players I have seen published
show them no less than 1 db down at 20Khz. Therefore they have bandwidths
in excess of 20Khz, and risetimes less than 17.5 uS. Because risetime is so
predictable with CD systems the test reports don't even bother to publish
numbers. For those that don't understand the math or don't believe, simply
look at the 1Khz squarewave photographs which clearly prove the point.
Ah yes, the pulse response ringing. This has been claimed by several writers
as the source of their objection to CD. To me this is the ultimate farce
in the old audiophile "I can hear it, so whats wrong with your hearing?"
argument. The ringing displayed by CD players is nearly without exception
less than or equal to the finest, most expensive, most highly praised
MOVING COIL cartridges available. I speak here of cartridges selling for
up to $1000, more than my entire CD player. Note that most moving magnet
cartridges have very little overshoot or ringing, but audiophile pubs
like ABSOLUTE SOUND nearly always praise the sound of moving coils over
moving magnets. So is the explaination for this amazing inconsistency
that the conventional cartridges are so bad they mask the "sound" of the
ultrasonic ringing or is it that ringing at frequencies that can't
be heard simply can't be heard. I tend to favor the latter explaination.
Enough said!
Now the challenge - Several writers have written negative comments based
on false information of the type discussed in paragraph one, or on
conclusions about sound quality based on test information which is
uncorrelated to sonic perception by any known testing technique, and
perhaps even inconsistent with other known observations as in paragraph
two. Opinions based on this type of "creative wisdom" is rather useless
and perhaps even destructive to others. WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE write up
their NEGATIVE comments about the sound of CD's that;
1. Owns or has extensively (at least several days) listened
to a CD system in THEIR OWN HOME with reasonably good
speakers, etc. (Your opinion, I don't wish to quibble).
No audio store demos qualify under any circumstances.
2. Please indicate the specific nature of your complaints.
No comments about "grey velvet texture". If the midrange
is depressed, say so.
3. It isn't required but bonus points for comparing the CD version
with the conventional disk version of the same recording.
Comparisons must be made at the same time however, no fair
remembering how the conventional disk sounded last week.
4. You must list the particular CD disks that you find objectional
above. As it has been made abundantly clear in the audio
pubs many early CD disks are made from poor analog recordings
so this is important. For similiar reasons, also well discussed
you may find the conventional version less objectionable than
a bad CD disk.
5. Do yourself a favor and listen to at least two TELARC CD's.
6. **** BONUS POINTS ***** if you have purchased a CD system
disliked it and sold it, or regret its purchase and sound quality
with the Telarcs or equal quality disks.
End challenge - let those that know speak!
(And those that haven't really listened, hush)
Greg