CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

[jkruger]

I think it was phenobarbital.

[draganm]

[Person99]

[garyfritz]

Dave, can you point to the studies that objectively measured CD & vinyl vs. original? (And how did they measure the "original" -- via an analog recording, or a digital recording, or...??) It would be very interesting to see how they measured it. You would hope they did it competently and didn't introduce their own measurement errors.

[Person99]

[draganm]

[garyfritz]

No question CD audio butchers the original, especially in high freqs. It only samples at 44.1kHz. The highest freq it can represent is 22.05kHz. Which is higher than most humans can hear, so you might think it's "good enough." But it can only represent triangle waves (or at best sine waves if they reconstruct it carefully) at that frequency. Any higher freqs are lost. Is that audible to humans? I honestly don't know. In the actual human-hearable range it may be "good enough." But more accurate than an analog recording? That I find hard to believe.

Of course, I'm not saying vinyl is perfect either. Records introduce their own coloration and distortion. Which one is "closer" to the original? I'm not sure that's the relevant question. "Which do you prefer" is probably more important as a purchaser.

[blue_z]

Hi there

Even before the vinyl versus CD debate began, there was the much older debate of vacuum tube (or valve) versus solid state for audio amplifiers (which still goes on today). One aspect of the debates that is similar is that proponents of the "modern" side often are not familiar with the "older" technology. Also there is heavy use of "measurement" to claim superiority. The problem that is often overlooked is that measurements of various audio or visual parameters cannot fully quantify human sensory perception or predict a mental/emotional response.

Regards

[draganm]

[Person99]

[Person99]

[Person99]

[blue_z]

[draganm]

it's not even worth arguing this with you Dave, you convenientely toss out the facts that contradict your stupid argument. Who cares if ADA has errors that are attempted to be compensated for by software" hey it works, it must be good". any intellignet person would grasp that something that has have a filter has something inherently worng with it and couldn't possible be HI Fidelity. guess what, my turntable/cartridge has no filters of any kind. The fact that you think i listen to it for some sense of superiority is just sad.
It has been scientifically proven that just because you can't hear above 20Khz means it doesn't add anythign to the music, when it's been shown humans take subtle cue's on timing from this inforamtion which affects your perception of how the music flows. The fact that you completely ignored the 20Hz and below part of the argument proves your just here to argue and your argument is FOS. Your emmediate and pointless reference to cryogenic cables just makes my point. BTW, Streophile tests all sort of gear including CD players that cost as much as a new car. They provide more data and facts than a medical laboratory, including spectral decay, cabinet resonance (for speakers), anechoic chamber, phase accuracy, frequency linearity,response adjusted for room, etc. I doubt you would be intertested in any of this though, you seem determined to just fling poo like a monkey at the zoo.
BTW, there are graphs showing spectral plots of vinyl Vs. CD, but I don't know if it's even worth posting them since you seem unable to have an calm and rational conversation and have to rely on conjecture. I tell you what, post some links to real data and then we can continue.

[mike calcott]

I do not wish to Hi-Jack this thread into an audio thread, But people who argue that cd's will give a performance equal to vinyl have obviously not ever heard a good vinyl system. I was selling top end audio in the 70's with turntables like Linn and Oracle, and I have never heard a cd that has the presence of a good vinyl system yet. I wish I could reproduce that sound in my HT.

[Curt Palme]

Whenever I read these debates, whether audio or video (another good cable debate going on at avs high end section), I realize there are too many variables to properly audition ANYTHING.

Ideally to me, a large screen image should be as close to looking out the window as possible. To me, no digitals can do that, the colors are all oversaturated. Most digitals look too sharp as well. To me, CRT's colors, blacks and lack of artifacts most closely represent real life.

When it comes to audio, ideally you should be able to close your eyes and imagine the band/orchestra in front of you. Unfortunately, with the amount of procesing that goes on in the studios now, you the listener have NO idea what the recording engineer has in mind when recording the bands now (Ok, I'm mostly talking rock and roll here I guess).

We're long gone from the days where bands were recorded by two overhead mics onto a Crown reel to reel.

With travesties occurring now such as Metallica's Rock Band version of their new album sounding better than the actual CD, who knows what the hell the engineers are thinking.

Turns out now that a lot of people in the sound industry that are in the know think that the old Bose GM Place sound system that I posted about last week sounds better than the new $2.5 million one. Apparently rumor has it that speakers are also popping on the new system.

Go figure. (sorry, that was a bit off track..)

So.. do we REALLY know what good sound is any more?

[Curt Palme]

Whenever I read these debates, whether audio or video (another good cable debate going on at avs high end section), I realize there are too many variables to properly audition ANYTHING.

Ideally to me, a large screen image should be as close to looking out the window as possible. To me, no digitals can do that, the colors are all oversaturated. Most digitals look too sharp as well. To me, CRT's colors, blacks and lack of artifacts most closely represent real life.

When it comes to audio, ideally you should be able to close your eyes and imagine the band/orchestra in front of you. Unfortunately, with the amount of procesing that goes on in the studios now, you the listener have NO idea what the recording engineer has in mind when recording the bands now (Ok, I'm mostly talking rock and roll here I guess).

We're long gone from the days where bands were recorded by two overhead mics onto a Crown reel to reel.

With travesties occurring now such as Metallica's Rock Band version of their new album sounding better than the actual CD, who knows what the hell the engineers are thinking.

Turns out now that a lot of people in the sound industry that are in the know think that the old Bose GM Place sound system that I posted about last week sounds better than the new $2.5 million one. Apparently rumor has it that speakers are also popping on the new system.

Go figure. (sorry, that was a bit off track..)

So.. do we REALLY know what good sound is any more?

[Cousin.It]

My laserdisc sounds better than your DVD. Just so you know......

[AnalogRocks]

[AnalogRocks]

[jkruger]

[blue_z]