CD Evolution

[Mr. Widget]

Redbook CD's are:
--for some reason better than they were at the beginningI also believe this to be true... does anyone have any data to support these observations?

Has the change been in the mastering, the manufacture or both?


Widget

[Hoerninger]

No data but a question:

Lately I can often read DSD - Direct Stream Digital.

Does it help to go beyond the limits of the CD, or is it just an improved AD conversion?
____________
Peter

[Mr. Widget]

DSD is the super high sampling rate one bit system that Sony/Phillips developed. It is sold to consumers in the form of SACD discs.


Widget

[speakerdave]

Datum: I have an early (1990) classical album--John Field Nocturnes--from a respectable label--telarc--which has that audible digital "breathing." I think there must have been some improvements in digitizing technique or equipment or both. I haven't noticed it in other, later discs.

[Skywave-Rider]

No data, but converters just sound so much better at every step from inception to consumer playback.

[Ducatista47]

No data here either, but until the real experts chime in... (Like the Mission Impossible tapes, let this post self destruct when the data comes in.)

I will repost this link as an indication of how much trouble one can go to in the pursuit of producing a great CD. I have my own opinion of how close the average CD is to this goal.

http://www.xrcd.com/tech/xrcd24a_e.html

I include the block diagram from the page.

Take a home studio recording, not unusual for music stars these days, have the same amateur staff "master" it on a PC and send the result to a CD plant. The equipment and software must be better than it was in 1980, or the result would be no better or even worse than it was then.

I assume the higher end product and the expert professionals used to make it must also benefit from the improved tools available now.

In the days before digital, disk mastering records involved a specialist engineer listening to the signal going to the cutting head and adjusting it in real time. I admit digital is not concerned with the special problems associated with grooves both inner and outer, but It appears most pop CD's never see an expert of that caliber until it gets to the manufacturing plant. So again I suspect better software and hardware tools.

It is possible that some of the better techniques for manufacturing the finished discs are used industry wide, but I have my doubts. Still, it must be better than it was in the old days. I remember when CD's first came out there was debate whether they would last more than a few years before degrading or being totally unplayable. In some respects they had no idea what they were doing. They were not even sure of their disc material!

I have to wonder if at some point the sampling rate of the recording process was increased and is now mastered down to the 44.1khz Red Book standard. That alone would explain why today's discs are much less harsh than the early examples.

Some fun links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(audio_CD_standard) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_%28audio_CD_standard%29)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6950933.stm

Clark

[Ian Mackenzie]

I think it is fairly common knowledge that even garden variety A/D convertor chips of today are superior to the very first discrete A/ D convertors used in the beginning when digital recording started.

[Skywave-Rider]

I think it is fairly common knowledge that even garden variety A/D convertor chips of today are superior to the very first discrete A/ D convertors used in the beginning when digital recording started.

Yes. That is the biggest difference.
To what Clark said, in a project recorded in a DAW from inception, 24 bit is most common now, and that is another big improvement, probably more than recording in 88.2/96/192 kHz at 16 bit.

But in most projects, there are so many analog/digital insertions, and it's unlikely the end listener will ever know exactly what went on.

[Hoerninger]

... and it's unlikely the end listener will ever know exactly what went on.
Seen from this point of view making a hombrew CD from an LP of ones own with only ONE AD conversion is right away audiphile. And there are 24 bit AD converters for PCs ... :bouncy:
____________
Peter

[Skywave-Rider]

Seen from this point of view making a hombrew CD from an LP of ones own with only ONE AD conversion is right away audiphile. And there are 24 bit AD converters for PCs ... :bouncy:
____________
Peter

I don't follow....

Did you read my post?

[Ian Mackenzie]

Yes. That is the biggest difference.
To what Clark said, in a project recorded in a DAW from inception, 24 bit is most common now, and that is another big improvement, probably more than recording in 88.2/96/192 kHz at 16 bit.

But in most projects, there are so many analog/digital insertions, and it's unlikely the end listener will ever know exactly what went on.

That could be taken as a bit condescending although the purist vinyl audiophile knows too well his original Mercury Recordings are better recorded and better poduced than most modern day contemporary engineers have in their gene's to aspire too.

Some would say the Kiss principle is the hallmark of a good recording.

Some of the Chesky test cd's and samplers are quite intuitive of what is good and bad in digital cd recordings.

[Skywave-Rider]

Perhaps your statement could be taken as a bit condescending. I don't see how mine is. Or were you addressing your own statement, Ian?
:dont-know

That could be taken as a bit condescending although the purist vinyl audiophile knows too well his original Mercury Recordings are better recorded and better poduced than most modern day contemporary engineers have in their gene's to aspire too....

I was referring to a project recorded in a DAW at inception, and what might happen along the way toward a CD release.
If you are debating the virtues of vinyl over CD or digital, that's a different thread.

[Mr. Widget]

I think it is fairly common knowledge that even garden variety A/D convertor chips of today are superior to the very first discrete A/ D convertors used in the beginning when digital recording started.I am not so sure that it is common knowledge, but it certainly would make sense. I suppose the "remastered" discs that do generally sound better than the originals are due to better A/D converters along with better digital processors in general.

Today's 24/96 and 24/192 are different animals all together. Though the real purists don't seem to think that even 24/192 is quite "there" yet.

I guess what I was thinking about at the beginning of this thread was about the possibly improved techniques that have been learned over the past few decades since the early days of CDs.


Widget

[Ian Mackenzie]

Perhaps your statement could be taken as a bit condescending. I don't see how mine is. Or were you addressing your own statement, Ian?
:dont-know


I was referring to a project recorded in a DAW at inception, and what might happen along the way toward a CD release.
If you are debating the virtues of vinyl over CD or digital, that's a different thread.

But in most projects, there are so many analog/digital insertions, and it's unlikely the end listener will ever know exactly what went on.

I was being polite. the tone of your post leaves a lot to be desired.

I thought Peter's post as quite interesting and it bought a new element to the thread but you appear to want to control what people want to discuss.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I guess what I was thinking about at the beginning of this thread was about the possibly improved techniques that have been learned over the past few decades since the early days of CDs.


Widget

I meant its common knowledge to someone who knows what a A/D convertor is as distinct from an A/D convertor.

You can buy quite good little A/D convertors now with a great mic preamp that wont break the bank.

Thinking about it a bit deeper while the raw technology is better judging from what comes of the shelves suggest the mastering leaves a lot to be desired or I am not the target audience. Like some stuff might be mixed for LA Street Gangs. eg Boombox Blasters.

I suspect in some respects the technology is so accessable now that anyone can slap a bunch of tunes down on a disk with his Event monitors in the bedroom and have them duplicated the next day. I mean some stuff is plain weird.

Another example is DTS music DVD's. The way some of the Disks are mixed is goofy.

[Skywave-Rider]

But in most projects, there are so many analog/digital insertions, and it's unlikely the end listener will ever know exactly what went on.

I was being polite. the tone of your post leaves a lot to be desired.

I thought Peter's post as quite interesting and it bought a new element to the thread but you appear to want to control what people want to discuss.

Not at all. It seemed you were confused as to which thread you were posting in.

Are you offended because I said "...it's unlikely the end listener will ever know exactly what went on."?

That's true. You might easily, on the other hand, make your own recordings, as you've alluded to, and thereby know all the details from capture to playback. I'd encourage you to do so.

[Hoerninger]

Did you read my post?

Yes:

The thread started with "CD Evolution" as header and it was claimed
"Redbook CD's are .. better than they were at the beginning."
This was continued with the question
"Does anyone have any data to support these observations?"
This question incuded changes in the mastering and the manufacture.
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=237641&postcount=1

You agree with Jan that the A/D convertor chips of today are superior to the very first discrete A/ D convertors. And refering to Clarks post you added that 24 bit is another big improvement.
With the next passage you are argueing against these details of a practical implementation as the end listener will never know what is going on.

Picking up your last statement I reduce the scenario to one AD conversion, which is transparent to the end listener /user. It is even managable with an (old analog) LP, more than with a live recording. And coming back to the thread title "CD evolution" the end user can make a quality CD with a 24 bit soundcard, surely no soundblaster 16.

Jan got my idea right. Did I get your intention?

I don't follow....In case you do not want to follow I can not help.
____________
Peter

[cooky1257]

I 've thought about this and from experience find most remasters awful(loudness wars).
I reckon the mastering is pretty much as was the percieved improvement being down to the incremental improvemnets in the recording chain/process, better converters etc.
Maybe its just me but I actively seek out the pre '95 discs often sold bargain bin cheaply rather than the new 24bit digitally remastered versions as these tend to be mastered too hot. Some though such as Elbows 'seldom seen kid' are very very good modern pressings.

[Mr. Widget]

Maybe its just me but I actively seek out the pre '95 discs often sold bargain bin cheaply rather than the new 24bit digitally remastered versions as these tend to be mastered too hot.By mastered too hot, I assume you mean overly compressed. This is interesting, and may vary depending on exactly what music we buy. I have heard numerous accounts of today's pop giants' albums being compressed so that they sound loud and in your face... I don't tend to listen to this music, so I haven't had a real problem with it.

In my experience, my earliest CDs, the ones I bought back in the 80's now sound more lifeless and flat than many newer CDs. I have only re-purchased a handful of "re-mastered" CDs and these were all HDCD discs so it isn't really a fair comparison. The "re-mastered" HDCD discs are not overly compressed and do sound better than the originals.


Widget

[Skywave-Rider]

In post #5 I said converters are so much better. I introduced that concept into the thread. And it is cogent. So, Ian agrees with me. AOK.

I do my best to try and follow others' posts. Sometimes they are ambiguous. Sometimes crystal clear. Sometimes fun or informative. Sometimes they are sarcastic and pointless.

It's up to the poster to make his intention known. I try to keep it as clear as I can. Sarcasm to a minimum.

I still don't know what you meant in post #9. Perhaps it's meant as humor.:dont-know


Yes:

The thread started with "CD Evolution" as header and it was claimed
"Redbook CD's are .. better than they were at the beginning."
This was continued with the question
"Does anyone have any data to support these observations?"
This question incuded changes in the mastering and the manufacture.
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=237641&postcount=1

You agree with Jan that the A/D convertor chips of today are superior to the very first discrete A/ D convertors. And refering to Clarks post you added that 24 bit is another big improvement.
With the next passage you are argueing against these details of a practical implementation as the end listener will never know what is going on.

Picking up your last statement I reduce the scenario to one AD conversion, which is transparent to the end listener /user. It is even managable with an (old analog) LP, more than with a live recording. And coming back to the thread title "CD evolution" the end user can make a quality CD with a 24 bit soundcard, surely no soundblaster 16.

Jan got my idea right. Did I get your intention?
In case you do not want to follow I can not help.
____________
Peter

[Hoerninger]

Perhaps it's meant as humor.:dont-know

That is a good idea, I try my very best in this second language.
I am far away of offending someone in a forum where you only have some letters in front of you but not a person with a face.
____________
Peter

[Skywave-Rider]

Thank you Peter, I appreciate the clarification.
I can see it your way.
In the meantime Widget and Cooky have made interesting comments.

[cooky1257]

By mastered too hot, I assume you mean overly compressed. This is interesting, and may vary depending on exactly what music we buy. I have heard numerous accounts of today's pop giants' albums being compressed so that they sound loud and in your face... I don't tend to listen to this music, so I haven't had a real problem with it.

In my experience, my earliest CDs, the ones I bought back in the 80's now sound more lifeless and flat than many newer CDs. I have only re-purchased a handful of "re-mastered" CDs and these were all HDCD discs so it isn't really a fair comparison. The "re-mastered" HDCD discs are not overly compressed and do sound better than the originals.


Widget
Overly compressed and in more than a few cases clipped to boot.
Not all I admit but too many are fit only for the car which is why I tend to avoid new reissues unless someone gives me the nod that they are ok.
Some 80's ones do sound rather flat for sure but then I've more than a few vinyl albums that suck too-heaven help us:banghead: