+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 87

Thread: CD Revival?

  1. #51
    Join Date: Feb 2008

    Location: http://www.homehifi.co.uk

    Posts: 6,288

    Default

    I still own my first discs from 1983. They came in a packet of five whenever you bought a CDP from Lasky's.

  2. #52
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,771
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alphaGT View Post
    I! I read somewhere back then, that many labels were in such a rush to get music on CD’s that they took masters for vinyl, which are tipped up on both ends of the frequency spectrum to accommodate the Frequency losses during the cutting process. But CD’s don’t have these problems and it made them very bright in the top, and boomy in the bottom. It took them a while before they figured out they needed to be equalized first. Of course, they had to know, but just didn’t care! They were trying to get some CD’s on the shelves, ready or not. For a while, I had no faith in the medium. Those first bad discs really gave it a black eye as far as I was concerned.
    I suspect that is an audiophile myth. I actively try to buy the first releases rather than the later issues and re-masters as they often have a much higher dynamic range, and I'm not the only one who has discovered this. That's why the original releases sell for a lot more second-hand.

    I think the explanation for the 'very bright' sound was the systems some people were using back then. The people who complained about it were a vocal minority, the rest of the world adopted the cd pretty happily.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  3. #53
    Join Date: Feb 2008

    Location: http://www.homehifi.co.uk

    Posts: 6,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alphaGT View Post
    A few of those first CD’s, when they were on a small rack by the cash register, were pretty bad. I bought Heart, Little Queen, and it was nearly unlistenable! The female vocals were so shrill it would curl your toenails! I read somewhere back then, that many labels were in such a rush to get music on CD’s that they took masters for vinyl, which are tipped up on both ends of the frequency spectrum to accommodate the Frequency losses during the cutting process. But CD’s don’t have these problems and it made them very bright in the top, and boomy in the bottom. It took them a while before they figured out they needed to be equalized first. Of course, they had to know, but just didn’t care! They were trying to get some CD’s on the shelves, ready or not. For a while, I had no faith in the medium. Those first bad discs really gave it a black eye as far as I was concerned.
    A lot of stories were made up over the years and turned into urban myths. But the reality is quite different.
    I was one of the 1st group of 10 repair engineers to be trained up by the likes of Sony, Philips etc to service the CD players that they were going to release. And from the outset we were told that the discs were 16 bit, whilst some players were as low as 12 bits due to lack of technical knowledge at that stage to make 16 bit players cheaper. Those lower bit players produced a very bright sound due to their limited D to A capabilities.

    There was also a problem with regards to the de-emphasis requirements. HIFI users were accustomed to the RIAA curve from vinyl. The de-emphasis used on CD was alien to the new adaptors of CD, and it had to be eventually changed. Some disc players and even DACs (my TC-7510 for instance) have an extra bit of circuitry to recognize the older discs and their emphasis, and convert it to the later decoding curve.
    It's not that they didn't know and didn't care. How would they have known? It was all new and CD engineers were as much in the dark as the sound engineers about how to get the best fro the new medium.

    By the way I still have most of my discs that I bought in the eighties, and they sound terrific.

  4. #54
    Join Date: Oct 2014

    Location: London N19

    Posts: 21
    I'm Huw.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sq225917 View Post
    No one ever skinned up on a CD case and enjoyed it.
    So right, where me Rizlas?

  5. #55
    Join Date: Apr 2009

    Location: Hertford, Hertfordshire, UK

    Posts: 321
    I'm Adam.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StanleyB View Post
    A lot of stories were made up over the years and turned into urban myths. But the reality is quite different.
    I was one of the 1st group of 10 repair engineers to be trained up by the likes of Sony, Philips etc to service the CD players that they were going to release. And from the outset we were told that the discs were 16 bit, whilst some players were as low as 12 bits due to lack of technical knowledge at that stage to make 16 bit players cheaper. Those lower bit players produced a very bright sound due to their limited D to A capabilities.

    There was also a problem with regards to the de-emphasis requirements. HIFI users were accustomed to the RIAA curve from vinyl. The de-emphasis used on CD was alien to the new adaptors of CD, and it had to be eventually changed. Some disc players and even DACs (my TC-7510 for instance) have an extra bit of circuitry to recognize the older discs and their emphasis, and convert it to the later decoding curve.
    It's not that they didn't know and didn't care. How would they have known? It was all new and CD engineers were as much in the dark as the sound engineers about how to get the best fro the new medium.

    By the way I still have most of my discs that I bought in the eighties, and they sound terrific.
    My first CD Player - a Philips - was only 14 Bit. Actually sounded better to me than some of the 16 Bit Japanese jobs though.

    I bought the first press UK Factory CD of New Order's "Low-Life" in 1986. The disc was pressed in Japan and had Pre-Emphasis.

    In the 1990s I had an early Cambridge Dacmagic which had a light to show if Pre-Emphasis was detected. This was was most useful.

    Today after I rip a CD with Pre-Emphasis in Exact Audio Copy I then process the FLACs with the free Sox program. I can then play them as FLACs through my Raspberry Pi Squeezebox clones with the Pre-Emphasis taken care of.

    BTW Stanley - I always thought Pre-Emphasis was part of the Redbook CD standard. If I am understanding you correctly not all CD player do Pre-Emphasis ? I have a fairly recent Creek 50CD player. Cost me close on £1000. I wonder if that handles Pre-Emphasis ? I perhaps wrongly assumed that if you play an actual disc on a standard CD Player (as opposed to FLACs through a DAC) that Pre-Emphasis would be dealt with ?
    Adam.

  6. #56
    Join Date: Apr 2012

    Location: N E Kent

    Posts: 51,624
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    My first CD player was a Toshiba XR-J9 mini top loader, bought around 1983 if I recall. I thought it sounded pretty good. I gave it to a friend, who as far as I know still uses it.


  7. #57
    Join Date: Aug 2017

    Location: Hertfordshire, U.K.

    Posts: 298
    I'm Graham.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    We are old folk now, and we like what we are used to. I find it hard to imagine not owning any music and instead just finding it by searching on a pad and pressing play. It may be more convenient, and there is no reason why it should sound any different to playing a cd, but I don't like it.

    But the youngsters find it all very bizarre. They want Kylie, they just search 'Kylie' and pick the song they want to hear. And I'll grant you there are plenty my age and older who are fine with that also. But there are a couple of unintended consequences.

    Firstly there is no incentive to sit down and listen to a whole album as a body of work. Just pick your favourite tracks and then move on to something else. That's a shame.

    Second, when I was a youth we would go to a mate's house on Friday night to play pool. He was the youngest of nine and his brothers and sisters had long since left home but had left behind their record collections. So this youth had about 600 vinyl albums spanning 1968 through 1982.

    As a result we discovered all the old stuff that we would not have been exposed to otherwise, except via the odd single release occasionally played on the radio. And are you ever going to hear, for example, 'Tull's 'Good Morning Weathercock' on the radio? No. No you're not.

    So how will today's youth get their musical education just listening to the odd Kylie track? Answer is, of course, that they won't, they will just continue to consume the modern pap because that is all they know. And if young people, in their ignorance, are happily consuming the pap then there is no incentive to produce anything better.
    Just seen this. I will print it out and frame it and hang it on my living room wall, so that it can be read by all of my grandchildren. Thanks for putting it so eloquently, Martin.
    GrahamS - It's not what you hear that counts, it's what you think you hear........

    Present Kit: NAD 326BEE, NAD C515BEE CD player, JVC QL-7 DD turntable, JVC Tonearm, Shure M97Ve, Audio Technica AT95EX, Pickering V15, JVC Z1E, Wharfedale Diamond 230s, Visual Rio interconnects and My Ears.

  8. #58
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: Seaford UK

    Posts: 1,861
    I'm Dennis.

    Default

    I agree entirely with Martin's post with the exception that occasionally something of merit is released, for eg., Amie.

    The effort put into much music in the period he cites seems way above that exhibited currently, it often had a depth in verbal meaning which took considerable time to understand, lovely chord choices and melody, with a great deal of innovation, given the limits of the then technology. Repeated listenings enabled more to come out, and often, despite the more primitive technology, it was better recorded than much current music.

    I try and try to see what is the merit of much I hear currently, but of course it is a reflection of the current human zeitgeist and malaise. Bah-Bah Black Sheep, with a looped drum beat anyone?

  9. #59
    Join Date: Nov 2011

    Location: Wakefield west yorkshire

    Posts: 1,930
    I'm James.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pharos View Post
    I agree entirely with Martin's post with the exception that occasionally something of merit is released, for eg., Amie.

    The effort put into much music in the period he cites seems way above that exhibited currently, it often had a depth in verbal meaning which took considerable time to understand, lovely chord choices and melody, with a great deal of innovation, given the limits of the then technology. Repeated listenings enabled more to come out, and often, despite the more primitive technology, it was better recorded than much current music.

    I try and try to see what is the merit of much I hear currently, but of course it is a reflection of the current human zeitgeist and malaise. Bah-Bah Black Sheep, with a looped drum beat anyone?
    Why is much current music recorded worse than older stuff? I've heard the argument it's recorded to sound good on radio, so was stuff from the 40s 50s 60s ? Or maybe it wasnt? Is that a more recent thing?
    Last edited by Pieoftheday; 01-11-2018 at 19:15.
    novafidelity x40 music server/pre/dac, Arcam A39, roksan k3 power amp,Monitor Audio Monitor 50, Dali spektor 1, van damme interconnects and speaker cable, roskan k3 CD player

  10. #60
    Join Date: Apr 2012

    Location: N E Kent

    Posts: 51,624
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pieoftheday View Post
    Why is much current music recorded worse than older stuff? I've heard the argument it's recorded to sound good on radio, so was stuff from the 40s 50s 60s ? That's not meant to be argumeantative, I honestly don't get it
    More like the fact that the vast majority of the music buying public only have crap equipment to play it on, so nobody bothers too much about recording and production quality, 'cos most wouldn't notice.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •