Jimbos Audio ramblings

[struth]

AH yes...think your right

nick lowe never played 'i love the sound of breaking glass' live apparently as he said id sounded really shit without a studio adding stuff etc..
was a fan of him back in day. very talented and wrote stuff for a few big stars

[Macca]

Haha Barry I had a CD101 and I know how bad it was. Like listening to breaking glass!

Myth

I actually have a CD 54 from 1983 it's sweet as a nut

How did CD ever catch on if the early players sounded so bad? And according to some the early CDs were all bad transfers too. Got loads of them, they are in fact superior to later remasters. Another myth.

CD sounding bad was almost exclusively a UK thing - all those Naim people with their 15 watt amps and dreadful speakers - their systems couldn't cope with a source that was flat out to 20Khz and actually had some dynamic range.

I keep challenging peiople to get an early CD player and try for themselves but of course no-one ever does

[Lawrence001]

Myth

I actually have a CD 54 from 1983 it's sweet as a nut

How did CD ever catch on if the early players sounded so bad? And according to some the early CDs were all bad transfers too. Got loads of them, they are in fact superior to later remasters. Another myth.

CD sounding bad was almost exclusively a UK thing - all those Naim people with their 15 watt amps and dreadful speakers - their systems couldn't cope with a source that was flat out to 20Khz and actually had some dynamic range.

I keep challenging peiople to get an early CD player and try for themselves but of course no-one ever does

Actually I got a CD104 when you said that. The mid range stood out as being particularly vivid but it seemed to be rolled off at both ends. Could have been aging caps? I sold it anyway as I was just starting my streaming journey then.

[Barry]

"Breaking Glass" was an album released by Hazel O'Connor, containing the songs she sang in the film of the same name in which she also starred.

I ought to add that, IMO, it's an excellental album - especially the poignant and heartfelt track 'Will you?'.

[Macca]

Actually I got a CD104 when you said that. The mid range stood out as being particularly vivid but it seemed to be rolled off at both ends. Could have been aging caps? I sold it anyway as I was just starting my streaming journey then.

Don't get me wrong I don't think the CD54 is comparable to today's state of the art. It's not much worse but it is noticeably 'Not as good'.

But it doesn't sound 'bad'. It doesn't sound harsh, or hard, it doesn't have a top end 'like breaking glass'. That's all myth.

My user experience with CD back in late 80s was not good, as a result I didn't get a CD player until 1996. I now know it was not the CD player that had the problem, it was a combination of poor loudspeakers and amplifiers that were not designed for a 2 volt input, and which did not have enough power to cope with the higher dynamic range.

If the amp is constantly clipping, it's not going to sound good. It's going to sound grey, mushy, compressed, harsh, hard etc - i.e all those things some people still attribute as the characteristics of early CD players.

And if the crappy two way speaker has a big midrange hump (Linn Kan) what's that going to sound like with a flat signal run through it, and not the big midrange droop from your MM cartridge and turntable?

Bad. Shreeky, shouty, fatiguing.

[Barry]

Myth

I actually have a CD 54 from 1983 it's sweet as a nut

How did CD ever catch on if the early players sounded so bad? And according to some the early CDs were all bad transfers too. Got loads of them, they are in fact superior to later remasters. Another myth.

CD sounding bad was almost exclusively a UK thing - all those Naim people with their 15 watt amps and dreadful speakers - their systems couldn't cope with a source that was flat out to 20Khz and actually had some dynamic range.

I keep challenging peiople to get an early CD player and try for themselves but of course no-one ever does

The sound stage presented by both the CD100 and CD101 was as flat as a board, with no depth whatsoever. Whether this was a fault of the disc, or of the player, I don't know. All I will say is that I was able to put on a disc and cue up an LP of the same title, and switch between the two in real time. The difference was shocking.

It wasn't until the advent of the CD104, which to my ears was a player I could live with - and did for a few years (actually it was the CD104B).

[Macca]

The sound stage presented by both the CD100 and CD101 was as flat as a board, with no depth whatsoever. Whether this was a fault of the disc, or of the player, I don't know. All I will say is that I was able to put on a disc and cue up an LP of the same title, and switch between the two in real time. The difference was shocking.

It wasn't until the advent of the CD104, which to my ears was a player I could live with - and did for a few years (actually it was the CD104B).

This could be attributed to mastering, or some other quirk of LP reproduction. It's been suggested that uncorrelated noise, which LP has a ton of, gives a sense of 'air and space'.

Too many variables to definitely attribute that to some aspect of the CD player. Even just failing to level match when switching between sources could cause that impression.

[Barry]

Don't get me wrong I don't think the CD54 is comparable to today's state of the art. It's not much worse but it is noticeably 'Not as good'.

But it doesn't sound 'bad'. It doesn't sound harsh, or hard, it doesn't have a top end 'like breaking glass'. That's all myth.

My user experience with CD back in late 80s was not good, as a result I didn't get a CD player until 1996. I now know it was not the CD player that had the problem, it was a combination of poor loudspeakers and amplifiers that were not designed for a 2 volt input, and which did not have enough power to cope with the higher dynamic range.

If the amp is constantly clipping, it's not going to sound good. It's going to sound grey, mushy, compressed, harsh, hard etc - i.e all those things some people still attribute as the characteristics of early CD players.

And if the crappy two way speaker has a big midrange hump (Linn Kan) what's that going to sound like with a flat signal run through it, and not the big midrange droop from your MM cartridge and turntable?

Bad. Shreeky, shouty, fatiguing.

Yes - many of the amplifiers of the time did not have a dedicated 'CD' input. People plugged the players into the 'Aux' socket which had a typical sensitivity of 100mV.

It could well be that the comparison I made was done using an inappropriate input on my preamp (a Quad 44 at the time). I did get the correct input card later; certainly by the time I bought the 104B.

So it could well be that, in retrospect, I did not give the early Philips players a fair hearing; but in my defence the need for an amplifier input with high overload capability was not then common knowledge.

[Barry]

This could be attributed to mastering, or some other quirk of LP reproduction. It's been suggested that uncorrelated noise, which LP has a ton of, gives a sense of 'air and space'.

Too many variables to definitely attribute that to some aspect of the CD player. Even just failing to level match when switching between sources could cause that impression.

The first LP to have been digitally recorded was Ry Cooder's "Bop Till You Drop". I have it and the soundstage is flat - with the performers popping up like the flags on an old-fashioned cash register, or the ducks in shooting gallery. Tonally it's fine, but the soundstaging is flat.

[Macca]

The first LP to have been digitally recorded was Ry Cooder's "Bop Till You Drop". I have it and the soundstage is flat - with the performers popping up like the flags on an old-fashioned cash register, or the ducks in shooting gallery. Tonally it's fine, but the soundstaging is flat.

Heard that said before but I don't have the album, not that keen on Ry Cooder. If I come across it I'll pick it up and see if I hear the same thing.

Ofc a lot of stuff happens in production and post production so that effect isn't necessarily anything to do with it being an early digital recording - although I'm not saying it isn't.