CD reveals "limitations of source tape"?

[Stewyh]

So, I just pulled out my CD reissue of the Stooges debut album for a quick spin. It's a 1987 Elektra reissue. I noticed some print on the cover which piqued my nostalgic interest as it was fairly ubiquitous in the early days of CDs as I recall.

"The music on this compact disc was originally recorded on analog equipment. We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible the sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the compact disc can reveal limitations of the source tape"

16 bit and 44.1khz (22.05khz if you take the Nyquist frequency into account). Will this "high resolution" really reveal the "limitations" of the source tape?

It goes on to say

"The compact disc digital audio system offers the best possible sound reproduction- on a small, convenient sound-carrier unit. The compact disc's superior performance is the result of a laser-optical scanning combined with digital playback, and is independent of the technology used in making the original recording."

Unfortunately I don't have a vinyl copy to do a comparison, but I think record companies were getting a bit ahead of themselves, espousing the virtues of the compact disc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but analogue by it's very nature has a much higher frequency reproduction capability and surely a piece of vinyl (I think frequencies as high as 122khz have been recorded onto vinyl) would reveal "limitations of the source tape" more than a cd would, that's assuming there were any, as I believe studio grade magnetic tape is capable of reproducing frequencies above 20khz?

Anyway, the CD sounds fine to me, just thought I'd see if anyone agrees or disagrees with these or similar claims on cd sleeves.

cheers.

[Al Leece]

Well this could open a whole can of worms, but here goes.

I seem to remember that one of the limitations that magnetic tape recordings had was the tendency to compress drum sounds - this is certainly true of cassette tape; studio standard tape decks would possibly suffer similar effects although probably to a lesser degree.

There was also the issue of tape hiss - very pronounced on cassette (hence the various NR systems designed to mitigate its effects) - would also be present. Digital recordings from studio to consumer device (DDD, as opposed to AAD or ADD) were thought to be immune to such artifacts. May or may not be true, but probably not immune to other artifacts. No doubt the real techies could point to other possible items that CDs may have been thought to highlight.

As for vinyl being more able to reveal limitations, well, that is an interesting side-track all its own. Vinyl does have the limitation that when recording low frequencies the needle tends to jump out of the groove on playback. This lead to the development of the RIAA standard curves for equalising recordings. Basically, bass was reduced and HF increased for recording onto the vinyl and these frequencies put back by the replay equipment. So make of that what you will: can a sound that is already tweaked simply in order to record and play back the original signal any longer be said to be accurate? (The answer is "it depends" and the argument has been done to death in other threads; I have no opinion either way as to which is better, I use both methods for replay and each have very good recordings and very bad ones, too).

FWIW I think that if we could record HF like analogue methods can and capture LF the way that digital technology does and combine the two we would be close to perfection. Mind you, perfection is impossible - there is no way to accurately record the full effect of music in any medium at the moment. Compared with live, any reproduction has limitations. People still work on getting recordings better and better.

One area where CDs do score over vinyl in my opinion is that there is no contact with the pickup device so it *need* not degrade with every play as - theoretically, at least - vinyl does. Whether that degradation is audible to most people is a moot point; equally, this advantage does not account for more than a few CDs in my collection having degraded over thirty-odd years to an unplayable condition despite having been treated exactly the same as others in my collection (in general, very well and returned to box after every play).

Were CDs as indestructible as marketed? Hell, no! I never tried it but spreading jam onto the thing and then playing it will certainly not result in any sound quality, let alone good quality, but that is how they were marketed. Were they better sounding? They were different; whether better is a personal viewpoint. They are less prone to damage than LPs and certainly more portable, so they had advantages that LPs didn't. But 'better' is subjective.

2 cents

[Stewyh]

I tend to agree with you on all those points particularly the tape hiss and RIAA curve issues. A combination of analogue for HF and Digital for LF is an intriguing idea. I wonder what the technological advancements have been in that regard in recent years.

[Addicted to music]

When CDs came out in the mid to late 80s I was doing COT Electronics, I had. a Yamaha P150 turntable AT120e cart, going through a Akai portable that had phono support. Every report and review apart from Australia HiFi said that the vinyl was better. I even audition them at curtain outlets and yes I was certain that vinyl was better. Had better timber in instruments and the voices came out more organic.

The issue then was what did a DDD sound like, and boy get one of these and it would be better than vinyl. So it helped when it was DDD all the way to the CD. But in saying that I have some recordings on vinyl that are so detailed that feet tapping, room echos, and microphones picking up the headphones just cant be heard on CD. Or the sound engineer edited it so well/or now have the capability that these issues just cannot be heard on digital. A blow to how I gauge resolution in a rig!

Then a cousin intoduced me to a mate who introduced me to Stax Lambra Pro. I had to have a set of these I just couldnt do with out them, but he did warned me what it could do. When I finally got a set Stax Lambra Pro, after 6hrs of listening to vinyl, I couldnt continue, It exposed all the issues associated with vinyl that I didnt want to go back. Stuff that you just cannot hear on any loudspeaker is present on these headphones (stylus contact distortion, SCP etc) just doesnt happen in digital. From that point onwards I havent bought a vinyl since!

[Stewyh]

In a nutshell, it seems to be that vinyl= better detail but inherent noise and cd=less detail but (close to) zero noise. That's a massive generalization I know but not far from the truth I guess. Regarding headphones, I NEVER use them (except where necessary in studio situations). I just don't like the sensation, I prefer to have music coming from a source rather than resonating inside my head haha. Music is recorded in a space (except electronic music of course) and I like to listen to it in a space.

My main question is not whether vinyl or cd is the superior format, but whether original analogue recordings are better suited to being mastered for, and released on either.

[LogicprObe]

Well, they probably mean you can hear the tape hiss etc......................or they are making excuses for crap recording techniques!

[Addicted to music]

The original analog master tape have the edge over detail, but typical analog magnetic tape have an inherent consistant decay, therefore as time gets on, the older the tape the lest faithful the original recording is compared to when it was recorded. This is the very reason I refused to buy remastered and enhanced re-releases. I have bought many copies on vinyl and to be honest the improvements are not worth the extra cash you pay IMHO. Take the recording "The Dark Side of the Moon" I have had listen to 2 re-releases and everyone is no different. The heavy low bass this recording has seams to all distort regardless of versions and remarstered. Another one is Linda Rondstandts "What's New" that is done up in 24/192, regardless of the Hires I prefer the original LP because it is miles more detailed and the detail is more musically involving as this is done in AAD originally. But if you where to produce this today and record it at 24/192 it would IMO sound really good in 24/192.

If I was to buy music, I would definately buy the CD or the 24/192 and not on vinyl. This friend my cousin who introduced me to, said if you make a recording regardless whether its analog tape or digital, you have to compress it so the dynamic headroom will fit on CD, but to have it on record further compression must take place and then there is the RIAA consideration just to fit it on vinyl so sylus dont mistrack. Not just only that but there is pressing errors as well, so not all is faithful on vinyl. With the Stax you will hear these inherent issues and thats what put me off.

[andreasmaaan]

"The music on this compact disc was originally recorded on analog equipment. We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible the sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the compact disc can reveal limitations of the source tape"

16 bit and 44.1khz (22.05khz if you take the Nyquist frequency into account). Will this "high resolution" really reveal the "limitations" of the source tape?

It goes on to say

"The compact disc digital audio system offers the best possible sound reproduction- on a small, convenient sound-carrier unit. The compact disc's superior performance is the result of a laser-optical scanning combined with digital playback, and is independent of the technology used in making the original recording."

Haha, I've seen similar utopian warnings on CDs issued in the 1980s. I strongly doubt that the ADCs used at that time to convert the recording for the digital master and the DACs used to listen to it (back then) would have "revealed" more imperfections in the tape master than they added to the digital master and playback.

[wis97non]

What the LampizatOr said:

Where is the end of with sampling frequency and bits? What about 32-bits?

I strongly believe that 44,1 and 16 bits is all we need. There are some EXTREMELY good recordings on 44/16 that prove by their high quality that the medium is not the limiting factor - it is the recording engineering , love, passion and attention to detail that makes good recordings. Most of the hi-rez stuff is utterly boring and meaningless. Having said that, most valuable artists recorded many years ago and only on analog or 44/16 so whats the point of discussing benefits of Hi-Rez files if Louis, Ella, Miles and Zappa are dead ?

Edited September 11, 2012 by wis97non

[mjs]

What the LampizatOr said:

Where is the end of with sampling frequency and bits? What about 32-bits?

I stronly believe that 44,1 and 16 bits is all we need. There are some EXTREMELY good recordings on 44/16 that prove by their high quality that the medium is not the limiting factor - it is the recording engineering , love, passion and attention to detail that makes good recordings. Most of the hi-rez stuff is utterly boring and meaningless. Having said that, most valuable artists recorded many years ago and only on analog or 44/16 so whats the point of discussing benefits of Hi-Rez files if Louis, Ella, Miles and Zappa are dead ?

Agree with that, just listen to some JVC XRCDs.

I also have the view that many early recordings, originally analog, have deteriorated in quality when subsequently transferred to second and more generations for digital purposes. It is very hard to compare the same music on different formats because in most instances, the recordings from which the particular final version on different media were made were never the same, ie original vinyl vs the CD recording.

Edited September 11, 2012 by mjs

[LuzArt]

What the LampizatOr said:

Where is the end of with sampling frequency and bits? What about 32-bits?

I strongly believe that 44,1 and 16 bits is all we need. There are some EXTREMELY good recordings on 44/16 that prove by their high quality that the medium is not the limiting factor - it is the recording engineering , love, passion and attention to detail that makes good recordings. Most of the hi-rez stuff is utterly boring and meaningless. Having said that, most valuable artists recorded many years ago and only on analog or 44/16 so whats the point of discussing benefits of Hi-Rez files if Louis, Ella, Miles and Zappa are dead ?

How can it be all we need if DSD sounds better than 44/16?

[techspurt]

How can it be all we need if DSD sounds better than 44/16?

Well nobody actually listens to DSD, they listen to a particular incarnation of it. Same with 44/16 - depends on the hardware in play.

So which particular hardware did you use when hearing that DSD sounded better than 44/16 and in what way was it better?

[Once was an audiophile]

How can it be all we need if DSD sounds better than 44/16?

Says who????????????

the marketing executives?

[LuzArt]

I hear DSD files via a foobar conversion to PCM.

My dac is an Octave Metrum which I use for all resolutions and I find hi-res masters and DSD conversions to be superior to 44/16. I know there's people who hate hearing that but there you go. I hear a lower noise floor, broader dynamics, smoother transients and decays, flatter response.

I've also heard true DSD on an Auralati and a Mytek DAC and I heard a great improvement, lower noise floor, a more true representation of instruments, more detail.

Sorry if you haven't heard it, it is quite something.

Edited September 12, 2012 by LuzArt

[LuzArt]

Says who????????????

the marketing executives?

Says me.

[techspurt]

I hear DSD files via a foobar conversion to PCM.

My dac is an Octave Metrum which I use for all resolutions and I find hi-res masters and DSD conversions to be superior to 44/16. I know there's people who hate hearing that but there you go. I hear a lower noise floor, broader dynamics, smoother transients and decays, flatter response.

I agree that hires almost certainly sounds better on Metrum than 44/16 - that's because there's substantial droop in the FR on 44/16 with the Metrum coz its NOS. So I'd be interested in comparisons when this colouration is fixed up, without that correction its really apples vs oranges.

[Monkeyboi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but analogue by it's very nature has a much higher frequency reproduction capability and surely a piece of vinyl (I think frequencies as high as 122khz have been recorded onto vinyl) would reveal "limitations of the source tape" more than a cd would, that's assuming there were any, as I believe studio grade magnetic tape is capable of reproducing frequencies above 20khz?

Anyway, the CD sounds fine to me, just thought I'd see if anyone agrees or disagrees with these or similar claims on cd sleeves.

cheers.

Vinyl has a problem with respect to long term retention and reproduction of ultrasonic frequencies. JVC invented a quadraphonic LP in which the rear channel information was modulated with a 30kHz carrier to create a band of frequencies with frequencies which extended to almost 50kHz. To ensure correct playback and longevity of the LP, a CD-4 compatible cartridge was required which was fitted with a stylus which had a special profile cpable of tracking and reproducing these ultrasonic frequencies. These special stylus profiles were marketed under several trade names (Shibata, Quadrahedral, Hyperbolic etc). If you played as CD-4 record (also known as Quadradisc) with a standard stylus profile (conical or ellipical) the groove walls on which the ultrasonic frequencies were cut would become damaged, and this would result in very poor quality audio reproduction on a CD-4 system.

Given that long term retention of information significantly over 20kHz on vinyl seems to have issues when played back with a cartridge fitted with standard stylus profiles, I'd suggest that record mastering would purposefully limit or at least roll off the frequency response above 20kHz to prevent possible audible distortion and noise build up with repeated playings.

High quality magnetic tape run at 15ips or higher can store audio frequencies above 20kHz, but distortion rises dramatically as the signal level approaches the saturation level of the tape medium. However it should be appreciated that if a compromised signal to noise ratio is acceptable, it is possible to record signals to several MHz. Remember VHS video tape?

Cheers,

Alan R.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Monkeyboi

[Addicted to music]

Vinyl has a problem with respect to long term retention and reproduction of ultrasonic frequencies. JVC invented a quadraphonic LP in which the rear channel information was modulated with a 30kHz carrier to create a band of frequencies with frequencies which extended to almost 50kHz. To ensure correct playback and longevity of the LP, a CD-4 compatible cartridge was required which was fitted with a stylus which had a special profile cpable of tracking and reproducing these ultrasonic frequencies. These special stylus profiles were marketed under several trade names (Shibata, Quadrahedral, Hyperbolic etc). If you played as CD-4 record (also known as Quadradisc) with a standard stylus profile (conical or ellipical) the groove walls on which the ultrasonic frequencies were cut would become damaged, and this would result in very poor quality audio reproduction on a CD-4 system.

Given that long term retention of information significantly over 20kHz on vinyl seems to have issues when played back with a cartridge fitted with standard stylus profiles, I'd suggest that record mastering would purposefully limit or at least roll off the frequency response above 20kHz to prevent possible audible distortion and noise build up with repeated playings.

High quality magnetic tape run at 15ips or higher can store audio frequencies above 20kHz, but distortion rises dramatically as the signal level approaches the saturation level of the tape medium. However it should be appreciated that if a compromised signal to noise ratio is acceptable, it is possible to record signals to several MHz. Remember VHS video tape?

Cheers,

Alan R.

You're a legend Allen!

[LogicprObe]

You're a legend Allen!

At least in the Qantas Lounge.............

[Once was an audiophile]

I hear DSD files via a foobar conversion to PCM.

My dac is an Octave Metrum which I use for all resolutions and I find hi-res masters and DSD conversions to be superior to 44/16. I know there's people who hate hearing that but there you go. I hear a lower noise floor, broader dynamics, smoother transients and decays, flatter response.

I've also heard true DSD on an Auralati and a Mytek DAC and I heard a great improvement, lower noise floor, a more true representation of instruments, more detail.

Sorry if you haven't heard it, it is quite something.

first of all computer audio is still lacking timbre,tone etc.....

comparing dsd vs 16/44.1 on a dac that does both is no way a valid comparison run it against a great 16/44.1 dac with a great transport (no computer toy)

[TP1]

From my perspective a well mastered SACD (DSD) still sets the standard for highest quality audio. I try to get as much as I can on SACD format. The DSD files available on the internet are 100% pirated from SACD's using hacked PS3's as a source. Playing it back with software conversion (foobar) isn't exactly ideal and in my experience it can't come close to a decent SACD player. You can burn the ISO files to a DVD-R but many SACD players won't recognise them ( such as my Accuphase).

In fact the only reason I have ventured into the realm of computer audio /music server is to play 24 bit files that are not available on SACD, such as Melody Gardot's - "The Absence". I also have 24 bit files of SACD's that I own. The SACD's still sound better and that includes playing both sources through the Accuphase DAC's.

[Once was an audiophile]

From my perspective a well mastered SACD (DSD) still sets the standard for highest quality audio.

In that case we should get together for a sacd vs 16 bit? (bring it on)

[wis97non]

In that case we should get together for a sacd vs 16 bit? (bring it on)

Them's fighting words!

[Once was an audiophile]

Them's fighting words!

I will put my 16bit where my mouth is

[TP1]

In that case we should get together for a sacd vs 16 bit? (bring it on)

You mean you haven't already? I must admit I have never previously come across anyone claiming that low bitrate (CD) sounds better than the higher bitrate DSD or the 24 bit master from which it was derived.

Apart from the obvious ways of comparing the two ( switch between CD/SACD layer on a hybrid disc) I also have the following which was simultaneously recorded on DSD, 16 bit and direct to disc LP. In that way there was no mastering across different platforms. From there an SACD, CD and LP were produced where you can compare the best that each medium has to offer. The CD, although superbly produced is at number 3 in the rankings.

http://www.audiophil...cd-set?vmcchk=1

By all means I would be happy to demonstrate.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Tasso