"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message


CD was released in the UK in Spring 1983, and it is quite
likely it was launched in the USA the year before.

CD was launched in the US in spring of '83. It was launched in europe in
the fall of '82.
You're probably right, it was along time ago. Incidentally, at the time I
was working for Philips in their Broadcast activity. I first heard CD in
1976 when it was still a 12 or 13 bit system, and, I think, 32kHz
sampling, conceived to replace cassettes as an in-car player. It took Sony
to get some marketing sense into Philips and redevelop it into a high-fi
medium. The reason Philips had for limiting it to 12/13 bit/32k, is that
they wanted the disks to be small enough so the player would fit into a
standard car-radio slot, and with the technology of the time that would
only be possible if the disk was a fair bit smaller, and hence store
rather less data.

Nevertheless, when I heard it, it was even then so much better than vinyl
and cassette that I couldn't wait for the commercial release. Noise and
distortion was lower, frequency response flatter and NO wow or
flutter...magic!



Really?

So which would you rather have - the 3 'OP' LPs I *might* have spare or the
80 or so CDs I was given recently and which won't be of any interest to me,
once I have ripped what I want off them!

:-)

Keith G wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message


CD was released in the UK in Spring 1983, and it is quite
likely it was launched in the USA the year before.
CD was launched in the US in spring of '83. It was launched in europe in
the fall of '82.
You're probably right, it was along time ago. Incidentally, at the time I
was working for Philips in their Broadcast activity. I first heard CD in
1976 when it was still a 12 or 13 bit system, and, I think, 32kHz
sampling, conceived to replace cassettes as an in-car player. It took Sony
to get some marketing sense into Philips and redevelop it into a high-fi
medium. The reason Philips had for limiting it to 12/13 bit/32k, is that
they wanted the disks to be small enough so the player would fit into a
standard car-radio slot, and with the technology of the time that would
only be possible if the disk was a fair bit smaller, and hence store
rather less data.

Nevertheless, when I heard it, it was even then so much better than vinyl
and cassette that I couldn't wait for the commercial release. Noise and
distortion was lower, frequency response flatter and NO wow or
flutter...magic!



Really?

So which would you rather have - the 3 'OP' LPs I *might* have spare or the
80 or so CDs I was given recently and which won't be of any interest to me,
once I have ripped what I want off them!

:-)


To listen to music, I'll take CDs any time. Vinyl is for playing with
hi-fi. I enjoy both, but for very different reasons. CD does exactly
what I want of it, plays music "perfectly", without needing to make
allowances for the medium. Vinyl is a challenge to get sounding good,
and I have to make allowances for the clicks and bangs, the low-level
swish and noise, occasional mistracking, worn grooves especially on the
charity-shop records I've been buying etc.etc. To me playing vinyl is
a bit like driving a vintage sports car, great fun but needs constant
work, and for me, isn't really for listening to music when I want the
minimum of distractions.

What saddens me now is that recent CD purchases have been so
unsatisfying due to deliberate mastering decisions. I now look to see
what the release date is for an album, and if it has been released or
remastered in the last ten years, then I'm reluctant to buy it. The
listening pleasure on some modern CDs is less than some classic vinyl
that at least was mastered to make the best of a limited medium.

S.

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:


What saddens me now is that recent CD purchases have been so
unsatisfying due to deliberate mastering decisions. I now look to see
what the release date is for an album, and if it has been released or
remastered in the last ten years, then I'm reluctant to buy it. The
listening pleasure on some modern CDs is less than some classic vinyl
that at least was mastered to make the best of a limited medium.

The distinction for me is that 'pop' and 'rock' music on CD seems in recent
years to have often been produced with low standards in mind, but other
types of music have not. As a recent article in JAES put it, "Loudness
Trumps Everything" so far as the people 're-mastering' sic these seem to
be concerned - although the article was about the equivalent in
broadcasting, which seems to be infected with the same problem.

I've only really become aware of this in recent years for a simple reason.
On the whole I've been buying and enjoying 'classical' and jazz music on CD
for the last 20 odd years. These rarely suffer from the problem of
brain-dead wooden-eared production which seems to be a curse for more
popular music. When I wanted to listen to 20+ year old rock/pop I just
played my old LPs. Although this means I've put up with pitch insecurity,
pops and crackles, etc, this does not bother me so much with old pop/rock
as it does with 'serious' sic music. And in general I listen to much less
pop/rock than classical or jazz. So I've found it easier to play an old LP
on occasion rather than seek out a CD of such material.

Where I did buy a CD version of pop/rock I already had on an LP it tended
to be some years ago, and the problem does not seem to have been as
prevalent back then as it is nowdays.

Above said, I have recently bought some 're-issues' of old pop/rock on CD.
Primarily when an issue has extra tracks, etc, which are otherwise
unavailable. However the results often sound relentlessly 'loud' when
played, which makes me wonder what analysis would show. But in such cases
there often has been no old LP version, so it was that CD or nowt if I
wanted the music.

What would be nice would be if magazines that reviewed and recommended
pop/rock music were to simply run an analysis program over each CD,
and then tell readers the amount of level restriction and clipping
on each. If they did this, at least buyers would be warned, even if
the people making the CDs dumbly continued the behaviour. If you
read such magazines, perhaps you should write to them and ask them
to do this. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message


CD was released in the UK in Spring 1983, and it is
quite likely it was launched in the USA the year before.

CD was launched in the US in spring of '83. It was
launched in europe in the fall of '82.


You're probably right, it was along time ago.
Incidentally, at the time I was working for Philips in
their Broadcast activity. I first heard CD in 1976 when
it was still a 12 or 13 bit system, and, I think, 32kHz
sampling, conceived to replace cassettes as an in-car
player. It took Sony to get some marketing sense into
Philips and redevelop it into a high-fi medium. The
reason Philips had for limiting it to 12/13 bit/32k, is
that they wanted the disks to be small enough so the
player would fit into a standard car-radio slot, and with
the technology of the time that would only be possible if
the disk was a fair bit smaller, and hence store rather
less data.
Nevertheless, when I heard it, it was even then so much
better than vinyl and cassette that I couldn't wait for
the commercial release. Noise and distortion was lower,
frequency response flatter and NO wow or flutter...magic!

Fact of the matter is that 13 bits and 32 KHz sampling can sound very good,
and a ton better than the best analog tape.

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/bits44/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Serge Auckland"
wrote in
message ...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message


CD was released in the UK in Spring 1983, and it is
quite likely it was launched in the USA the year
before.

CD was launched in the US in spring of '83. It was
launched in europe in the fall of '82.
You're probably right, it was along time ago.
Incidentally, at the time I was working for Philips in
their Broadcast activity. I first heard CD in 1976 when
it was still a 12 or 13 bit system, and, I think, 32kHz
sampling, conceived to replace cassettes as an in-car
player. It took Sony to get some marketing sense into
Philips and redevelop it into a high-fi medium. The
reason Philips had for limiting it to 12/13 bit/32k, is
that they wanted the disks to be small enough so the
player would fit into a standard car-radio slot, and
with the technology of the time that would only be
possible if the disk was a fair bit smaller, and hence
store rather less data. Nevertheless, when I heard it, it was even then
so much
better than vinyl and cassette that I couldn't wait for
the commercial release. Noise and distortion was lower,
frequency response flatter and NO wow or flutter...magic!



Really?

So which would you rather have - the 3 'OP' LPs I *might*
have spare or the 80 or so CDs I was given recently and
which won't be of any interest to me, once I have ripped
what I want off them!

Neither, unless the LPs could be auctioned off for enough to be worth the
trouble.

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:


What saddens me now is that recent CD purchases have been so
unsatisfying due to deliberate mastering decisions. I now look to see
what the release date is for an album, and if it has been released or
remastered in the last ten years, then I'm reluctant to buy it. The
listening pleasure on some modern CDs is less than some classic vinyl
that at least was mastered to make the best of a limited medium.

The distinction for me is that 'pop' and 'rock' music on CD seems in recent
years to have often been produced with low standards in mind, but other
types of music have not. As a recent article in JAES put it, "Loudness
Trumps Everything" so far as the people 're-mastering' sic these seem to
be concerned - although the article was about the equivalent in
broadcasting, which seems to be infected with the same problem.

I've only really become aware of this in recent years for a simple reason.
On the whole I've been buying and enjoying 'classical' and jazz music on CD
for the last 20 odd years. These rarely suffer from the problem of
brain-dead wooden-eared production which seems to be a curse for more
popular music. When I wanted to listen to 20+ year old rock/pop I just
played my old LPs. Although this means I've put up with pitch insecurity,
pops and crackles, etc, this does not bother me so much with old pop/rock
as it does with 'serious' sic music. And in general I listen to much less
pop/rock than classical or jazz. So I've found it easier to play an old LP
on occasion rather than seek out a CD of such material.

Where I did buy a CD version of pop/rock I already had on an LP it tended
to be some years ago, and the problem does not seem to have been as
prevalent back then as it is nowdays.

Above said, I have recently bought some 're-issues' of old pop/rock on CD.
Primarily when an issue has extra tracks, etc, which are otherwise
unavailable. However the results often sound relentlessly 'loud' when
played, which makes me wonder what analysis would show. But in such cases
there often has been no old LP version, so it was that CD or nowt if I
wanted the music.

Last night, I had a "Sandy Denny" night, playing a number of old
Fairport Convention and Sandy Denny solo albums on CD. They were all
very pleasant except for Rendezvous which was originally released in
1977, but remastered and released as a CD in 2005. It is at least 6dB
louder than the earlier ones, and unpleasantly harsh, as if there has
been some multi-band compression/limiting used. Considering that all
previous albums have sounded similar for tonal balance and level, this
one is totally different. Clearly no attempt has been made to maintain
the original sound.

As I would expect Sandy Denny fans to be of a certain age, and have a
number of her earlier works, why do they feel it a good thing to make
this one sound so different. Is it because they can?



What would be nice would be if magazines that reviewed and recommended
pop/rock music were to simply run an analysis program over each CD,
and then tell readers the amount of level restriction and clipping
on each. If they did this, at least buyers would be warned, even if
the people making the CDs dumbly continued the behaviour. If you
read such magazines, perhaps you should write to them and ask them
to do this. :-)

Slainte,

Jim
Some weeks ago, I left my bitstream analyser in circuit and was
surprised at how much 0dBFS there is on recent CDs, whereas on earlier
ones, especially those going back to the '80s left at least 1dB of
headroom, typically 3-6dB. I think your suggestion of writing to
magazines asking for level nformation would be a good thing. Even if
they don't publish it, it may make reviewers take notice.

S.

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:


So which would you rather have - the 3 'OP' LPs I *might* have spare or
the 80 or so CDs I was given recently and which won't be of any interest
to me, once I have ripped what I want off them!

:-)


To listen to music, I'll take CDs any time.


OK - noted! ;-)


Vinyl is for playing with
hi-fi. I enjoy both, but for very different reasons. CD does exactly what
I want of it, plays music "perfectly", without needing to make allowances
for the medium. Vinyl is a challenge to get sounding good, and I have to
make allowances for the clicks and bangs, the low-level swish and noise,
occasional mistracking, worn grooves especially on the charity-shop
records I've been buying etc.etc. To me playing vinyl is a bit like
driving a vintage sports car, great fun but needs constant work, and for
me, isn't really for listening to music when I want the minimum of
distractions.


I understand your thinking but CD (for me) is not, nor ever will be,
*playing music*..!!

Wasn't, even from Day 1 - for some reason I never could connect with them! I
play them today for the *sound* and to hear new stuff when people send me
rips of newly-discovered stuff that they think I should hear. What CDs I
have bought have always remained miserably unplayed after perhaps the one
time...!!

(Terrible bloody things - worse than 'music' on the telly!)

To continue your car analogy: No-one in his right mind would ply the M1 (or
A1 if you really want speed) regularly in a cherished Moggie Minor or
similar - the trick is not to be on the sodding M1/A1 in the first place!!
;-)




What saddens me now is that recent CD purchases have been so unsatisfying
due to deliberate mastering decisions. I now look to see what the release
date is for an album, and if it has been released or remastered in the
last ten years, then I'm reluctant to buy it. The listening pleasure on
some modern CDs is less than some classic vinyl that at least was mastered
to make the best of a limited medium.


Nothing to argue with there....(??)

;-)

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

[snip previous]

Last night, I had a "Sandy Denny" night, playing a number of old
Fairport Convention and Sandy Denny solo albums on CD. They were all
very pleasant except for Rendezvous which was originally released in
1977, but remastered and released as a CD in 2005. It is at least 6dB
louder than the earlier ones, and unpleasantly harsh, as if there has
been some multi-band compression/limiting used. Considering that all
previous albums have sounded similar for tonal balance and level, this
one is totally different. Clearly no attempt has been made to maintain
the original sound.

As I would expect Sandy Denny fans to be of a certain age, and have a
number of her earlier works, why do they feel it a good thing to make
this one sound so different. Is it because they can?

I fear it is more because they blindly assume that "Louder sells more" with
no real regard for sound quality at all. As my Dad wisely told me, "Never
forget, its your money they're after!" In this field they simply apply the
blanket assumption that "loud" will sell more copies. Those of us who might
sense the difference will be expected to still buy because we have a
special interest in the content.



What would be nice would be if magazines that reviewed and recommended
pop/rock music were to simply run an analysis program over each CD,
and then tell readers the amount of level restriction and clipping on
each. If they did this, at least buyers would be warned, even if the
people making the CDs dumbly continued the behaviour. If you read such
magazines, perhaps you should write to them and ask them to do this.
:-)

Slainte,

Jim
Some weeks ago, I left my bitstream analyser in circuit and was
surprised at how much 0dBFS there is on recent CDs, whereas on earlier
ones, especially those going back to the '80s left at least 1dB of
headroom, typically 3-6dB.

That agrees with the checks I've made in recent months.

I think your suggestion of writing to magazines asking for level
nformation would be a good thing. Even if they don't publish it, it may
make reviewers take notice.

I don't personally read magazines that are about rock/pop, however I will
be suggesting the idea to the people at HFN. However I don't think they are
the real culprits here as they tend to select what to review and recommend
for reasons which differ from 'music mags'. It might make an interesting
"heads up" for the music mags, though.

That said, I suppose those who like thrash metal, etc, might regard
continuous clipping into mark-space modulated rectangle waves as a
desirable feature. 8-]

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

On 2007-02-05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:
I think your suggestion of writing to magazines asking for level
nformation would be a good thing. Even if they don't publish it, it may
make reviewers take notice.

I don't personally read magazines that are about rock/pop, however I will
be suggesting the idea to the people at HFN. However I don't think they are
the real culprits here as they tend to select what to review and recommend
for reasons which differ from 'music mags'. It might make an interesting
"heads up" for the music mags, though.

IIRC HFN (when it was HFNRR and I used to read it regularly) used to
review and rate classical LP/CD releases separately on performance (A -
D) and sound (1 - 4). For example B:2. It had a very well balanced
content (IMHO) between harware and software that is long since lost.

Currently I buy the French magazine Diapason when I am over there and it
has a very useful performance/technical dual rating for each classical
CD in addition to its overall score (up to 5 tuning forks and a golden
tuning fork - diapson d'or - for the best).

http://www.viapresse.com/via/79/abon...-diapason.html

It has a small hardware section compared to the software reviews which
suits me most of the time since I am more often in software-buying mode
than in hardware-buying mode. The balance is a bit like Gramophone but
although I like Gramophone's reviews I prefer those from Diapason.

However I guess the point is certainly that HFN will want to have clear
water between itself and other rivals so I suspect any proposed change
will have to be justified to the extent that at least it does not erode
the current difference and perhaps improves it.

--
John Phillips

On 2007-02-05, Serge Auckland wrote:
Last night, I had a "Sandy Denny" night, playing a number of old
Fairport Convention and Sandy Denny solo albums on CD. They were all
very pleasant except for Rendezvous which was originally released in
1977, but remastered and released as a CD in 2005. It is at least 6dB
louder than the earlier ones, and unpleasantly harsh, as if there has
been some multi-band compression/limiting used. Considering that all
previous albums have sounded similar for tonal balance and level, this
one is totally different. Clearly no attempt has been made to maintain
the original sound.

The danger for those of us who like their sound unprocesed may be that
more and more home audio equipment makers will produce kit that makes
listening to such CDs more pleasant instead of aiming for transparency.
They will justify this as satisfying the market's demands.

Thus even if we retain good source material it could become more difficult
to buy matching kit.

I have a hard time convincing myself that this is a real risk. However
I am no longer surprised at what music producers do in the name of
satisfying the market and the equipment makers might follow.

--
John Phillips