Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 30 years of CDs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

30 years of CDs - Page 3

post #31 of 74
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency

It is easy to imagine the discrete information of digital audio recording and playback being a bumpy version of an analogue waveform, but that is not what comes out of the process. Barring colossal failure of implementation, the waveform is perfectly reconstructed. Counterintuitive but true. Believing to the contrary is common in most circles, but ignores what actually occurs.

Vinyl, even direct to disk, has a great deal of distortion not found in digital systems. I know plenty of listeners who prefer the vinyl rendition; it sounds more pleasant to them. Same with tubes. That is a personal matter of taste, not a nod to greater accuracy or clarity. They simply like it better.

This is not a function of mysterious X-factors that are not being measured. If a human can hear it, it can be measured. Like I said, this was all figured out before most of you were born. What is new is transistors. (But not the idea; JFETs were theorized in 1925 but it took decades for the technology to build them to be developed. The team that first made a point contact transistor in 1947 was actually trying to make a JFET.) Circuit design has also grown with the new devices and applications of them. There is much new under the audio Sun, but sound waves, bits and bytes, and audio measurement were figured out before World War II. That war and the space race drove the technologies forward that could bring that understanding of audio to the practical devices we now enjoy, but don't confuse audio science with technology. Truthfully, it is appaling that some are still arguing the science here. It is akin to the Flat Earth Society. Most of its members dropped out after Sputnik, but some still cling to what they see in front of them. They see (or hear) what they see (hear), so that MUST be what's going on.

Quantum mechanics, relativity effects and the existence of tiny particles are also counterintuitive to us, but they accurately describe what is really happening. So do the nearly century old discoveries and developments that describe audio. So enough already. Sound Science is science and any debates about the truth of it were resolved long, long ago. If one wants to ponder a development that might actually matter, start a thread on PCM versus DSD. Which will ultimately yield a better implementation for our listening pleasure, thousands of multi bit words describing changes or millions of bits, each telling the recording engineer if the wave went up or down a really tiny amount? To simplify the issue, of course.
Edited by Clarkmc2 - 10/2/12 at 9:29pm
post #32 of 74
Thread Starter 
Wow! That made it all sound very complicated! My feeble brain got lost after the second paragraph, I'm afraid.
post #33 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Wow! That made it all sound very complicated! My feeble brain got lost after the second paragraph, I'm afraid.
Imagine how much worse it would have read if I were a drinker. Short version, I try to ignore all the "but" posts. As in, I know what the science of audio says, but...

What follows "but" might be worth answering to set something straight, but never worth reading.
post #34 of 74

I think a couple beers will help my understanding.

 

If it isn't, it has already made the CDs sound so much better.

post #35 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by autumnholy View Post

I think a couple beers will help my understanding.

If it isn't, it has already made the CDs sound so much better.
Now there is a great example of somethong that has a much greater effect than any questionable audio tweak. Also legal, available, social and cheap. Over on the site which can not be named there is a popular thread entitled What Are You Drinking This Time? Another is Anyone Else Drunk?
post #36 of 74

I read the voldemort blogpost too.

And one thing I noticed very clearly is that, I DID experience different emotional reaction when listening:

-to the same song

-from the same gear

-using the same playback method but;

 

-on different period of the day

-different emotional condition

-physical condition (eg. sweating, smelly, etc)

post #37 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by autumnholy View Post

I read the voldemort blogpost too.

And one thing I noticed very clearly is that, I DID experience different emotional reaction when listening:

-to the same song

-from the same gear

-using the same playback method but;

 

-on different period of the day

-different emotional condition

-physical condition (eg. sweating, smelly, etc)

 

Of course, the brain is the most important part in this whole equation. If music primarily engages the pleasure centers, or stimulates (replicates) emotional pathways, then the perception depends on the state of the brain at the given time.

Its been discussed here before, but our brain is powerful enough to give us placebo effects, it can project our expectation onto reality itself, creating the emotional response on its own, finding a stimulus and then experiencing that response.


Edited by proton007 - 10/2/12 at 10:00pm
post #38 of 74
Thread Starter 
This conversation is getting too steamy for me.
post #39 of 74

Hey guys, don't derail this thread, its a appreciation for the CD format, take the debate to the other threads in this sub-forum, we have plenty.

post #40 of 74
Well, I stuck up for Redbook as the best audio format so far, use CDs exclusively for music playback despite having a nice vinyl rig, and did my best to slay the naysaying dragons. Even gave a history lesson to give it all some academic cred. Why do I always have to cut to the short version? OK.

As a media to store and play back music, the Redbook compact disc developed by Phillips and Sony is unsurpassed. It has better fidelity than everything that came before and is equal to the long playing record in advancing the art. Because it took the world of music to digital it is to musical reproduction what Paul Cezanne was to painting, what Schoenberg was to music, what Brando was to acting. That is, the thing that went beyond and opened it all up. Cracked it wide open. Is that on track enough?
post #41 of 74

To get on track, yes its 30 years behind us, but is it relevant today?

 

Personally I'd say its as prevalent as vinyl. You won't find a lot of ppl buying cd players nowadays. Of those who buy CDs, a majority end up ripping them and then add the disks to the stack, never to be used again.


To be honest, what's so appealing about CDs that the music industry is so stuck up about?

Is it because they can justify the price they charge us for an album because its something we can hold and look at physically? IMO, yes.

 

You wouldn't be willing to pay the same price for an e-book as a normal paperback, would you? 

post #42 of 74

In my hometown, some CD stores are doing so bad that most have to close down, some merged with bookstores, audio stores and other semi-related stores, and well, for most of the time, we have to find CDs at other states (aside of the online transaction, which to me is quite difficult as I tried to steer myself away from credit cards).

 

Well, what does CDs mean to me? When I was young, it was pirated CDs looming over the street (it still is, just that nobody bothers now as most can easily download them via illegal passages). Pirated CDs ranging from movies, songs, and xxx are easily found in night markets. Well, I wasn't giving CDs much respect back then. Just perceive them as a lower quality than cinema (for the movie disks) and radio quality (for audio, which I believe now in retrospect they are putting in 64kbps tracks into the disks). Original CDs are classified as luxury goods.

 

Then, when I venture the hobby of listening to music (which I'd rather not name as audiophile), I started to appreciate more on CDs. I've heard about Vinyl, but that's one step too far and hard to maintain for a growing adult who haven't own the first house or car. There's of course easier way, the pirate world, but then, after some pondering, I guess it's fair to delete all of my illegal stuffs and focus on CDs. I justified it as this: If I do not have enough money for this hobby, I'd rather wait. It's not morally right to rip off others' work (too much of ethics, sorry head-fi's). Besides, I should focus on the entire CD at one time to fully appreciate what value the artist intended to deliver. I bought my own CD player, now collecting more CDs from my previous collections, and I feel better listening to them. It's not that I have heard better sound quality from CD players, which in fact, I can hardly discern at all from properly ripped FLAC. But then, I have found a peace of mind knowing that I am doing the right thing.

 

So much for the talk. That's my brief history with CDs. Some of us might not understand what I'm trying to convey, because we may be born from different background and society. I believe each and every of us have grown with CDs the different way, developing unique relationship with this wonderful media capable of delivering musical pleasure.

post #43 of 74

If only CD's came in huge wraps like vinyl :( bought quite a bunch of CDs though, good or not, having a physical disc/LP lets someone remember a song better in this digital world where everything goes in and out of fashion fast.

post #44 of 74

I still buy CD's whenever possible. Yeah I rip and put them away, but I like having a physical copy. the art that comes with, and knowing I can put it in any format I want if needed.

 

It sucks when it's impossible to find a CD of an album I love though, or at least not at a reasonable price. I can't find a copy of Farenheit Fair Enough by Telefon Tel Aviv for under $70 used... I'm usually willing to pay up to $10-15 extra to get a physical copy but damn...

post #45 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

I still buy CD's whenever possible. Yeah I rip and put them away, but I like having a physical copy. the art that comes with, and knowing I can put it in any format I want if needed.

 

It sucks when it's impossible to find a CD of an album I love though, or at least not at a reasonable price. I can't find a copy of Farenheit Fair Enough by Telefon Tel Aviv for under $70 used... I'm usually willing to pay up to $10-15 extra to get a physical copy but damn...

 

My thoughts exactly, love having a physical copy.

 

Luckily the old cds I buy for the collection are usually cheap, but some are definitely not (try finding a set of We're in this Together Now singles by NIN for < $300, grr)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 30 years of CDs