Hey guys. First off, I'm apologise for not posting much recently. I'm sure alot of you guys new here (last, what, six months or something?) don't know me, but the r3mix exiles here originally do. =) I'm going to spend alot more time online because I've got a website project of my own I'm working on and will soon unveil to the world. I'll announce it here because it may interest some of the HA readers, but thats another story.
I bought a "remaster" CD of an album I already had, and I thought I'd post what it said on the inside here, because to me, it was rather entertaining:
"Digitally remastered in 24-bit high resolution (2/3 speed mastering) using the original master tapes. Mastered by Rich Breen and Joey DeMaio. Dedicated to Brain Slagel, HAIL! Beware: It is quite possible this CD may cause your sound system to blow up. Let it die with honor. Fuck the World, Hail and Kill. -MANOWAR"
Now I'm sure you all know what CD this is... the "Silver Edition 24-bit remaster" release of the classic Manowar - Battle Hymns album. It even features a cool booklet with pictures of naked chicks and photographs of signs saying "Touch One Of These Guitars And We'll Rip Your Fucking Head Off!". Great early metal. What's also cool is that they played their first gig here in Ft. Lauderdale (about 20 minutes from me).
Now, I listened to this whole CD, and I think that it's not a HUGE improvement on my other non-remaster copies. However, it IS better. But that's not always the case with so-called "digital remasters".
I've often found that my original versions, or even my non-digital versions, sound better than some of these remasters! I can cite a few of these, right off the top of my head. Steve Miller remastered re-releases for example... While you get an improvement in the highs and the low bass, you seem to also get more noise and background hiss, and that totally ruins it for me!
Does anyone else agree that studio 24-bit remaster releases are not what they are always cracked up to be, and can even sound worse than the originals? And can we sue the bastards for this?!
Later...
Full Version: On "24-bit digital remasters" and remastering in g
hi,
Manowar rules! The Battle Hymns definitifly one of the best albums on this f... planet. I have the original version of it. Can't say anything about 24bit remastered versions because i haven't any albums in "both" versions. but Manowar rules!
best regards
Dezibel
--
Don't drink and Root!
Manowar rules! The Battle Hymns definitifly one of the best albums on this f... planet. I have the original version of it. Can't say anything about 24bit remastered versions because i haven't any albums in "both" versions. but Manowar rules!
best regards
Dezibel
--
Don't drink and Root!
its quite possible that post production work was done in 24-bit. once the cleaning and sequencing and mastering work is complete, studios tend to use a high quality dither and noise shaping algorithm (i.e. apogee VU22HR or waves IDR) to reduce the resolution to 16-bit, and from that they created a master disc. so in the end its a 16-bit product, not 24
>>>'Does anyone else agree that studio 24-bit remaster releases are not what they are always cracked up to be, and can even sound worse than the originals? '<<<
it is possible that the remaster can sound inferior to the original. remastering and restoring old recordings is a delicate work, and if its done in a sloppy manner it will sound shit
>>>'Does anyone else agree that studio 24-bit remaster releases are not what they are always cracked up to be, and can even sound worse than the originals? '<<<
it is possible that the remaster can sound inferior to the original. remastering and restoring old recordings is a delicate work, and if its done in a sloppy manner it will sound shit
QUOTE
Originally posted by TrNSZ
Now, I listened to this whole CD, and I think that it's not a HUGE improvement on my other non-remaster copies. However, it IS better. But that's not always the case with so-called \"digital remasters\".
I've often found that my original versions, or even my non-digital versions, sound better than some of these remasters! I can cite a few of these, right off the top of my head. Steve Miller remastered re-releases for example... While you get an improvement in the highs and the low bass, you seem to also get more noise and background hiss, and that totally ruins it for me!
Does anyone else agree that studio 24-bit remaster releases are not what they are always cracked up to be, and can even sound worse than the originals? And can we sue the bastards for this?!
Now, I listened to this whole CD, and I think that it's not a HUGE improvement on my other non-remaster copies. However, it IS better. But that's not always the case with so-called \"digital remasters\".
I've often found that my original versions, or even my non-digital versions, sound better than some of these remasters! I can cite a few of these, right off the top of my head. Steve Miller remastered re-releases for example... While you get an improvement in the highs and the low bass, you seem to also get more noise and background hiss, and that totally ruins it for me!
Does anyone else agree that studio 24-bit remaster releases are not what they are always cracked up to be, and can even sound worse than the originals? And can we sue the bastards for this?!
yup...
the world of digital music is strange....
the most thinkable reason behind the "remaster" qualety...
is the q.. of the media...
example... when the californiacation album was released in
scandinavia.. i got a pre-release from the distributor.
i did make some copyes of it.. with this config:
a teac 55s, discjuggler and ritek`s "noname" 80min.. cdr
resoult: exelent remaster.. (btw.. the mpegtv codec padus is
using.. is perfect for replica.1 to 1..)
a buddy made a few more copyes.. using a liteon, nero and
T.Y- discs.. poorly resoult..(compared with mine..)
i can name you more examples.. but i think you get the picture..
most of the record world.. is buying T.Y discs.. for duplication..
some are extremely high qualety.. some not
some companies even get pirated discs.
anyway.. with my copyes.. this is what happend..
1. the overall dynamic opend upp.. much more clearer sound..
ritcher to..
2. the mid frequency was fantastic...
3. the bass/lower freq. was boosted..
so choise of media are alfaNomega when qualety regards..
most of the"remastered" albums i have listened to..(in studio)
was exelent.. in downmix..
but bad media have ruined the listening pleasure
ps. MANOWAR still ROCKS......
QUOTE
Originally posted by n68
anyway.. with my copyes.. this is what happend..
1. the overall dynamic opend upp.. much more clearer sound..
ritcher to..
2. the mid frequency was fantastic...
3. the bass/lower freq. was boosted..
anyway.. with my copyes.. this is what happend..
1. the overall dynamic opend upp.. much more clearer sound..
ritcher to..
2. the mid frequency was fantastic...
3. the bass/lower freq. was boosted..
Let me get this straight, you are claiming that using "quality" cd-r's did this?
Umm....
QUOTE
Originally posted by Dibrom
Let me get this straight, you are claiming that using \"quality\" cd-r's did this?
I've seen people argue that by using high-quality CD-R's with lower error rates, or CD-R's with the black bottom, improve the sound by either reducing jitter or by keeping the laser light from refracting all over the place.
Let me get this straight, you are claiming that using \"quality\" cd-r's did this?
Whether these claims have any credibility whatsoever, I have no idea, but I doubt it. Would anyone with technical knowledge on the subject care to explain if and why these claims are false, or post a link to a site that does?
Remastering doesn't usually mean making a copy of a CD.
However, standalone CD players may perform better provided with a high quality medium. Block errors and jitter may cause significant loss of audio data, which the CD player tries to mask with varying success.
A quote from http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html.
I recall some tests about bad quality media playback were made. These tests showed attenuated and distorted high/low frequency band and several other effects. Sadly I can't seem to remember the address for this site.
When a CD is digitally extracted, preferably with EAC, and listened through HDD there should be no jitter errors or anything.
Remastering -- "Make CDs from the past sound like CDs of today". In other words, squeeze out dynamics and normalize to 106%. People enjoy clipping and 1.1 dB of dynamics
.
However, standalone CD players may perform better provided with a high quality medium. Block errors and jitter may cause significant loss of audio data, which the CD player tries to mask with varying success.
A quote from http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html.
QUOTE
Periodic fluctuations in the time base (#1 above) can cause spurious tones to appear at low levels, blocking our ability to hear critical ambient decay and thus truncating the dynamic range of the reproduction. Often this type of jitter is caused by clock leakage. It is analogous to scrape flutter in analog recorders.
I recall some tests about bad quality media playback were made. These tests showed attenuated and distorted high/low frequency band and several other effects. Sadly I can't seem to remember the address for this site.
When a CD is digitally extracted, preferably with EAC, and listened through HDD there should be no jitter errors or anything.
Remastering -- "Make CDs from the past sound like CDs of today". In other words, squeeze out dynamics and normalize to 106%. People enjoy clipping and 1.1 dB of dynamics
.
http://www.digido.com ,"jitter" article. Then have a look into the FAQ, where many points of the article are discussed.
Basics :
-Different CDR have a different sound, because of jitter.
-CD players can be more or less sensitive to the quality of the media. On a given player, two different CDR will be easily recognizeable, while being nearly indistinguishable with another player.
-Professional top of the art digital-to-analog converters should eliminate jitter and make all CDR sound equal to a pressed one in theory.
-How the jitter is transmitted from the CDR to the digital output, no one knows (it could be the servo-engine of the CD spoiling the power supply, so that the master clock becomes unstable), and unfortunately, the apparatus to measure all the jitter spectrum of an SPDIF output are out of reach for Joe Tester.
-Jitter is not cumulative. When the data pass through asynchronous devices, such as hard discs, the jitter is reset until the next clock (when the data is clocked in order to be burned on CDR). Therefore, as long as there is no data loss, it is possible to make a good sounding copy from a bad sounding one with a computer.
Basics :
-Different CDR have a different sound, because of jitter.
-CD players can be more or less sensitive to the quality of the media. On a given player, two different CDR will be easily recognizeable, while being nearly indistinguishable with another player.
-Professional top of the art digital-to-analog converters should eliminate jitter and make all CDR sound equal to a pressed one in theory.
-How the jitter is transmitted from the CDR to the digital output, no one knows (it could be the servo-engine of the CD spoiling the power supply, so that the master clock becomes unstable), and unfortunately, the apparatus to measure all the jitter spectrum of an SPDIF output are out of reach for Joe Tester.
-Jitter is not cumulative. When the data pass through asynchronous devices, such as hard discs, the jitter is reset until the next clock (when the data is clocked in order to be burned on CDR). Therefore, as long as there is no data loss, it is possible to make a good sounding copy from a bad sounding one with a computer.
I just purchased two remastered albums yesterday:
- Suck On This by Primus
- Frizzle Fry by Primus
I have the original, hard to find copies of both of these albums. The remastered copy of Frizzle Fry sounds very clean. A little better (to my ears anyway) than the original copy.
Suck On This has some major flaws throughout. In a few places the music just seems to skip for no reason. Other than the obvious flaws, it doesn't sound any different to me.
- Suck On This by Primus
- Frizzle Fry by Primus
I have the original, hard to find copies of both of these albums. The remastered copy of Frizzle Fry sounds very clean. A little better (to my ears anyway) than the original copy.
Suck On This has some major flaws throughout. In a few places the music just seems to skip for no reason. Other than the obvious flaws, it doesn't sound any different to me.
QUOTE
Originally posted by niktheblak
When a CD is digitally extracted, preferably with EAC, and listened through HDD there should be no jitter errors or anything
When a CD is digitally extracted, preferably with EAC, and listened through HDD there should be no jitter errors or anything
"Jitter errors" have nothing to do with jitter in a digital output. It's a mistracking causing a click during a digital extraction. It must not be mistaken for jitter.
"Anything" is another matter.
Jitter is the same thing as wow and flutter, but for a digital stream. In an SPDIF stream, the data must come evenly spaced in time. If a data comes a little late or a little early, it prevents the converter to work accurately.
On the hard disc, a wav file has no defined jitter, because the data is not clocked. We can't tell if the data is early or late until it's actually played.
Ripping a CD, there is no jitter either, because the data is ripped in bursts. It is neither late nor early since it's not expected to come on the hard disc at a given time.
But when you play the wav file, the soundcard clocks the data in order to send it to its converters or to the digital output.
Therefore one must not believe that a computer with a digital output is a jitter free source. In fact, the digital output has the jitter of the soundcard.
FWIW, In short listening tests, I found an SB live SPDIF output sounding inferior to the one of a standalone Yamaha CDX 860 player (450 €), and a Marian Marc 2's sounding superior (playing a wav extracted from the CD played by the Yamaha) (Sony DTC55ES as converter, AKG K400 headphones).
Led Zeppelin 1. The digital re-master generally sounds better except for "youre time is gonna come" which has unacceptable background hiss during the initial organ sequence.
Yellow Submarine by the Beatles on the other hand is awork of art, so I guess as always its in the skilll equipment and hearing of the sound engineer.:confused:
Yellow Submarine by the Beatles on the other hand is awork of art, so I guess as always its in the skilll equipment and hearing of the sound engineer.:confused:
Dire Straits - On Every Street. Original recording made in 1991, fully digital already, and sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. (It's for me the best recording I've ever heard.)
In 1996, a "Dire Straits Remastered" series was released, all albums "Remastered by Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering" using "Super BitMapping". Even the 1991 album, although fully digitally recorded already (like the one before, 1985), was remastered - with a not too good result. (Much more bass on most tracks, too much in fact - that's the only difference, and it totally destroys the sound.)
Does anybody know more about this Bob Ludwig character? I have got quite a few CDs that were mastered by him, and I have seen loads more.
In 1996, a "Dire Straits Remastered" series was released, all albums "Remastered by Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering" using "Super BitMapping". Even the 1991 album, although fully digitally recorded already (like the one before, 1985), was remastered - with a not too good result. (Much more bass on most tracks, too much in fact - that's the only difference, and it totally destroys the sound.)
Does anybody know more about this Bob Ludwig character? I have got quite a few CDs that were mastered by him, and I have seen loads more.
yup...
back to the issue of cd ® qualety...
get a atip reading from your cd-rom/writer..
ex: the cdr identifier by Gluckert/Wolf
Disc manufacturer
Dye type
media type
nominal capasity
usualy.. the higher(from 7. and upp..) dye typ. the better audio capabilities
lego------
back to the issue of cd ® qualety...
get a atip reading from your cd-rom/writer..
ex: the cdr identifier by Gluckert/Wolf
Disc manufacturer
Dye type
media type
nominal capasity
usualy.. the higher(from 7. and upp..) dye typ. the better audio capabilities
lego------
Thanks for the clarification, Pio2001!
My facts were not completely clear on the topic of jitter in playing vs. copying audio data. One always learns something new.
My facts were not completely clear on the topic of jitter in playing vs. copying audio data. One always learns something new
.
QUOTE
Originally posted by n68
example... when the californiacation album was released in
scandinavia.. i got a pre-release from the distributor.
example... when the californiacation album was released in
scandinavia.. i got a pre-release from the distributor.
Are you just referring to your CDR copies of it as 'remasters' or do you mean that there is actually a studio 24bit remaster of californication available? If the latter, could you give me some more info on it? I love this album, but thought it sounded kind of poorly mastered, so if theres a real remaster I would love to hear it.
QUOTE
Originally posted by kennedyb4
Yellow Submarine by the Beatles on the other hand is awork of art, so I guess as always its in the skilll equipment and hearing of the sound engineer.:confused:
Yellow Submarine by the Beatles on the other hand is awork of art, so I guess as always its in the skilll equipment and hearing of the sound engineer.:confused:
Keep in mind, the songs on the recent reissue of yellow submarine aren't just remasters, they're actually complete remixes. Not 'remix' in the sense of a techno-house-dance remix (heh) but actually redone the mixing (and mastering of course) phase of production - rebalanced levels and rearranged stereo placement... you can hear whole new instruments/parts that got lost in the mix on the originals, and the stereo images sound a lot more natural - the beatles were really into gimmicky stereo tricks, frequently putting certain instruments or vocals on only one channel or the other, with virtually no 'center channel'. The new mixes sound alot more modern.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Dibrom
Let me get this straight, you are claiming that using \"quality\" cd-r's did this?
Umm....
Let me get this straight, you are claiming that using \"quality\" cd-r's did this?
Umm....
That's amazing. I didn't realize a "1" or a "0" could be improved upon by using different media. So then, better CDR's would produce a more pronounced "1", and possibly a less than zero "0"
I'm with you......Ummmmmmmm......
-indybrett
QUOTE
from digido.com
[b]When I started in this business, I was skeptical that there could be sonic differences between CDs that demonstrably contained the same data. But over time, I have learned to hear the subtle (but important) sonic differences between jittery (and less jittery) CDs.
Okay, I'm convinced now. I doubt I'll ever hear a difference in my lifetime, but it's nice to know that there's one more thing I should probably worry about when trying to burn a music CD [b]When I started in this business, I was skeptical that there could be sonic differences between CDs that demonstrably contained the same data. But over time, I have learned to hear the subtle (but important) sonic differences between jittery (and less jittery) CDs.
OT: The Californication album sounds like utter crap. I like the music but the album is so clipped I can't listen to more than one song at a time. My Parallel Universe MPC got a Replaygain value of -14.22dB! The album gain is -12.97dB... it was a remarkable engineering feat to make the music even audible. This album needs a remaster, pronto.
yup...
you are quite right indybrett...
the binary string ain`t changing.. but the pulse modulation
differ in the block/sector size..
& yes randum.. a 24bit californiacation is out there on ftp..
ill try to look it upp...
you are quite right indybrett...
the binary string ain`t changing.. but the pulse modulation
differ in the block/sector size..
& yes randum.. a 24bit californiacation is out there on ftp..
ill try to look it upp...
QUOTE
Originally posted by n68
& yes randum.. a 24bit californiacation is out there on ftp..
ill try to look it upp...
& yes randum.. a 24bit californiacation is out there on ftp..
ill try to look it upp...
Oh cool... if you find it up somewhere, could you let me know where? I own a legal copy of the album, so I don't even think it would be illegal. I suppose the remaster would be technically considered a different product, but the mastering of the original falls into the category of 'defective product warranting free replacement' IMHO
"My Parallel Universe MPC got a Replaygain value of -14.22dB! The album gain is -12.97dB... it was a remarkable engineering feat to make the music even audible. This album needs a remaster, pronto."
How did you come up with this information, is it done automatically for you or do you have to manually toy with it until it sounds right? Thanks Jeff
How did you come up with this information, is it done automatically for you or do you have to manually toy with it until it sounds right? Thanks Jeff
get a atip reading from your cd-rom/writer..
ex: the cdr identifier by Gluckert/Wolf
Disc manufacturer
Dye type
media type
nominal capasity
usualy.. the higher(from 7. and upp..) dye typ. the better audio capabilities
lego------
_______________
sins.n68
Well, golly gee thanks to you we have a whole new topic in which to discuss. Now everyone can get that program and discuss the best cdr and rw to write to. I must admit I'm indeed curious to know which of the lesser expensive ones available are considered the best. Thanks Jeff
NOTE: The above message was sincere I just wanted to sound a slightly bit scarastic just for the fun of it.
ex: the cdr identifier by Gluckert/Wolf
Disc manufacturer
Dye type
media type
nominal capasity
usualy.. the higher(from 7. and upp..) dye typ. the better audio capabilities
lego------
_______________
sins.n68
Well, golly gee thanks to you we have a whole new topic in which to discuss. Now everyone can get that program and discuss the best cdr and rw to write to. I must admit I'm indeed curious to know which of the lesser expensive ones available are considered the best. Thanks Jeff
NOTE: The above message was sincere I just wanted to sound a slightly bit scarastic just for the fun of it.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Pio2001
On the hard disc, a wav file has no defined jitter, because the data is not clocked. We can't tell if the data is early or late until it's actually played.
Ripping a CD, there is no jitter either, because the data is ripped in bursts. It is neither late nor early since it's not expected to come on the hard disc at a given time.
But when you play the wav file, the soundcard clocks the data in order to send it to its converters or to the digital output.
Therefore one must not believe that a computer with a digital output is a jitter free source. In fact, the digital output has the jitter of the soundcard.
On the hard disc, a wav file has no defined jitter, because the data is not clocked. We can't tell if the data is early or late until it's actually played.
Ripping a CD, there is no jitter either, because the data is ripped in bursts. It is neither late nor early since it's not expected to come on the hard disc at a given time.
But when you play the wav file, the soundcard clocks the data in order to send it to its converters or to the digital output.
Therefore one must not believe that a computer with a digital output is a jitter free source. In fact, the digital output has the jitter of the soundcard.
All of these apply to a CD player too. The data read from the transport is not clocked. The data written on a CD is sort of "scrambled" and has to be "de-scrambled" and reclocked before played. Any jitter present on the output of a CD player comes from the internal clock feeding the DAC, the same as with a sound card.
Any jitter present in the media, as long as there are no data errors, should be totally removed in any decent CD player.
QUOTE
Originally posted by n68
the binary string ain`t changing.. but the pulse modulation
differ in the block/sector size..
the binary string ain`t changing.. but the pulse modulation
differ in the block/sector size..
????? What does that mean? There are no sectors in cd's, only 1 continuous data track.
QUOTE
Originally posted by jjarmak
\"My Parallel Universe MPC got a Replaygain value of -14.22dB! The album gain is -12.97dB... it was a remarkable engineering feat to make the music even audible. This album needs a remaster, pronto.\"
How did you come up with this information, is it done automatically for you or do you have to manually toy with it until it sounds right? Thanks Jeff
I just encoded the album with mppenc.exe (standard preset) and then ran Replaygain on the album. Those are the values it generated, which are by far the highest I've ever seen, even on the hyper-compressed pop tracks.
\"My Parallel Universe MPC got a Replaygain value of -14.22dB! The album gain is -12.97dB... it was a remarkable engineering feat to make the music even audible. This album needs a remaster, pronto.\"
How did you come up with this information, is it done automatically for you or do you have to manually toy with it until it sounds right? Thanks Jeff
Of course you can set the Replaygain value yourself to whatever you want, but that really defeats the purpose.
QUOTE
Originally posted by jjarmak
get a atip reading from your cd-rom/writer..
ex: the cdr identifier by Gluckert/Wolf
Disc manufacturer
Dye type
media type
nominal capasity
usualy.. the higher(from 7. and upp..) dye typ. the better audio capabilities
------
Well, golly gee thanks to you we have a whole new topic in which to discuss. Now everyone can get that program and discuss the best cdr and rw to write to. I must admit I'm indeed curious to know which of the lesser expensive ones available are considered the best. Thanks Jeff
This kind of stuff is usually discussed more in-depth on CD-recording forums. For more discussion on media quality, try going to the forums at www.cdrinfo.com, www.cdmediaworld.com or www.cdfreaks.com . Beware, there could be a lot of misinformation on these boards, so take everything with a grain of salt, especially anything regarding audio compression get a atip reading from your cd-rom/writer..
ex: the cdr identifier by Gluckert/Wolf
Disc manufacturer
Dye type
media type
nominal capasity
usualy.. the higher(from 7. and upp..) dye typ. the better audio capabilities
------
Well, golly gee thanks to you we have a whole new topic in which to discuss. Now everyone can get that program and discuss the best cdr and rw to write to. I must admit I'm indeed curious to know which of the lesser expensive ones available are considered the best. Thanks Jeff
At the risk of sounding stupid, can you send me the link for Replaygain? So I can toy with it. Thanks Jeff. Do you do it directory by directory or album by album? And, if you do it once and forgot you did it and run it again across the same directory does it come up with different each time?
QUOTE
Originally posted by jjarmak
At the risk of sounding stupid, can you send me the link for Replaygain?
At the risk of sounding stupid, can you send me the link for Replaygain?
ReplayGain for MPC format is included in package with decoder binary. You can always download latest Windows binaries from my site.
QUOTE
Do you do it directory by directory or album by album? And, if you do it once and forgot you did it and run it again across the same directory does it come up with different each time?
It can be applied for single file, list of files, to whole album or to single directories. Album autodetection currently requires files to be named with specific style, so it won't probably work on your collection. If you allow replaygain to calculate already replaygained files it should come up with same numbers. But that depends on the version of replaygain, MPC's replaygain calculations have been finetuned along the way, so older versions gave a bit different results.
A really OT answer here, but as soon as I saw the name Manowar I just had to reply
Dear TrNSZ I have to compliment you on your excellent taste in music and also for being a true Brother Of Metal. Also, check out the new Manowar album "Warriors of the world" available May 27th (that is if you haven't downloadd the whole damn thing already)
Hail And Kill from Greece
Dear TrNSZ I have to compliment you on your excellent taste in music and also for being a true Brother Of Metal. Also, check out the new Manowar album "Warriors of the world" available May 27th (that is if you haven't downloadd the whole damn thing already)
Hail And Kill from Greece
QUOTE
Originally posted by Volcano
Dire Straits - On Every Street. Original recording made in 1991, fully digital already, and sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. (It's for me the best recording I've ever heard.)
In 1996, a \"Dire Straits Remastered\" series was released, all albums \"Remastered by Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering\" using \"Super BitMapping\". Even the 1991 album, although fully digitally recorded already (like the one before, 1985), was remastered - with a not too good result. (Much more bass on most tracks, [b]too much in fact - that's the only difference, and it totally destroys the sound.)
Does anybody know more about this Bob Ludwig character? I have got quite a few CDs that were mastered by him, and I have seen loads more.
Dire Straits - On Every Street. Original recording made in 1991, fully digital already, and sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. (It's for me the best recording I've ever heard.)
In 1996, a \"Dire Straits Remastered\" series was released, all albums \"Remastered by Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering\" using \"Super BitMapping\". Even the 1991 album, although fully digitally recorded already (like the one before, 1985), was remastered - with a not too good result. (Much more bass on most tracks, [b]too much in fact - that's the only difference, and it totally destroys the sound.)
Does anybody know more about this Bob Ludwig character? I have got quite a few CDs that were mastered by him, and I have seen loads more.
i heard of him. i read a few articles about his work in pro audio magazines. from what i understand, he's very well known in the music industry. he owns gateway mastering studio, which is considered one of the most advanced mastering facilities in the world, and he does a lot of work for the major labels, a lot of pop music. the most recent CD i recall seeing his name on is "sarah brightman - classics"
28 replies! That's interesting for my first post in awhile. =) Thanks guys. I actually listen to all types of music, but, I agree, Manowar kicks ass. Battle Hymn is classic metal's "Freebird" after all. HAIL AND KILL! (Note: 1:07am, be back in a few minutes... beer run... 1:25am, back. This town is worthless, all the gas stations and 7-11's stop selling alcohol at midnight, or they stop selling at 2am but have no malt liquor. The prize was that the ghetto little Cumberland Farmstore right by my house sells 'till 5am and has malt liquor out the ass. I have my quart of ice-cold fresh OE800 and now I'm ready to post). 
OK. Does anyone have any suggestions or information on people who review CD's purely based on production and sound quality? I'm wishing there was a site like "Widescreen Review" for CD's, so I'll know if I'm buying something that's clipped to hell and has no dynamic range ahead of time.
Another thing I want to get into is the fact that CD's suck as a medium, not as a format. If you don't understand what I mean, you have to think about some of the cool stuff that happened when everything was released on vinyl. First thing that comes to mind is the "choose-your-own-adventure" vinyls, if anyone remembers those. Also popping into mind were special runoff grooves. I remember Pink Floyd LP's had this. Atom Heart Mother would play and then end with a repeating groove of the sound of dripping water. And what about backwards satanic messages?! =)
I have one question though, and I've always wondered if this was possible, especially since I've been reading all this crap about the vinyl remastering and recording thread. What about a fully digital turntable that uses some sort of optical or laser pickup unit to digitally read the grooves on the LP, making no physical contact with the record at all? I just thought it up today, and decided to look on the 'net, and found there IS one sold: http://www.elpj.com/ at the low cost of only $6,000 for the introductory model and $9,000 for the top-end unit. This company seems very confident of their technolgy, however. Their specs are good (20 ~ 20,000Hz frequency response, >25 db of channel seperation, approximately 60 db SNR ratio, <0.5% distortion and <0.07% wow/flutter). Hell, they say Stevie Wonder owns one. They state:
I think I'll do that! (Note: please don't all abuse this company, if I get my CD and the results are good, I might sell my motorcycle and buy one of these puppies!) I've already ordered my demo CD, BUT, the real question is... Does anyone think this could possibly be a DIY project? My mouth waters...
OK. Does anyone have any suggestions or information on people who review CD's purely based on production and sound quality? I'm wishing there was a site like "Widescreen Review" for CD's, so I'll know if I'm buying something that's clipped to hell and has no dynamic range ahead of time.
Another thing I want to get into is the fact that CD's suck as a medium, not as a format. If you don't understand what I mean, you have to think about some of the cool stuff that happened when everything was released on vinyl. First thing that comes to mind is the "choose-your-own-adventure" vinyls, if anyone remembers those. Also popping into mind were special runoff grooves. I remember Pink Floyd LP's had this. Atom Heart Mother would play and then end with a repeating groove of the sound of dripping water. And what about backwards satanic messages?! =)
I have one question though, and I've always wondered if this was possible, especially since I've been reading all this crap about the vinyl remastering and recording thread. What about a fully digital turntable that uses some sort of optical or laser pickup unit to digitally read the grooves on the LP, making no physical contact with the record at all? I just thought it up today, and decided to look on the 'net, and found there IS one sold: http://www.elpj.com/ at the low cost of only $6,000 for the introductory model and $9,000 for the top-end unit. This company seems very confident of their technolgy, however. Their specs are good (20 ~ 20,000Hz frequency response, >25 db of channel seperation, approximately 60 db SNR ratio, <0.5% distortion and <0.07% wow/flutter). Hell, they say Stevie Wonder owns one. They state:
QUOTE
We will transcribe your records to CD (max. 3 records) free of charge so you can further understand the advantages of the LT. If you send us your records, the cost of creating the CD is free. You only pay the shipping costs to send and receive your records.
I think I'll do that! (Note: please don't all abuse this company, if I get my CD and the results are good, I might sell my motorcycle and buy one of these puppies!) I've already ordered my demo CD, BUT, the real question is... Does anyone think this could possibly be a DIY project? My mouth waters...
About awesome recordings, my favorite studio recording must be "Roger Waters - The Pro's and Con's of Hitchhiking". The dynamic range and clarity of that release (or at least the release I own) is amazing to me, even more so than "On Every Street" which I also own. My favorite live recording always has been Dire Strait's "Alchemy", but it may soon be replaced by Iron Maiden's new "Rock In Rio", which is amazing in itself because it uses no studio overdubs or edits.. the only audio used were recorded live during that concert. There was even some controversy about this recording not actually being a real live recording because it sounded "too good to true":
Also, I recently bought the limited edition version of Venom's "comeback" CD, Cast In Stone, which has to be their worst album, but this version comes with a bonus CD of what I thought was remastered classic venom tunes. Turns out they weren't remastered by just re-recorded! Great stuff, worth my $10 after Best Buy employee discount, and I even got a free poster with it.
Once again on the subject of remasters, Venom was released 24-bit studio remasters of their first three albums, 'Welcome To Hell' - 1981, 'Black Metal' - 1982, and 'At War With Satan' - 1984, (which all had terrible production). Has anyone heard these new remastered releases. I'm not even sure if they are available in the USA commercially. Amazon.com lists them, they are the "IMPORT" versions. According to Amazon "UK remastered reissues". Suggestions!?!
Also, I've heard that there are 24-bit remastered rereleases of Beatles classics available as 320kbps MP3 files that are better than the quality of any available commercial CD release. Whats up with this stuff?!
-- TrNSZ
QUOTE
Let's get one thing straight. Bruce is NOT a liar. There are NO overdubs on this live album. While it was being remixed in New York by Kevin Shirley and myself, Bruce was in London to my knowledge, or wherever he was, hell, it's not an issue except to say that he couldn't overdub anything if he wasn't there! What HAS happened is that I made an executive decision to cut and paste with a computer to put back in, his LIVE on the night vocals into parts where where he was getting the audience to sing on some choruses on some lines on their own by holding the microphone out to the crowd and not singing into it. The reason I did this is because in the cold light of day it sounds better with him back in there because sometimes the audience were either out of time or not quite loud enough when heard from the stage mic. So I simply cut out parts of his vocal on the line before and pasted it into the next line which was possible because it was a repetitive part. I find it amazing that people would question this band's integrity and indeed go as far as accuse someone of being a liar. Supposed fans like that we don't want, as far as I'm concerned we're better off without people like that. If you don't like what I've done with the album, don't buy it. Simple!
Also, I recently bought the limited edition version of Venom's "comeback" CD, Cast In Stone, which has to be their worst album, but this version comes with a bonus CD of what I thought was remastered classic venom tunes. Turns out they weren't remastered by just re-recorded! Great stuff, worth my $10 after Best Buy employee discount, and I even got a free poster with it.
Once again on the subject of remasters, Venom was released 24-bit studio remasters of their first three albums, 'Welcome To Hell' - 1981, 'Black Metal' - 1982, and 'At War With Satan' - 1984, (which all had terrible production). Has anyone heard these new remastered releases. I'm not even sure if they are available in the USA commercially. Amazon.com lists them, they are the "IMPORT" versions. According to Amazon "UK remastered reissues". Suggestions!?!
Also, I've heard that there are 24-bit remastered rereleases of Beatles classics available as 320kbps MP3 files that are better than the quality of any available commercial CD release. Whats up with this stuff?!
-- TrNSZ
About the Laser Turntable,
Those are the new prices - they were drastically reduced after the company finally made a profit last year. Previously, the $9000 deck was $20,000!!
I have the demo CD. My impression (apart from the quality, which is excellent) is that dust is a huge problem. This is noted on the web site and in the brochure and on the CD. BUT (here's the big but) even when they've done their best to clean the LPs for this demo CD, you can still hear the occasional VERY ANNOYING click from a spec of dust. It's a bassy dull click (unlike the sharp click you get from a scratch) so it's harder to remove with a declicker.
Tell me what you think of the demo CD when you receive it. I don't know if it's personalised (I ticked the "classical" box, and don't have any pop music on my CD, so your disc may contain different tracks) but the choice of material on my CD is bizarre! After the commentary section, the first full demo track is a cheasy 1950s mono rendition of Stardust. There's some classical and jazz stuff - some of the records sound quite worn, while others sound like new. The last track (off an old Enoch Light hi-fi demo disc on the Command label - I know because I have several of these LPs) sounds like it's coming straight off a CD.
I've yet to decide what I think of this product. There was a demo last year in London which I couldn't attend, but next time there is a demo in the UK I will be there with a pile of records!
Cheers,
David.
P.S. if you are seriously going to audition it, I think it's worth putting it head to head with a conventional turntable costing the same amount. I think "even" a modern £1000 turntable is great, so it's got to sound amazing for £6000.
Those are the new prices - they were drastically reduced after the company finally made a profit last year. Previously, the $9000 deck was $20,000!!
I have the demo CD. My impression (apart from the quality, which is excellent) is that dust is a huge problem. This is noted on the web site and in the brochure and on the CD. BUT (here's the big but) even when they've done their best to clean the LPs for this demo CD, you can still hear the occasional VERY ANNOYING click from a spec of dust. It's a bassy dull click (unlike the sharp click you get from a scratch) so it's harder to remove with a declicker.
Tell me what you think of the demo CD when you receive it. I don't know if it's personalised (I ticked the "classical" box, and don't have any pop music on my CD, so your disc may contain different tracks) but the choice of material on my CD is bizarre! After the commentary section, the first full demo track is a cheasy 1950s mono rendition of Stardust. There's some classical and jazz stuff - some of the records sound quite worn, while others sound like new. The last track (off an old Enoch Light hi-fi demo disc on the Command label - I know because I have several of these LPs) sounds like it's coming straight off a CD.
I've yet to decide what I think of this product. There was a demo last year in London which I couldn't attend, but next time there is a demo in the UK I will be there with a pile of records!
Cheers,
David.
P.S. if you are seriously going to audition it, I think it's worth putting it head to head with a conventional turntable costing the same amount. I think "even" a modern £1000 turntable is great, so it's got to sound amazing for £6000.
QUOTE
Originally posted by outscape
In 1996, a \"Dire Straits Remastered\" series was released, all albums \"Remastered by Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering\" using \"Super BitMapping\". Even the 1991 album, although fully digitally recorded already (like the one before, 1985), was remastered - with a not too good result. (Much more bass on most tracks, too much in fact - that's the only difference, and it totally destroys the sound.)
In 1996, a \"Dire Straits Remastered\" series was released, all albums \"Remastered by Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering\" using \"Super BitMapping\". Even the 1991 album, although fully digitally recorded already (like the one before, 1985), was remastered - with a not too good result. (Much more bass on most tracks, too much in fact - that's the only difference, and it totally destroys the sound.)
I have seen a thread commenting on the On Every Street remaster and the original. One guy was saying that the remaster sounded worse, too much bass etc. He then compared the two on a decent high end system and changed his mind! I have no idea where I read this thread from, sorry.
I have the original and remaster Brothers In Arms album. I think the original was one of the first digital recordings released - around 1985. I've always been unhappy with this original, the remaster very nice.
I'm trying the track down the Money For Nothing remaster to complete my collection. Its now been deleted as Sultans of Swing as replaced it. Does anyone know where I can get hold of Money For Nothing in the UK?
QUOTE
Originally posted by sam
I have seen a thread commenting on the On Every Street remaster and the original. One guy was saying that the remaster sounded worse, too much bass etc. He then compared the two on a decent high end system and changed his mind! I have no idea where I read this thread from, sorry.
I have seen a thread commenting on the On Every Street remaster and the original. One guy was saying that the remaster sounded worse, too much bass etc. He then compared the two on a decent high end system and changed his mind! I have no idea where I read this thread from, sorry.
Hehe, that was me, too (Volcano btw, not outscape
). It was off topic in some thread where Beatles, The Famous Recording Engineer , started to talk about recordings and remasters etc. and I just threw that in.
Anyway, when I listened on that high end system, I didn't have the original master as a comparison (had to bring it back to the library), so I shouldn't have made that judgement in the first place. My first impression was the right one after all.
But I badly want to buy a legal copy of the original master. Does anybody know where I can get it? In Germany's high street stores, they have only the remastered versions (same in the UK, I looked in HMV, Virgin and WHS not long ago). I think Amazon might be a possibility, because they mention Sep 1991 as the release date and, on a different Dire Straits album, make a distinction between original and remaster.
QUOTE
I have the original and remaster Brothers In Arms album. I think the original was one of the first digital recordings released - around 1985. I've always been unhappy with this original, the remaster very nice.
I have the remastered version and once (briefly) had the original from a public library - I just can't remember what the original sounded like to me.
On Frank's page about clipped CDs, there are graphs for both the original and the remaster of this album.
From what I understand (not much
), it seems that the more "even" the curve is and the more it looks like y=x, the better the quality is (= the less clippings there are), which would make the 1985 original better in that regard. But that's just a guess, I really have no clue what those graphs mean, I'm not advanced enough to understand the explanations Frank gives.
outscape: Thanks for the link
CU
Dominic
QUOTE
Originally posted by Volcano
I have the remastered version and once (briefly) had the original from a public library - I just can't remember what the original sounded like to me.
On Frank's page about clipped CDs, there are graphs for both the original and the remaster of this album.
From what I understand (not much), it seems that the more \"even\" the curve is and the more it looks like y=x, the better the quality is (= the less clippings there are), which would make the 1985 original better in that regard. But that's just a guess, I really have no clue what those graphs mean, I'm not advanced enough to understand the explanations Frank gives.
I have the remastered version and once (briefly) had the original from a public library - I just can't remember what the original sounded like to me.
On Frank's page about clipped CDs, there are graphs for both the original and the remaster of this album.
From what I understand (not much
), it seems that the more \"even\" the curve is and the more it looks like y=x, the better the quality is (= the less clippings there are), which would make the 1985 original better in that regard. But that's just a guess, I really have no clue what those graphs mean, I'm not advanced enough to understand the explanations Frank gives.
The two graphs of the original and remaster Brothers In Arms are certainly interesting. From what I can figure from the graphs without actually reading much on the page is that the remaster clips a bit at around the 4 sigma mark --> 99.996833% of samples (correct term?) are not clipping. The original however, seems very conservative in the range of volumes used against sigma. I take this to mean that most of the music is quite quiet. It feels to me from listening that the dynamic range on average of the original is quite small. The graph tells me the same - over 99.999660% of the samples only use about two thirds of the volume range.
So I guess a flat line y~x/2 or a steep line y~2x represents low dynamic range, all quiet or all loud. A nice y~x line gives a good spread over volumes and a high dynamic range
Would the clipping of the remaster be just due to the drums? Does clipping due to percussion hits really matter?
Edit: After reading Klemm's page it seems my straight line approximations aren't too smart
But I think I know what I mean
QUOTE
Originally posted by KikeG
All of these apply to a CD player too. The data read from the transport is not clocked. The data written on a CD is sort of \"scrambled\" and has to be \"de-scrambled\" and reclocked before played. Any jitter present on the output of a CD player comes from the internal clock feeding the DAC, the same as with a sound card.
Any jitter present in the media, as long as there are no data errors, should be totally removed in any decent CD player.
All of these apply to a CD player too. The data read from the transport is not clocked. The data written on a CD is sort of \"scrambled\" and has to be \"de-scrambled\" and reclocked before played. Any jitter present on the output of a CD player comes from the internal clock feeding the DAC, the same as with a sound card.
Any jitter present in the media, as long as there are no data errors, should be totally removed in any decent CD player.
That's perfectly true.
Here's what Bob Katz has to say (http://www.digido.com/jitterletters.html#anchor5822151)
QUOTE
The CD differs from other storage media in many ways, but the critical point is that the timing of the output clock and the speed of the spinning disc are related. The output of the CD player is a clocked interface, and the data are clocked off the CD disc in a \"linear\" fashion, one block of data after another. A buffer is used, which theoretically cleans up the timing to make it regular again. And for the most part, it does.
A lot of this is theory... no one has proved it as fact. And there may be more than one mechanism causing jitter taking place.
To obtain jitter in the low picosecond region requires extremely accurate timing. Any leakage current (interference) between the servo mechanism controlling the speed of the spinning disc and the crystal oscillator controlling the output of the buffer may unstabilize the crystal oscillator enough to add jitter to the clock signal. This does not change the data, by the way. If the servo is working harder to deal with a disc that has irregularly spaced pits or pits that are not clean, perhaps leakage from the servo power affects the crystal oscillator. It doesn't take much interference to alter a clock by a tiny amount.
This jitter is \"ephemeral\", though, because you can copy this data (irrelevant to the clock), and then play it back again from a more steady medium... and make it sound \"good\" again. This is not a permanent problem.
What makes the CD different from a hard disc, is the HD uses an asynchronous interface (SCSI or IDE). The disc is always spinning at the same high speed and the heads land on the spot you need when the data is requested. The data coming out is completely unclocked (it comes out in bursts) and has to pass through the SCSI barrier into a buffer located in a different chassis than the hard disc (the computer)... thus, there is great distance between the varying currents of the spinning disc motor and the oscillator driving the output of the buffer in the computer chassis. Since the computer chassis power supply only has to power the output oscillator, the result can be much more stable. Depends on how good the designer did his/her homework. Same for a CD Player... there are audiophile CD players where great attention has been made to power supply design, and these players exhibit much less jitter and better sound.
It is also possible to build a CD player based on a SCSI mechanism... possibly such a player would be more stable in playback than a standard CD player. You would have a computer in its own \"cleaner\" environment buffering the data. The Alesis Masterlink is such a player, and in another \"chapter\" of my work in progress I will have something to say about its audible performance.
QUOTE
Pit and land jitter on the CD may or may not be the cause of the differences we are hearing. Some other mechanism on the CD (size of pits, not necessarily the spacing of pits) may be causing the servo mechanism in the player to be more jittery. It is definitely not data errors. Research has shown that these CDs which we claim to sound different have identical data. But part of the problem may be due to error correction, with the error correction system causing problems, again by power supply coupling. Very far-fetched argument, yet to be proved. Same with the servo mechanism leaking into the power supply for the output crystal...engineers have found a 25 cent power-supply bypass capacitor in the digital section to do wonders on the audio quality, so this is pointing to the reasons.
And to complicate the matter, the analyzers which look at pit and land jitter on CDRs generally do not look at its frequency distribution. For example, 10 picoseconds of peak to peak jitter with a central peak at 3 Khz is likely more audible than 500 picoseconds of random (uncorrelated) RMS jitter.
It takes far more sophisticated equipment to make the second measurement. I've had a plant analyzer show the reverse result, RMS jitter was higher in the CD that played back with apparently lower jitter. That is, if pit and land jitter on the CDR is even the root cause of the sonic differences we are hearing. When we hear a CD that has a wider soundstage, greater apparent low level resolution, and other audible differences, we assume that is caused by jitter differences on the CDR itself. But this is only a very unscientific hypothesis. And no standards as yet have been developed that correlate measured jitter against listening differences.
I think it was written in 1996.
Back in the mid 90s, my local store sold two products that could improve the sound of a CD.
The first was a green pen. You were supposed to paint the edge of the CD green and the entire CD tray too.
The second was a kind of clear wax to be applied to the bottom side of the CD.
Most people claimed these products were fraud, but blind tests revealed otherwise.
Certain old / lower quality players simply cannot read correctly. By applying the green paint and wax, you helped the laser read better and thus better sound.
So using different CD-R medias may indeed produce different sound on certain players.
The first was a green pen. You were supposed to paint the edge of the CD green and the entire CD tray too.
The second was a kind of clear wax to be applied to the bottom side of the CD.
Most people claimed these products were fraud, but blind tests revealed otherwise.
Certain old / lower quality players simply cannot read correctly. By applying the green paint and wax, you helped the laser read better and thus better sound.
So using different CD-R medias may indeed produce different sound on certain players.
hahaha, thanks, I needed a chuckle
This is a joke right?? Please tell me it is.
To tell you the truth, it seems to be serious and verified (Although I found no scientific proofs claim)
Marketing the pen:
http://www.hifisa.co.za/POST/reviews/greenpen.htm
This guy criticized it a lot, but gave no proof whatsoever why doesn't it works - he just said he could sense no difference in before and after when he tested.
http://twcny.rr.com/technofile/texts/greenink86.html
A theory on why it improves the sound:
http://www.msen.com/~lwp/green.pen.html
Regards;
Roberto.
Marketing the pen:
http://www.hifisa.co.za/POST/reviews/greenpen.htm
This guy criticized it a lot, but gave no proof whatsoever why doesn't it works - he just said he could sense no difference in before and after when he tested.
http://twcny.rr.com/technofile/texts/greenink86.html
A theory on why it improves the sound:
http://www.msen.com/~lwp/green.pen.html
Regards;
Roberto.
On the site that actually markets the pen, they refer to a listening test in which David Lee Roth sings in harmony with others.
There is no amount of marker in the world that can make DLR sing in harmony.
Now I'm even more skeptical...
There is no amount of marker in the world that can make DLR sing in harmony.
Now I'm even more skeptical...
I can't believe anyone even gives any of these theories any respect at all. People discussing the quality of differing CDR brands/dyes etc also need to check their heads. Very good bet that any possible differences in CDR quality would only be noticed on cheap players that don't "securely" read the disc similar to EAC, and pretty much any high-end CD player utilizes the error correction data while reading. People spouting off about lasers bouncing around and reverberating and consequently adding reverberation to the sound need to get a clue, as it just isn't possible, if only because the speed of light and the speed of sound aren't even remotely similar. And quite obviously that isn't the only reason it isn't happening. Any decent player is going to be using the error correction data on the CD to ensure that the data is being read properly, plain and simple. Painting them up with a pen isn't going to make a single solitary bit of difference. Now, a Bedazzler, that's another story. It amazes me how people with such a great deal of audio and other knowledge can fall for this stuff.
Fire up EAC, rip a track. Save it as nogreen.wav and then get out your green pen. Ink it up all nice and thick-like. Wait 37 days or however long it takes for this ink to supposedly dry. Rip the track again. Compare your green.wav and nogreen.wav and guess what? Heh.
Fire up EAC, rip a track. Save it as nogreen.wav and then get out your green pen. Ink it up all nice and thick-like. Wait 37 days or however long it takes for this ink to supposedly dry. Rip the track again. Compare your green.wav and nogreen.wav and guess what? Heh.
I agree with the "naysayers." CD's are a digital medium, and anyone who understands even a little about digital, and how data is stored on CD's would have to find this utterly absurd nonsense.
As someone else stated (but I think on a different subject), is a green pen going to make the 1's more "one-ish" and the zeros less assertive?
As someone else stated (but I think on a different subject), is a green pen going to make the 1's more "one-ish" and the zeros less assertive?
What can say?????
LOL!!!!!!
Hmm its like someone asking a question, on copying files from on computer to another and saying do I lose quality like I do taping tv shows? Digital is digital the only way it can corrupt is in the actual medium is slight defective or the transport of the data is incomplete etc.. you guys know what I mean
Cheers
AgentMil
LOL!!!!!!
Hmm its like someone asking a question, on copying files from on computer to another and saying do I lose quality like I do taping tv shows? Digital is digital the only way it can corrupt is in the actual medium is slight defective or the transport of the data is incomplete etc.. you guys know what I mean
Cheers
AgentMil
Green paint absorbs rays that shouldn't be there.
The vax makes the disc easier to read, removes scratches.
Sorbothane/rubber under the player removes vibrations.
Etc.
Here is a list of players and my experiences with them:
Denon DCD-580 - 1993 - $225 - Major effect
Denon DCD-695 - 1994 - $247 - Major effect
Denon DCD-980 - 1994 - $352 - Noticeable effect
Denon DCD-1290 - 1994 - $411 - Minor effect
Denon DCD-1060 - 1998 - $471 - No effect
Sony XA-20ES - 1998 - $529 - No effect
So it is pretty obvious - certain players use crappy components.
The vax makes the disc easier to read, removes scratches.
Sorbothane/rubber under the player removes vibrations.
Etc.
Here is a list of players and my experiences with them:
Denon DCD-580 - 1993 - $225 - Major effect
Denon DCD-695 - 1994 - $247 - Major effect
Denon DCD-980 - 1994 - $352 - Noticeable effect
Denon DCD-1290 - 1994 - $411 - Minor effect
Denon DCD-1060 - 1998 - $471 - No effect
Sony XA-20ES - 1998 - $529 - No effect
So it is pretty obvious - certain players use crappy components.
What exactly do you mean, "rays that shouldn't be there?" The laser reflects off the pits and bounces back, error correction is utilized, and a perfect digital stream is reproduced.
In cases where the error correction fails, there will be clicks, skips or other obvious problems -- NOT "different sound quality." That's not the way digital works, it's not analog like vinyl, and a coating of something won't change anything. Especially, it wouldn't make a general improvement in sound quality. If it had any effect at all, it would cut down on digital-type errors like clicks or pops.
Nothing can make a generalized "improvement" in a digital bitstream that sounds more pleasing to the ears, it just doesn't make any sense at all -- the bits/bytes aren't music until they go through a D/A converter!! Please, someone correct me if I'm missing something... I feel I understand digital after 18 years of using computers.
Anyway, I assume as a matter of course, that you've used ABX (or similar double-blind methodology) to determine your conclusions... right Annuka? What were the results, other than "major effect" or "minor effect?"
In cases where the error correction fails, there will be clicks, skips or other obvious problems -- NOT "different sound quality." That's not the way digital works, it's not analog like vinyl, and a coating of something won't change anything. Especially, it wouldn't make a general improvement in sound quality. If it had any effect at all, it would cut down on digital-type errors like clicks or pops.
Nothing can make a generalized "improvement" in a digital bitstream that sounds more pleasing to the ears, it just doesn't make any sense at all -- the bits/bytes aren't music until they go through a D/A converter!! Please, someone correct me if I'm missing something... I feel I understand digital after 18 years of using computers.
Anyway, I assume as a matter of course, that you've used ABX (or similar double-blind methodology) to determine your conclusions... right Annuka? What were the results, other than "major effect" or "minor effect?"
fewtch,
Your understanding of digital transmission is probably correct.
The problem here, is that the player/laser is of such low quality, that is simply cannot read the cd correctly. The green light are supposed to absorb reflected rays and the was supposed to avoid reflections from scratches.
Naturally the results were "abx"ed (blind tests performed).
The green paint proviedes firmer bass and the vax more resolution in treble. I was not the only test person. We were up to 6 people testing -- all arrived at same conclusion.
But note that the drives in question were sold several years ago. Laser technology has improved much since. My first cd-rom drive could only read at 2X.
Your understanding of digital transmission is probably correct.
The problem here, is that the player/laser is of such low quality, that is simply cannot read the cd correctly. The green light are supposed to absorb reflected rays and the was supposed to avoid reflections from scratches.
Naturally the results were "abx"ed (blind tests performed).
The green paint proviedes firmer bass and the vax more resolution in treble. I was not the only test person. We were up to 6 people testing -- all arrived at same conclusion.
But note that the drives in question were sold several years ago. Laser technology has improved much since. My first cd-rom drive could only read at 2X.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Annuka
The green paint proviedes firmer bass and the vax more resolution in treble.
The green paint proviedes firmer bass and the vax more resolution in treble.
It just doesn't seem possible... but I won't debate your conclusions, what's the point? Bees aren't supposed to be able to fly, either
.
QUOTE
Originally posted by fewtch
It just doesn't seem possible... but I won't debate your conclusions, what's the point? Bees aren't supposed to be able to fly, either.
It just doesn't seem possible... but I won't debate your conclusions, what's the point? Bees aren't supposed to be able to fly, either
. Anything is possible with low quality components.
Some people claim that digital coax cables sound better than optical cables. They naturally have blind tests to prove it. I think it points to low quality optical circuts.
QUOTE
I think it points to low quality optical circuts.
You'd be surprised, in general, how different average CD players are from "good quality". Even quite expensive ones.
1s are 1s, and 0s are 0s; but the most bizarre things can affect the sound of CD players.
Take the error correction, for example. That's like a small primitive computer in there. Now, on your PC, if you have a very poor sound card, can you hear the sound of your PC's processor? of course you can! Likewise, when the error correction is doing something, it can affect the sound. Not because the 1s are any more or less 1s, but because it's all running off the same power supply (usually), and the audio and data circuits can interfere with each other.
"Well, they should use a better power supply", "well, they should design the thing better". OK - reality check - the perfect power supply, that will give absolutely zero interference between circuits will have 0 (zero!) internal resistance, as will the wires running from the power supply to the circuit boards. Last time I checked, super conductors with 0 resistance didn't work at room temperature - they needed cooling. So it's not going to happen.
Do you see? Just because the data is digital, it has to make it into our analogue world. And like it or not, you have to use real circuitry with real imperfections. Nothing is perfect!
That's why things that really shouldn't make a difference to the sound apparently can.
Or maybe people just like to delude themselves! ;-)
Cheers,
David.
http://www.David.Robinson.org/
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.