You never read it, right? In this resource Digital Problems, Practical Solutions | it is clearly explained why there are no such things as "stairsteps". Just read the sections about Quantization and the section about Dither. Best regards
So I took my folks to the casino today and sat on the lobby and spent 2 hours reading this thread. It's threads like yours that make me love this place - interesting content and great conversations . As far as this topic goes, I've only recently purchased a couple of DAC's and a SACD player and only recently started using JRiver for my media management That said, i believe I can hear a difference in some "hi def" mefia. However, for some recordings I like the sound of a used LP on my TT better than the digial version. For me, it's a YMMV deal and that's one of the things I enjoy about the hobby - listening across formats to discover nuances in great music. Yes, I spend $$$ on multiple versions of the same recording but for me it's with it. Hell, now I'm done with alimony I've got to spend my money somehow lol
They knew how to do other forms of processing, but the datastreams tended to be much larger. One of the big limitations of early digital was how to record all of that data. 16-bit/44kHz was the limit of what you could record on the VCRs of the time (U-matic, Betamax), and since VCRs were much less expensive than dedicated data recorders or custom decks (like the one used by 3M for their console), they made digital audio a lot more practical. Some of it was political. Philips had 14-bit chips ready to go and pushed for it to be a 14-bit format. Sony was ready with 16-bit chips, and they pushed for 16-bit since it gave them a competitive advantage. They could also fairly argue it was a higher-fidelity format with greater dynamic range. Also keep in mind that early chips suffered from poor low-level linearity compared to today's A/D and D/A converters - going with 16-bit pushed a bunch of the issues caused by that down to where it was pretty much inaudible.
The other reason I dislike those old Telarc recordings is because they were recorded using Soundstream digital recording equipment. Soundstream recorded at a sampling rate of 50kHz and at 16 bits. The 50 kHz needed to be resampled to 44.1 kHz to put on CD. Telarc later released those Soundstream recordings on SACD. SACD has a higher sampling rate that CD. So those Soundstream recordings needed to be upsampled and converted to DSD. The SACD versions of those old Telarc recordings sound better than the old CDs, but I still don't like them. The very first CD I purchased was Telarc's first recording of the 1812 Overture.
Excuse me? No? The article you provided a link for supports me. Did you read the article? Here's one of the things it states: "According to Philips' web site with the 'official' story: 'The playtime was determined posthumously by Beethoven'. The wife of Sony vice-president, Norio Ohga, decided that she wanted the composer's Ninth Symphony to fit on a CD." Thank you for the link to the article!
I always marvel at the prices of early Japanese CDs (3,200, 3,500, 3,800 Yen, etc.) and the fact you can find them for a few Pounds. My Darkness on the Edge of Town (32DP 351) was just 99p.
That's not so much an issue. The old digital recordings made especially for CD (after the Soundstream), were recorded onto digital multitrack open reel tape. They've been mixed on analog mixing desk, then recorded on digital stereo tape. So, at the mixing stage, the sound went throud on DA-AD conversion stage. Editing was possible by mechanical cutting and splicing the digital open reel tape. The error correction would take care for the splice to go without signal loss. Even, when the music was recorded originally at 44.1kHz (CD sampling rate), it nevertheless usually went at least through one DA-AD stage during mixing. Full digital mixing was possible only some years later. The sampling rate conversion from Soundstream's 50kHz to CD's 44.1kHz very likely was done through an analog stage, i.e. DA-AD combo. There were really "crude" things done to the precious digital audio data in these days. But it sounds great, though. Different sounding SACD and CD releases of the digital Soundstream recordings may originate by... * not matured digital audio technology during the very early days of CD, when those recordings were issued on CD * matured technology today, when those recordings were prepaired and mastered for release (on SACD) * deliberate sound manipulations - either then for the CD release or now for the SACD release, or for both but different - according to different sound preferences, then and now. That's nothing new: I have different editions of one LP album title which sound quite different on different editions: The laquer (the "wax") was cut with totally different sound preferences of the mastering engineers (or whoever was responsible for the sound). Another even later edition cut or mastered with better technology (DMM direct to metal mastering) mimicks the sound of the first "wax cut". So, sound is not specific to a mastering technology, but depending on deliberate sound manipulations. I am convinced that properly mastered 16bit CDs can blow away any hi-rez format that is mastered in a just mediocre fashion. If both format are mastered the same way, it would be a tie. I have some hi-rez discs, because I liked the surround mixes which were released on these discs. They also include the standard stereo mix, albeit mastered to "high resolution advanced audio" formats. I know by rationality, that such claim is stupid. Any sound enhancement, if there is any, is solely due to different mix and/or mastering, not due to the "hi-rez" format itself of the disc. But sometimes, I just like to play these "advanced resolution" tracks and pretend I am listening to something special. Just for the fun of it. Some other days, I play some favourite albums from vinyl, with all the background noise and occasional crackles. Also, for the fun of it, and pretend, I listen to something special. (However, sometimes a certain mix or mastering was available only in vinyl...) However, for most albums, even the digitally remastered CDs from the dollar bin sound better than the old vinyl... Best regards
Yes, that's the "official" story. Which, according to the cited article http://www.turing-machines.com/pdf/hero.pdf was just a marketing hoax. The real real reason, according to the cited nadl inked article, for the diameter of the CD of 12 cm was, that Philips/PolyGram already had a plant up and running for 11,5 cm discs, but Sony/CBS had not even one plant for CDs. That's why Sony insisted on 12 cm diameter, to defeat Philips/PolyGram's advantage of a running CD plant. When 12cm diameter went as the standard for CDs, also PolyGram Hanover had to re-adjust or to rebuild their equipment. Just like Sony. Best regards
I think, there were some very clever moves or ideas of Sony. The one clever move was to insist on 16 bit resolution, not on just 14 bit as Philips proposed. (Story is, as Sony insisted on 16 bit, some engineers at Philips were concerned, because they had just 14 Bit DA converters. They would be technologically behind Sony. On engineer at Philips said, "don't worry. I know a little trick that can turn a 14bit converter into 16 bits resolution." The trick was oversampling.) With 16 bits resolution, the CD captures about the human range of hearing (dynamics-wise). The other clever move of Sony was, to insist on a sophisticated error-correction mechanism and algorithm, which required then large and expensive RAM (computer memory chips). Philips didn't like that idea, because the required RAM chips would cost a significant amount of money, adding all up onto the price of manufacture of CD players. But, Sony expected the price of RAM memory to drop considerably during the next years. And they were right. So, what we got was an audio format which still today is not obsolete or surpassed. If we consider two-channel stereo only. Surround-sound formats may give even better feel of realistic sound reproduction. Best regards
For me early philips cd players with TDA 1541 /1543 DAC's sounded better than early Sony players..Although in the 90's Sony's 1-bit pulse DAC's were superb.
That's also very clever marketing, isn't it? Both companies, Philips and Sony, agreed on a standard both could not fully and in perfection fullfil or supply at the moment of introducing the CD system. Philips did not have the 16bit DAC, Sony had a 16bit DAC, but maybe in their very first CD players, they had just one DAC for both stereo channels, maybe for reasons of cost of manufacturing, or for reasons of limited supplies from the chip factory. They converted stereo by a switching scheme: The left sample was converted by the one and only DAC in the player, and by analog switch, output to the left stereo channel, then the next sample, the sample for the right channel, was converted and by means of the analog switch, output to the right channel. And so on and so forth. The 16 bit converter had to run not at 44.1kHz, but at twice the rate, because it was doing both stereo channels, at 88.2 kHz. Also, the reconstuction filters then maybe were mainly realized in the analog domain. That means, the reconstructions filters were not as good as today, maybe with more tolerances, because of electronic components. Later on, the technology of Philips and Sony converged, Philips came up with 16bit converters, Sony employed oversampling. In the 90's, I could never really complain about any contemporary DA-conversion technology. Somehow, it reached a level of mature and perfection, where really audible improvements hardly could be done. That was about the time, the game got boring... the only thing left to do, was listening to music. Best regards
Yes, I read the article, did you? As Tim points out, if you had continued your quotation it goes on to say: Everyday practice is less romantic than the pen of a public relations guru. At that time, Philips’ subsidiary Polygram—one of the world’s largest distributors of music—had set up a CD disc plant in Hanover, Germany, that could produce large quantities of CDs with, of course, a diameter of 115 mm. Sony did not have such a facility yet. So if Sony had agreed on the 115-mm disc, Philips would have had a significant competitive edge in the music market. Ohga was aware of that and did not like it, and something had to be done. It was not really about Ohga’s great passion for music but the money and competition in the market of the two partners. I was lucky enough to work with Immink at the Natlab in Eindhoven, and, as one of the key designers of the Compact Disc format, you should take his word over the mythology: Kees Schouhamer Immink - Wikipedia Norio Ohga, who I demonstrated SACD to, studied to be an opera singer, and regularly conducted orchestras around the world. His love of music is well-known, but the shift in disc sizes was a business decision.
That's cool, thanks. The diameter of the disc wasn't so important aside from the amount of data it could hold. If a disc was smaller than 12 cm, no problem. Remember the mini CD3? They tried to make the format a single like a 45, but mostly was abandoned in favor of the CD5. You can still buy 3" CD-R's. As long as you have an adapter or your CD drive has a 3" well, no problems. There were also the "shaped" discs based on the CD5 but with a data area about the same as the CD3. Philips could have stayed with it's 11.5 cm disc without a problem as long as they used the 16 bit standard. When the CD was introduced to the U.S., many of the discs were made by Philips . Most of the early CD's I have were made in West Germany or Japan, because the U.S. didn't have CD manufacturers yet.
Polygram is now part of the Universal Music Group, now known as UMe. With the addition of EMI, I'd say that UMe is now the largest music group. With the merger of Sony/BMG, they are big too, but not as big. About the only large independent left is WEA. Anyway, Philips DID get a jumpstart over Sony. I'd say that most of the CD's I bought and were available in the mid-80's were manufactured by Philips. The most common hardware was made by Sony, which I've always used. Maybe their first commonality, CBS group and RCA CD's came from Sony in Japan. Philips is still around in the electronics industry. From the start, all U.S. jukebox manufacturers, outside of Seeburg, used and still use CD drives made by Philips. Sadly, Seeburg chose the Sony 60 CD changer to integrate into it's jukeboxes and new replacements parts are not available.
Yes, you are right. CD drawer loading designs, have a recess in their drawer, to accomodate for the CD singles at 3 inch diameter. The drawers have an additional recess for the album sized 5 inch CDs. And any more diameter in between would have required an addicional recess.... It's not like with vinyl discs diameters.. 3 inch CDs were somewhat problematic from the early beginnings. At first, they were delivered in a 5 inch CD Maxi packagage, with a plastic adaptor to increase the size of the CD singles to fully sized CD albums. To make them able to play in CD players not yet accomodated to 3 inch CDs... Later, these CD singles of 3 inch were delievered in 3 inch cardboard sleeves, fused into 5 inch transparent plastic packages. But most record companies just turned out regular 5 inch CDs recorded with a CD single programm... Instead of reducing the size of a CD from proposed 12 cm to 11 cm or even less for a playing time of around 65 minutes or so, Philips and Sony stayed with the 12 cm format, but allowed for a larger tolerance margin in production. Which was a wise and good decision. Another really cool decision (from marketing probably) was to allow any other maufacturer to either manufacture their CD players according to their standards in their own factories, or to buy OEM CD players from Sony or Philips factories and rebadge them with their own trade mark. They created the impression that CD players were "normal" and available from almost every brand. Best regards
There had been alternate systems with wordlengths other than 16: http://www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf I think people are forgetting that 16-bit was beyond the state-of-the-art at the time that CD was defined. ?? While the theory of sigma-delta modulation was well understood, it would be many years after CD's introduction before the first Bitstream (1-bit) converters would appear.
Hey, you engineers ar all here on the board? Yes, surely, I don't remember person's names. I remember their ideas, their arguments... I remember the reasoning and the facts, but almost never the names of the persons... That's just the way it is: If it comes to technological discussions, I am completely on the technological side. Best regards
The first CD3's I bought were the Rhino "lil' bit of gold" issues which came in narrow clear plastic bubble packs and at least the first one's had 5" adapters with them. I also have a Delos classical CD3 which came in a standard jewel case snapped into the 5" adapter. All the other CD3 singles I have came shrink wrapped in paper cover picture sleeves, like my "Roll With It" by Steve Winwood disc. Seems like the format was abandoned rather quickly and replaced by the CD5 single format. Some of these came in custom sleeves but most came in generic company logo paper sleeves. I have a bunch of these, mostly being oldie re-issues.
I thought sigma-delta based tech happened sooner than that after the CD introduction. But after looking at the history timeline at Dutch Audio Classics: Evolution of DAC & digital filter And the Stereophile article about bit stream DACs: PDM, PWM, Delta-Sigma, 1-Bit DACs John Atkinson It's obvious that development was happening in the very late 80s and not the very early 80s like I was somehow remembering.
Jean-Luc Ponty / Open Minds was my first CD while the Telarc 1812 was my first classical CD ... I just dug it out of my collection and noticed the ever impressive "Caution Digital Cannons" warning label...
