Have you ever heard Tom Jung's recordings of the jazz ensemble "Flim & The BBs" which were I believe recorded to those same 50.4kHz specifications? "Tricycle" stands up to this day IMO; it was recorded on the Mitsubishi X-80; a similar device to what Telarc had to have been using. Interesting that the vinyl diameters that are important are the internal spindle diameter not the external diameter.
Yes, in this way the vinyl is more universal. But the outer diameter of CDs is not important for some portable players, where you insert the CD directly onto the spindle. And also not for some notebook CD/DVD recorders. Only for the most used drawer loading mechanisms, or the car stereo slot-in mechanisms, also the outer diameter is important. Both with vinyl and CDs, a maximum diameter must not be exceeded, otherwise you yould not be able to put the disc onto the record player or CD player. Best regards
As a side note, I don't think those CD3 adaptors hold up with age - and with most optical drives, you don't need them. I picked up a Delos CD3 with an adaptor from the late 80's, and even though none of my drives require it, I decided to try it out anyway just because it seemed cool… yeah, stupid move, I know. About 5 minutes in it decided to explode and took out my best optical drive. You live and you learn.
I haven't listened to "Flim & The BBs". My local library system has "Tricycle". I'll get it and give it a listen. Some early digital is better than others. I also have some early Delos classical CDs. I'll have to check if any of them were recorded using the Soundstream.
There were multiple sizes of spindle holes as well as speeds until a standard was established. The small hole records have had all the standard 4-speeds plus variations and have had multiple outside dimensions, most commonly from 3" to 16". The 1 1/2" center hole has mostly been exclusive to the nominal 7" record, but, again, I've seen all 4 standard speeds. Then there is the 2" center hole, pretty much limited to 9" diameter records with a speed of 16 2/3. The size of the center hole rarely classifies a record.
When those CD3's came out, I didn't have a player that could play them without the adapter. I've never had a problem with the adapters and would only have to use one now if I ever played a CD3 in one of my Sony mega-changers(which ain't gonna happen). I considered the CD3 merely a curiosity and pointless as the industry soon discovered.
I like them and collect them. There are some interesting releases on them, wish they were a bigger thing here in the US but I guess the market spoke. FWIW, my Sony mega-changer (at least the 51 disc carousel model) is able to load them just fine.
Wait, are you talking about a computer drive or a CD player? Computer drives spin those discs crazy fast - those little adapters were never designed to handle that.
CD3s were originally conceived as a successor for the 7inch pop single. Since there were compatibility issues with early players who don't have the smaller cradle, and those slot players with a motorised load mechanism, requiring the adapter ring, and because the cost saving is marginal anyway, the format pretty much died out in the pop market, except as a novelty. The CD5 single survives as a successor to 12inch singles, both content and price wise. Curiously there never was a price gap - in either direction - between CD5 and 12inch vinyl singles. Makes you wonder how the price difference with albums can/could be justified.
It's like we are preaching from the same hymn book! I love my Telarc and Sheffield Labs recordings, simply superb sound and exactly how CD's can and should sound! Some SACD's are exceptional as well, but it all comes down to how they were mastered and recorded. Yes, Mobile Fidelity can be a bit hit and miss, but probably due to their source material.
I hesitated to like this, that could give the wrong impression I felt glee for the destruction of your drive. Just wanted to say I feel for you. Maybe there should be a dislike button, but that would be open to misunderstanding just the same.
Any of the Telarc's from the 80s or late 70s. Telarc got better in the 90s. The Telarc's from the 80s or late 70s have a constrained soundstage width. Soundstage sounds restricted and constrained like the sound wants to stay stuck to the drivers. When the sound seems to stick to the drivers then the center of the image doesn't fill in and the depth doesn't fill in. And it all ends up sounding constipated. I don't like that style of sound. It's the opposite of the style of sound I want from recordings. My gear is capable of sounding much better than that.
Yeah, that.... would certainly explain it. Well, I think it was actually only spinning at 2x at the time. But it makes sense. There was really no reason for me to even attempt that, my drives always handled Cd3s on their own just fine, I just wanted to see what using an adaptor was like… and now I'm out a drive that's gonna cost me at least $150 to replace since it's been discontinued, so please learn from my own stupidity and don't do it! Thank you, it's okay - I understand the sentiment. As long as someone else learns from that little experiment, it's all good. There's something likeabke in that outcome.
My Sony Mega-changers are 400-disc multi-format and as they have carousels with discs stored vertically, I wouldn't think that it would it would accept anything but a full-size disc. My 2nd Sony 5-disc changer had 3" wells.
Yeah my 51 disc changer has the same design, just the discs are a little less cramped together I guess. Plus it's a smaller unit than the ones that carry 200-400 discs. Could be worth checking out the manual for. I haven't used it in ages but when I had it, I had 5"s mixed with 3"s no problem. A lot of Japanese singles or EPs were on 3" only, it was able to shuffle between them and full size discs without a hiccup.
I got Flim & the BB's "TriCycle" and listened to it. Very good for early digital. Sounds like it was intended to sound impressive for demos of digital playback. And it does. But it's also missing the finesse and the sense of an envelope around the sound that analog does, and that good modern CD recordings can do, and that high-res is even more capable of. The sound also has that strange feeling that it keeps wanting to be attracted back to the drivers instead of being free. Analog has that ability for the sound to free itself. So does high-res and good modern CD-res. Old digital just doesn't.
"The sound also has that strange feeling that it keeps wanting to be attracted back to the drivers instead of being free." <- Agree, but I think it's the production, not the fact that it was recorded on early digital, that accounts for this. I think that's the sound they were going for. There's a gold disc "20 bit" re-master of Tricycle that's pretty rare also - I wonder if it would sound better to you. I have both but I haven't done a shoot-out between the two.
The CD format was originally going to be a 14 bit format. (Great topic by the way!) And 14 bits is more than enough. LOL In 1989 I had a Sony 14/44.1 converter from 1986 and it sounded just fine. (Chuckle....Chuckle.) If you knew what you were doing you could make pretty good copies of CD's on it. But even on my mid-fi system of the day (Denon/Boston Acoustics/Sony) I could tell easily that the VHS HI-FI recording was way superior than my PCM copy. Not even close. The digital had this wierd colour over the music. Down to your question. The problem is not low bit or lack of super high sample rates. I can show you 16/44.1 masters that blow the water out of a lot of 24/96 recordings. For example, check out the Amadeus soundtrack from 1984. Made on a Sony 3324 (16/44.8) and it kicks BUTT. The problem was the horrible sound of early consumer digital. And the problem is still there if you buy mid-fi CD player or real cheap U.S.B. DAC. At the time the industry considered 24/96 to be way over the top and overkill. The small compact disk would have had to become laser disk size in 1981 to manage 74 minutes of 24/96. 16 bit = 96 db of dynamic range. 44.1 Khz = upper limit of 22 050 khz. And human hearing only goes up to 20 000 Khz. They didn't know what we know today. At the time those specs beat the best analog systems. THE SOUND STEVE CAN GET OUT OF A RED BOOK CD PROVES 16/44.1 IS ENOUGH.
The First stereo digital recorder was invented by Denon in 1975. My 1986 14/44.1 PCM DAC is light years ahead of it. Early digital, Really early digital was very bright and harsh. Every wonder why the original mix of Rush's, Moving Pictures is so harsh. Made on an early digital recorder.
Ham, I'm going to politely agree to disagree with you on the early Telarc discs. I just love "um." The 80's discs just sound very nice to me, you could have excessive headphone syndrome fatigue, it happens. Pull those cans off and let your ears breath. Power up some Aerial or Wilson speakers and sit back and enjoy some vintage Telarc discs, how about the vintage Antonio Vivaldi, The Four Seasons, Seiji Ozawa, Boston Symphony Orchestra, Joseph Silverstein, Violin, (1982) CD -80070, smooth and flowing, no constipation, relaxing! I have heard discs with limited image, sound absolutely "stuck" to the drivers with no chance to be free, here is a good example, the old Mantovani's Golden Hits disc, #800 085-2, absolutely constipated. I promise, old Bob Woods and Jack Renner knew what they were doing.
