Headphones or speakers?

[DavidRoss]

As I see it, Mark, in relation to vinyl the issue under discussion is not whether CDs can sound good, but whether analog LPs sound good.  For some, the fact that CDs are superior according to a certain set of parameters decides the issue in favor of CDs.  Others doubt that a subset of conveniently measurable characteristics captures the whole story and prefer to trust the evidence of their senses.

[sound67]

Others doubt that a subset of conveniently measurable characteristics captures the whole story and prefer to trust the evidence of their senses.

Their imagination, not their senses. And certainly not the common one. 

Thomas

[Mark]

As I see it, Mark, in relation to vinyl the issue under discussion is not whether CDs can sound good, but whether analog LPs sound good.  For some, the fact that CDs are superior according to a certain set of parameters decides the issue in favor of CDs.  Others doubt that a subset of conveniently measurable characteristics captures the whole story and prefer to trust the evidence of their senses.

As I hear it, David, analog LPs do sound 'good'. And given the right playback equipment chain, they can sound very good. But do they sound better than CDs? That's a highly subjective area. As you say, it's down to some trusting the 'evidence' of their senses. If we bear in mind that we can't all agree on which interpretations we enjoy of any given work, then it has to be admitted that many of us will equally differ in our opinions about the sound quality of the media we choose to use for playback of any given work. I, for example, love that CDs are blessedly free of pops and clicks. Some, however, say they don't hear such extraneous noises on their vinyl pressings ... even when I'm in the same room, listening to the same LP, hearing those very noises!

[DavidRoss]

Their imagination, not their senses. And certainly not the common one. 

Thank you for that ironic demonstration (surely intentional  ) of the arrogance mentioned earlier...and perfectly coupled with that painfully smug sense of personal superiority so often manifested by attacking others as deluded idiots!  You clearly have keen insight into the psyches of those poor, benighted souls who confuse their thimbleful of learning for omniscience and seek to impose their beliefs on others with a totalitarian fervor rarely seen outside of political dictators, religious zealots, and football fans.

[Al Moritz]

Oh, I see David, you also have the pleasure to meet sound67's character in action. Welcome to the club.

[Bogey]

As I hear it, David, analog LPs do sound 'good'. And given the right playback equipment chain, they can sound very good. But do they sound better than CDs? That's a highly subjective area. As you say, it's down to some trusting the 'evidence' of their senses. If we bear in mind that we can't all agree on which interpretations we enjoy of any given work, then it has to be admitted that many of us will equally differ in our opinions about the sound quality of the media we choose to use for playback of any given work. I, for example, love that CDs are blessedly free of pops and clicks. Some, however, say they don't hear such extraneous noises on their vinyl pressings ... even when I'm in the same room, listening to the same LP, hearing those very noises!

David is right on with his take Mark.  That is exactly why I switched to having both again.  Of course this leads to bit of a storage issue, and resources (money) get dispersed over a wider field, however, I am enjoying both.  And that is the point of either, or both.    And, if you did not catch my post here, Mark:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5870.380.html

And just think of all those "used" shops you haunt and that $1/lp rack whispering in your left ear as you try to sleep tonight, haunting you. 

[sound67]

Thank you for that ironic demonstration (surely intentional  ) of the arrogance mentioned earlier...and perfectly coupled with that painfully smug sense of personal superiority so often manifested by attacking others as deluded idiots!  You clearly have keen insight into the psyches of those poor, benighted souls who confuse their thimbleful of learning for omniscience and seek to impose their beliefs on others with a totalitarian fervor rarely seen outside of political dictators, religious zealots, and football fans.

Now, come off it, David. I merely pointed out that all acoustic measurements clearly point towards the superiority of the CD, and that cannot be denied. As the "audio critic" above says that "aesthetic satisfaction" is subjective - and that that's ok, but has no place - or should have no place - in the reviewer's evaluation of an audio device.

SACD then is technically superior to CD, and again, there's no denying it. Many people say that can hear that difference very clearly. I can't. No difference at all, provided the playback is stereo and the mastering of the albums of the same standard. The SACDs advantages in frequency range and dynamics are evident, but they are at a level the human ear cannot perceive. Humans can't hear above 20kHz, and that's what regular CDs deliver. SACDs can deliver up to 100KHz, but why?

Apart from all those glorious pops and clicks on LPs, their dynamics are severaly limited and well below the "performance" of the human ear. The advantage of the CD is simply there.

I myself went for the "tube lie" - and even though I know it's a lie (as a result not of reading, but of extensive comparisons between tube and "mosfet"-driven equipment), I enjoy listening (and "looking at") music delivered through a tube amplifier. But I do not go around saying that the sound is "analogue" or "warm" - because the only "warm" thing about a tube amp are the tubes themselves. And they simply cannot reproduce music with the same degree of accuracy that a transistor amp can, even with best of electronic design - that's what "hifi" means. The tubes, like vinyl, are a technology of the past that the present has improved upon. The only reason they're not obsolete is that we derive "aesthetic satisfaction" from them - you from the vinyl, me, from the tubes (the glimming, to be precise). But to go around saying that EITHER delivers "superior"(!) sound is just preposterous.

The real reason there is a renaissance of tubes and vinyl is bare and simple: The industry want you to buy new equipment. If someone doesn't go for SACD or DVD-Audio (or BlueRay-HD), he might go for tubes and/or vinyl. If people stick with their perfectly acceptable CD technology, companies will go broke.

And the industry are using the "audio magazines" as their propaganda machine - and people buy the story, as well as the equipment.

Thomas

[DavidRoss]

My responses are embedded in the quoted post below:

Now, come off it, David. I merely pointed out [False] that all acoustic measurements clearly point towards the superiority of the CD [False] and that cannot be denied [False]. As the "audio critic" above says that "aesthetic satisfaction" is subjective - and that that's ok, but has no place - or should have no place - in the reviewer's evaluation of an audio device [False, but debatable.  The entire role of the "audio critic" is to present an informed listener's evaluation of the net effect of not just objective measurements of a few convenient parameters but also the sound.  Clearly, you think that "sound" refers to the physical propogation of waves of varying frequencies.  Others recognize this as a very significant contributor to sound, but consider "sound" itself as what happens when those waves interact with the physical components of human hearing (outer ear, inner ear, eardrum, fine bones, brain, etc.--which vary among listeners), and the software component of human hearing, the mind (which varies even more among different listeners).  In other words, you are certain that a tree falling in a depopulated forest makes a sound; others think there's a bit more to the matter than that.] .

SACD then is technically superior to CD, and again, there's no denying it. Many people say that can hear that difference very clearly. I can't. [And yet you subsequently conclude that since YOU don't hear the difference, there is no difference to be heard.]  No difference at all, provided the playback is stereo and the mastering of the albums of the same standard. The SACDs advantages in frequency range and dynamics are evident, but they are at a level the human ear cannot perceive. Humans can't hear above 20kHz, and that's what regular CDs deliver. SACDs can deliver up to 100KHz, but why? [More distinguishes CD and SACD than this, which you almost certainly know...right?]

Apart from all those glorious pops and clicks on LPs, their dynamics are severaly limited and well below the "performance" of the human ear. The advantage of the CD is simply there. ["Pops and clicks" are not intrinsic to LPs, just a function of ill-cared-for vinyl and substandard playback equipment.  Insofar as the dynamics of LPs goes, see this.]

I myself went for the "tube lie" - and even though I know it's a lie (as a result not of reading, but of extensive comparisons between tube and "mosfet"-driven equipment), I enjoy listening (and "looking at") music delivered through a tube amplifier. But I do not go around saying that the sound is "analogue" or "warm" - because the only "warm" thing about a tube amp are the tubes themselves. And they simply cannot reproduce music with the same degree of accuracy that a transistor amp can, even with best of electronic design - that's what "hifi" means. The tubes, like vinyl, are a technology of the past that the present has improved upon. The only reason they're not obsolete is that we derive "aesthetic satisfaction" from them - you from the vinyl, me, from the tubes (the glimming, to be precise). But to go around saying that EITHER delivers "superior"(!) sound is just preposterous.  [Correct!  Neither is inherently superior.  Why then did you say, just two sentences above, that transistors are necessarily more accurate?]

The real reason there is a renaissance of tubes and vinyl is bare and simple: The industry want you to buy new equipment. If someone doesn't go for SACD or DVD-Audio (or BlueRay-HD), he might go for tubes and/or vinyl. If people stick with their perfectly acceptable CD technology, companies will go broke. [Certainly a contributing factor, but hardly the entire story, and to insist that it is again is just another attack on others who don't share your exalted opinion of your opinions.]

And the industry are using the "audio magazines" as their propaganda machine - and people buy the story, as well as the equipment. [Same as above.]

[sound67]

My responses are embedded in the quoted post below:

Lazy bum.

I said "more accurate" because I meant "more accurate". And it's a reality.

Thomas

[71 dB]

Yes.  We were discussing the ability of CDs to reproduce realistic dynamic range of music.  You observed that there is a relatively narrow effective dynamic range of live rock music played against an environmental noise floor of ~70dB.  I responded that your observation was not relevant to the matter under discussion:  recorded music, with a very low background noise level rather than the loud background noise level caused by thousands of noisy fans at a rock concert.

It is possible to have so large dynamic variation in a studio that CD can't handle it all. However, most people can't really benefit from dynamic range bigger than provided by CD. Typical home stereo systems can produce sound pressure level peaks of about 100-110 dB. The background noise of the listening room is perhaps 30 dB. This means the dynamic range of CD is "just" enough. If CD is not enough there is always SACD.

[sound67]

If CD is not enough there is always SACD.

Neither of which matters, because the ear (the human ear, as opposed to the bat's ear) isn't up to it.

Yes, David, I know, 100 kHz vs 20 kZh is not the whole story. It's also 24 bit vs. 16 bit. And you know? Neither of them matters.

Thomas

[DavidRoss]

Yes, David, I know, 100 kHz vs 20 kZh is not the whole story. It's also 24 bit vs. 16 bit. And you know? Neither of them matters.

Not to you, who cannot hear the difference, but to those who can, it may.

[sound67]

Not to you, who cannot hear the difference, but to those who can, it may.

So you hear the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit, but not the one between 20 KHz and 100 KHz. Fine. Neither matters.

ANY of those is beyond the capacity of human hearing.

Thomas

[71 dB]

Neither of which matters, because the ear (the human ear, as opposed to the bat's ear) isn't up to it.

Yes, David, I know, 100 kHz vs 20 kZh is not the whole story. It's also 24 bit vs. 16 bit. And you know? Neither of them matters.

Thomas

The only significant benefit of SACD is multichannel sound. Better dynamics is a minor benefit. Wider frequency range is a microscopic benefit. This benefit comes from the fact that with CD we are "forced" to use steep brickwall filters at 20 kHz in order to prevent frequencies higher than 22.05 kHz from folding into lower frequencies. Steep filters ring. Theoretically non-linearity in the system can modulate this ringing into lower frequencies. For well-made equipment this problem is extremely small.

In HDCD format the shape of the brickwall filter is controlled by the music signal making the result "more musical". I have HDCD decoding in my amplifier and I find HDCD discs to have excellent sonics. Part of it is probably placebo effect. The technically perfect disc would be a hybrid SACD/HDCD disc. I wonder if these exists.

[sound67]

The only significant benefit of SACD is multichannel sound.

True, but it also introduces new problems: speaker placement, bass management, balance ...

And the need to purchase five or six identical speakers, if multichannel is to make sense at all. 

Maybe that's why there are so many stereo-only SACD players are out there. They should be completely useless. 

In a little while all of these appliances will become obsolete as we're moving into the age of network multimedia and music players.




Thomas

[71 dB]

True, but it also introduces new problems: speaker placement, bass management, balance ...

And the need to purchase five or six identical speakers, if multichannel is to make sense at all. 

Well, I have solved these "problems". Multichannel sound is awesome when it works.

[sound67]

I think Elgar didn't even envision multichannel sound. 

Personally, I've stopped at stereo, which allowed me to buy two very high grade specimen instead of six decent ones. IMHO that improves sound more significantly than multichannel sound ever would. 

Thomas

[71 dB]

I think Elgar didn't even envision multichannel sound. 

Personally, I've stopped at stereo, which allowed me to buy two very high grade specimen instead of six decent ones. IMHO that improves sound more significantly than multichannel sound ever would. 

Thomas

Well, Elgar was enthusiastic about the advances in audio technology but multichannel sound was decades away in his lifetime.

Stereo is the "default" set-up because it was possible to do in vinyl. It's also cost-effective way to create a sound image but by no means the right one or the only way. I have a home theater system that works well with music too. Since I have 5 speakers anyway, why not use them with multichannel SACDs? Most stereo material I listen to in stereo mode but many classical CDs sound excellent in dematrix modes.

The strength of multichannel sound is that it kind of "renders away" the acoustics of your listening room allowing the space of the recording take a stronger part. The sound image is also more relaxed and breathing than with stereo. You need to hear to understand.

Theoretically the more audio channels the better but it gets impractical fast. Stereo can be very good in it own ways but it is not the only way to go. 

[drogulus]

    My classical CDs top out in the low 90's, but most are at or near the ideal of 89 dB. My pop CDs, especially the recent masters, go all the way up to the high 90's. At that level there's no room for dynamics at all. No wonder they sound like shit. The best discs are the HDCD decodes, which tend to be in the mid to high 80s, with all the dynamic spikes intact. You don't need HDCD to do this, it's just that this way you can satisfy both groups, with a ruined version for regular folks and a good version for a small group that can decode them. The music companies could just make the CD correctly, but then they couldn't play the loudness game.

Well, Elgar was enthusiastic about the advances in audio technology but multichannel sound was decades away in his lifetime.

Stereo is the "default" set-up because it was possible to do in vinyl. It's also cost-effective way to create a sound image but by no means the right one or the only way. I have a home theater system that works well with music too. Since I have 5 speakers anyway, why not use them with multichannel SACDs? Most stereo material I listen to in stereo mode but many classical CDs sound excellent in dematrix modes.

The strength of multichannel sound is that it kind of "renders away" the acoustics of your listening room allowing the space of the recording take a stronger part. The sound image is also more relaxed and breathing than with stereo. You need to hear to understand.

Theoretically the more audio channels the better but it gets impractical fast. Stereo can be very good in it own ways but it is not the only way to go. 

     Good post. If you have a multichannel (or even a 2.1 setup like mine) you should optimize speaker placement and sub setup for music and not films. A perfectly set up music system will sound great for movies, while a movie-optimized system may be way off for music. This means usually that your sub will not be blasting for DVDs, and actually the balance will be better once you adjust to it. Also, your receiver/processor will probably have level adjustments by channel and/or format (DD, DTS, PCM) which will allow you to set up different balances for music and films.

[M forever]

That's the way it should be. At least that's the way it is in the cinema. On which those 5.1 home systems are modelled, at least in principle.
A subwoofer plays two roles: it can have its own dedicated channel, as in the digital formats, when it is typically referred to as LFE (Low Frequency Effects) channel. At least that's the Dolby terminology. DTS always simply called it the subwoofer, sometimes the digital subwoofer. The digital subwoofer or LFE level should not be set with an SPL meter, but an audio spectrum analyzer and pink noise played through the system. The average band of the subwoofer spectrum should be 10dB higher than the average band of the center channel.

The other role the subwoofer can play is that it simply supports the front channels, as it does in matrixed ProLogic which does not have a dedicated subwoofer or LFE channel but where a low-pass filter is applied to the sum of L-C-R which sends the passing frequencies to the subwoofer. The cutoff frequency setting of the low-pass filter depends on how well the front speakers perform in the lower part of the spectrum. Theoretically, if you have speakers which perform well all the way down to the lowest parts of the the spectrum, you do not need a subwoofer here. If used, the average band of the subwoofer spectrum should be exactly the same as the average band of the center channel spectrum. This application is usually referred to as the "analog subwoofer".

With digital sound formats, the subwoofer can in addition to playing back the LFE channel also be used in the same way, to support the front speakers. In that case, there have to be separate filter and level settings for that role, too.

A good system should have separate level settings for digital and analog subwoofer functions, and there should also be a parametric equalizer available as the subwoofer spectrum typically has one or two sharp peaks.

Additionally, it is important to make sure that front speakers and subwoofer are in phase. That means while it is not so critical where exactly the subwoofer is placed from left to right, its driver should line up vertically with the low frequency drives of the main channels to avoid phase shifts.