Re-mastered?

I have a sort of virtual "spectrometer" ( for use of a better word ) that gives visual readout charts to sound frequencies coming through a given source - will rig this up at the weekend and report back !

 

 

Well here are the comparison results visually represented on Cleaning Lab, and fairly clearly they illustrate that vinyl has a higher frequency response than CD  (the charts show left and right channels top and bottom).

 

I used Led Zeppelin 2 again for the tests, one a Quiex vinyl copy and a remastered CD.

 

the first pictures show the frequency response (regardless of volume as volume does not affect these readings) from the computer (M-Audio Audiophile 2496 soundcard) of the vinyl copy, track 1 "Whole lotta love",

 

 

 

 

close up -

 

 

 

 

the same track on CD shows a remarkable difference-

 

 

 

 

 

close up -

 

 

 

 

 

 

the differences were audibly different, even though as with visual things (our brain automatically "adjusts" differences and anomalies to any given real life sounds or image and balances it, ie colours at time of day;  bluey, brown sunlight or UV  light,  and artificial light;   light bulbs give off a yellow light,  fluorescent strips are green , we see them as normal but in photography special film or filters are needed to correct these) after time listening to one source sounds normal, but a side by side comparison will reveal differences.

 

 

"Noel Keywood explains some little known reasons why CD suffers from hard grey sound.....Here are some of the peculiar problems that affect our oldest , original digital technology - compact disc. This isn't a hatchet job of the poor little Frisbee, so much as an illustration of how the notion of it being perfect is fantasy '

 

 

"  The two parameters most commonly quoted to support a claim for perfection from CD was a distortion level of 0.001 % and a dynamic range of 96 dB. These are very good figures, ones that seduced most people back in the 1980's.  If true, CD players like those tested this month (Cambridge Audio, Audiolab, Pioneer and Rotel) would all be perfect and all we ever needed,  but the reality is a little more complex.  A distortion figure of 0.001% is impressive, and in fact, today's CD players are returning 0.0003% on our test bench. Not bad - and definately better than LP,  which manages 0.1%  up to 2%.  Unfortunately, figures like these are almost meaningless unless considered in more detail, and the 0.001% for CD is particularly selective and misleading...."

 

"....To make a check on the distortion of a digital system like CD, a signal at -60dB below full level is commonly used.  In the early days this gave around 1% distortion, a figure that would have not have sold many players had Phillips ever published it.  Bearing in mind that they were not all confident CD would catch on (nor Sony I would imagine) it is hardly surprising they did not use this figure, as it was no better than LP. Twenty five years of progress in  digital converter technology has reduced CD distortion at -60dB by five times - from 1% down to 0.2% or so, as produded by our players under test this month"

 (listed above).

"Seems quite good, until  another little known complexity  is taken into account. CD distortion levels are not only level dependent - and measurement is only made nowadays at frequencies where CD gives its best result.  That 0.2% result rises to no less than 1.7%  I found when making measurement for this article. ..."

 

 

" The point is that CD has a complex distortion pattern, one that changes appreciably across the audio band, with levels reaching above Harold Leaks's declared 0.1% level of acceptability made back in 1945.

In its distortion, 16 bit digital is quite unlike analogue - and it's something of a horror story.  That CD ever managed to gather a reputation for good sound quality is a surprise, given that it measures so badly. The music business was bitten hard by the inadequacies of poor digital  (recorders and players) in the early days and now tries to keep music levels well above the unacceptably high distortion floor of CD ....nowadays 24bit recorders are commonly used as they give a smoother sound, even when transferred to  16bit medium.  As if high distortion levels weren't bad enough, perhaps worse is that digital distortion on CD has a particular nasty sound that the ear can detect readily....It so happens that CD behaves like this, low sounds producing harmonic distortion well up the frequency band, so far separated

in frequency that the ear clearly detects it  (LP doesn't do this). ....CD does everything wrong, so it is surprising that we can listen to it at all....."

 

"Digital distortion has a largely uncorrelated twittering pattern that the ear detects readily and finds discordant and irritating.  Again, LP does the oppposite, being relatively benign in psycho-acoustic terms. It is because LP is benign and also produces ten times less distortion than CD at low levels  (0.1% to 1%) that we find it aurally  acceptable.  It's really no mystery.  Any mystery about why LP sounds good and CD dodgy is attributable to our misconceptions about the real behaviour of CD's digital code.."

 

 

"CD digital code emanates from the 1970s and has some gruesome limitations.  They are lessened considerably by the use of higher sampling rates and bit depths, something we will hopefully enjoy soon when 24bit / 96Hz digital becomes more common."

 

 

 

 

CD was introduced as a convenient form of carrying music, but the pretentions outweigh the facts! As has been said before a true audiophile wouldn't be seen dead with a CD player, but for me is better than a cassette player which i replaced in the car, and some albums unavailable on vinyl. Many albums are being published in vinyl these days, but without  those extra tracks on...

 

In the future aforesaid higher sampling rates and bit depths or even some new form of music medium will come along, but as my vinyl albums will last 500 years they'll do till then....