Lossless Audio Downloads

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Let me see if I understand a couple of the things that have been said here. It sounds like the consensus is that the recording studios and the CD manufacturers have the equipment and the technique to deliver a CD that has all around better sound. Correct ?

Correct. CD has the potential to sound better than vinyl in many ways (dynamic range is a good start, no background noise, no flippers). And for many years Pop/Rock/Metal/Country actually were very well recorded and mastered (About 1995-96 the downward slide started). Compare Jewel's Pieces Of You (a 1993 CD) to Goodbye Alice In Wonderland (her 2006 CD), the difference in waveforms and musciality is frightening. You can't even preceive a dynamic range anymore, its LOUD-nothing till the next note-LOUD.

CD recording practices have continued to improve for Classical and other less-popular genres, and I'll take a new DDD release of a SONY (or EMI or Naxos, or whoever) produced symphony over anything ever done on vinyl.

So if they have that capability, why wouldn’t they want to produce the best sounding CD possible ?

Marketing.

 

[Jack N]

I'm afraid you mis-understood the question. I'm not asking about vinyl. I was asking if the consensus is correct that the recording studios and CD manufacturers are capable of producing better sounding CDs with the equipment that they already have. Do they ?

Then I asked, if that's true then why wouldn't they want to produce the best sounding CD possible ? I don't understand what marketing has to do with low tonal quality. At present, it doesn't make sense. Can it be explained better ?

 

[MDS]

The CD format of 16 bit 44.1 kHz is capable of high fidelity with huge dynamic range and full frequency response of 20 - 20 kHz. The equipment and tools used to capture the audio during recording, convert it to digital, mix, and master the end product are state of the art and often capable of resolution that far exceeds the capability of the human ear.

However, the engineers involved in the process are human and just as all doctors, lawyers, you-name-it-tradeperson is not created equal with the same exact knowledge and skills, neither are the engineers involved in the process. So some CDs are better than others.

No self-respecting engineer would purposely do a poor job of recording, mixing, or mastering the music. They do face pressures from the marketing type people that want the CD to be louder and stand out when played next to the competition - not unlike how TVs are cranked to 'torch mode' with the highest brightness and contrast settings so they appear to be more vivid than the others. If you really want to read about the disturbing trend of CD mastering, google 'cd loudness wars'.

Still, it is not fair to say that they don't produce 'the best sounding CD possible'. Some are phenomenally recorded, mix, and mastered and some are so compressed that there is practically zero dynamic range. Like everything else, quality varies. Of course a lot of people seem to be under the mistaken impression that the artists always do a perfect job of playing/singing the music and the engineers destroy it and that of course is ridiculous.

 

[Jack N]

Thanks for the clarification. I'll check out the Google search.

 

[Buckle-meister]

...16 bit 44.1 kHz stereo will always be 16 * 44,100 * 2 for every second of audio which equates to about 10.5 MB per second of audio. That's why an average 4 minute song takes up ~40 MB of disk space.

Something doesn't add up here...

...the marketing type people...want the CD to be louder and stand out when played next to the competition...

I've never understood this. Radio stations surely must broadcast at a relatively constant level otherwise when listening to the station the volume would be all over the place. This being the case (it is the case isn't it?), recording more loudly onto a CD gains you nothing (apart from a reduced dynamic range) because the radio station is going to adjust the level to suit anyway.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

I'm afraid you mis-understood the question. I'm not asking about vinyl. I was asking if the consensus is correct that the recording studios and CD manufacturers are capable of producing better sounding CDs with the equipment that they already have. Do they ?

You misunderstood my answer, I am talking about CDs. Yes, it can be better, it was better before, but now its not. Why? Because they think thats what people want.

 

[MDS]

Something doesn't add up here...

So now you are questioning my math skills?

Yes, I incorrectly wrote 10.5 MB per second of audio when it should have been 10.5 MB per MINUTE of audio. I edited the original post.

I've never understood this. Radio stations surely must broadcast at a relatively constant level otherwise when listening to the station the volume would be all over the place. This being the case (it is the case isn't it?), recording more loudly onto a CD gains you nothing (apart from a reduced dynamic range) because the radio station is going to adjust the level to suit anyway.

Yep, radio stations employ dynamic compressors to keep the volume level relatively constant and there is no reason to compress the CD audio to be 'radio friendly' - yet that has been the trend since the mid 90's.

 

[allsop4now]

It's not the CDs, but the recordings that're 'crap'.

Sometimes I think that the reason formats - like SACD - sounds so nice in general, is because "only" those that care about recording quality make CDs in those formats. And that the intended audience care, of course

Edit: Of course most engineers cares about quality, but are often downtrodden by the management and the sales/marketing department to deliver subpar products. On one hand the engineers should care about the quality of their work, on the other hand the management/marketing needs to sell stuff to make a living. On the gripping hand there should be a compromise between making profit and good quality products.

 

[Nestor]

Many engineers are pressured by record companies to make a cd "louder" to stand out from other recordings. My personal opinion is it's a product of being able to "listen before you buy" on the pc or at a music store.

This link on You Tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

is a good eye (ear) opener.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Sometimes I think that the reason formats - like SACD - sounds so nice in general, is because "only" those that care about recording quality make CDs in those formats.

Not always, the Norah Jones SACD and even Vinyl had the same problems in the same places on the same tracks as the redbook CD did. Just making a new format doesn't guarantee the work will be less sloppy.

 

[WmAx]

I've never understood this. Radio stations surely must broadcast at a relatively constant level otherwise when listening to the station the volume would be all over the place. This being the case (it is the case isn't it?), recording more loudly onto a CD gains you nothing (apart from a reduced dynamic range) because the radio station is going to adjust the level to suit anyway.

Am I missing something here?

You are correct. The engineering head/owner of one of the main manufacturers(the name escapes me at the moment) of the compression equipment used by radio stations before transmission(to normalize audio levels before transmission) addressed this, and said that the only thing that could occur by compressing the CD more was to reduce audio quality when it is broadcast, because multiple stages and types of compression are interacting at a greater level.

-Chris

 

[Jack N]

Reducing dynamic range in exchange for loudness is just down right stupid because it makes absolutely no sense what so ever, at least in my book. I can't possibly comprehend how "marketing" thinks this makes a CD more "sellable" or sound better. No wonder the music seems to be getting worse - because it is ! (I've honestly considered pulling my old DBX units back out of mothballs to see what would happen.) I suppose all we can do at this point is complain, but to who ? How can we insure that our complaints will be heard or read by someone that can make a difference ?

 

[MDS]

Reducing dynamic range in exchange for loudness is just down right stupid because it makes absolutely no sense what so ever, at least in my book. I can't possibly comprehend how "marketing" thinks this makes a CD more "sellable" or sound better.

That's easy - 'louder is better' for most people. Just as a side note that is exactly why you must take care to carefully level match two components when trying to compare them for sound quality because the one that is louder will almost always be perceived as sounding better.

 

[skizzerflake]

I take it then that CD is still the best way to get the best relative sound. I sure hope somebody comes up with a better format soon. Even the CDs are starting to sound like crap.

The better format is here and it's SACD or DVD Audio or black vinyl but the problem is finding an audience. Most people either have no ears or no equipment or listen through mobile devices in environments where sound quality is irrelevant. People have to sit down and listen and care about sound before all this matters.

 

[WmAx]

The better format is here and it's SACD or DVD Audio or black vinyl but the problem is finding an audience. Most people either have no ears or no equipment or listen through mobile devices in environments where sound quality is irrelevant. People have to sit down and listen and care about sound before all this matters.

SACD and DVD-A have multi-channel capability, so of course that is an enhancement over what CD can offer. But vinyl has zero technical advantages, and in fact, is a considerable step down from CD's abilities.

-Chris

 

[Nick250]

SACD and DVD-A have multi-channel capability, so of course that is an enhancement over what CD can offer. But vinyl has zero technical advantages, and in fact, is a considerable step down from CD's abilities.
-Chris

My question is, will a SACD or DVD-A have improved SQ and dynamic over a generic CD when played on a simple DVD player my Denon 1710?

Nick

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Unlikely, you get a higher sampling rate, but the dynamic range is the same (Nothing has come close to using Redbook's possible dynamic range, SACD is theoretically higher, but no music will ever use it).

 

[Jack N]

"That's easy - 'louder is better' for most people."

I absolutely agree, but it still doesn't make any sense to reduce dynamic range (I'm not blaming you). People are going to listen to any given CD at the volume they want, regardless of how loud it's recorded. Right ? That's what volume knobs are for.

 

[WmAx]

My question is, will a SACD or DVD-A have improved SQ and dynamic over a generic CD when played on a simple DVD player my Denon 1710?

Nick

There is a good chance the stereo SACD and/or DVD-A will have improved sound quality over the stereo CD version. This, however, is not due to any known *credible* technical limitation of the format that relates to audibility. There are examples where a different mastered version was used on the different formats -- the CD version typically being dynamically compressed to a greater extent for reasons attributed to the loudness war issue.

-Chris

 

[Jack N]

So does anybody know who we can complain to at the various CD manufacturers ? If nobody says anything, the CD manufacturers are going to continue using a line of logic that doesn't make sense, and we'll never get our good sound back.