Recorded CD sound quality

[phredude]

Hi,

I had a question. I'm not an expert, but over the last couple of weeks I was auditioning new speakers, and when listening to the higher mid-range brands (mostly Paradigms) I noticed a distinct difference in sound quality with older CDs versus newer ones. I was told that there are several factors that will contribute to this, but the bottom line is the better quality going into the recording process, the better sound. That's why bands like Steely Dan and new more advanced recordings sound so good, they take the time to do it right.

So, my question is, when people flock to music downloading sites, how do these burned CDs sound on a high quality system with good speakers? Do people who download music simply not care about sound quality? I know a lot of people who listen to music solely on their computers.

Either way, just wondering. Thanks and have a nice day.

phred

 

[mtrycrafts]

Hi,

I had a question. I'm not an expert, but over the last couple of weeks I was auditioning new speakers, and when listening to the higher mid-range brands (mostly Paradigms) I noticed a distinct difference in sound quality with older CDs versus newer ones. I was told that there are several factors that will contribute to this, but the bottom line is the better quality going into the recording process, the better sound. That's why bands like Steely Dan and new more advanced recordings sound so good, they take the time to do it right.

So, my question is, when people flock to music downloading sites, how do these burned CDs sound on a high quality system with good speakers? Do people who download music simply not care about sound quality? I know a lot of people who listen to music solely on their computers.

Either way, just wondering. Thanks and have a nice day.

phred

CD qual;ity indeed depends on the recording engineers and their masters, what they want out of a CD. Many, if not most of todays CDs are overly compressed to sound impressive to the mass market audience and over radio stations that automatically compress it even more.
Since the hi res discs are not yet aired on radio, it is mastered with no or minimum compression and will have a larger dynamic range and sound different.

I don't download music but I am sure that most of those who do are not audiophiles who study each note on a disc or each note emmitted from their components.

 

[moverton]

Downloaded music

I tried out iTunes for a few weeks. Neat application. fun to browse and buy a couple. I did notice some questionable quality on some of the cd's i cut from there. I don't think iTunes uses a very high bit rate, it is primarily for filling your iPod. I have heard that some newer sites are cutting them at much higher bit rates now. They should give you a choice, if you want small size, ask for it.

As for modern CD quality, I find many of my 1980's era cd's to be pretty bad. But the other poster is correct, many of the new cd's are compressed like crazy to make radio and boombox listeners happy at the expense of high fidelity.

 

[Aliixer]

"I" Tunes....paying for propiatary music!!!!!!!!!

I have downloaded music from I tunes...yes you can get good quality if you look. Just look at the sample rate. however my beaf is that you have to use their software to burn the CD's...It also does not allow you to customize the song titles or the cd title for that. I have Nero burning software that puts I-tunes to shame. the I-tunes music is protected so you can't use other software to make CD's. does anyone else see this or know how to correct it.

 

[Rob Babcock]

The sound of newer CDs vs CDs from the first days of digital can be hard to compare. On the one hand, obviously digital technology required a learning curve, and overall I think CD sound has improved. On the other hand, as a previous poster stated, there's an alarming recent trend towards massive compression with pop music nowadays, and a cursory examination of the waveforms of a newer disc often will show hundreds of badly clipped waveforms.

I have some older discs that sound amazing, and some that sound awful. Ditto for the newer stuff. Mostly that applies to pop- IMOHO, new classical discs basically sound better now than the ones did from 15 years ago.

 

[av_phile]

Hi,

I had a question. I'm not an expert, but over the last couple of weeks I was auditioning new speakers, and when listening to the higher mid-range brands (mostly Paradigms) I noticed a distinct difference in sound quality with older CDs versus newer ones. I was told that there are several factors that will contribute to this, but the bottom line is the better quality going into the recording process, the better sound. That's why bands like Steely Dan and new more advanced recordings sound so good, they take the time to do it right.

So, my question is, when people flock to music downloading sites, how do these burned CDs sound on a high quality system with good speakers? Do people who download music simply not care about sound quality? I know a lot of people who listen to music solely on their computers.

Either way, just wondering. Thanks and have a nice day.

phred

It is not so much they don't care about quality. But majority of those in the hobby are quite happy and content with the quality of MP3s or other compressed formats downloaded from the net. Mobility and transportability are often a higher priority for them.

I've heard them and they do offer respectable quality with near CD quality at high bitrates for some compressed pop materials. They most likely play these on their PC speakers, discmans, ipods or portable MP3 devices or even their cellphones. They really couldn't care less about expensive CDs and high resolution DVD-A and SACD. I may have limited exposure, but I have yet to meet someone who plays MP3 downloads on Martin Logan speakers using high-end amps and player separates. I am a confirmed snob, so let me just say that from what I know, people who have high end set-ups wouldn't touch an MP3 download with a 10-foot pole. Exceptions probably abound.

And yes, CDs these days have a higher percentage of better sonics than early CDs. Thanks to the long learning curve by sound engineers. I've noticed that many digitally REMASTERED analog sources sound better now than their first CD transcription 10 or so years ago. Using HDCD, 20-bit or 24-bit remastering, they seem to get the mix right with modern equipment compared to some experimental hit and miss affair during the early days when CD transcriptions sounded so bright becausee engineers failed to re-equalize from tape masters intended for LPs.

 

[Rob Babcock]

It may well be mastering where the advances have been made. As AV Phile alluded to, many of the older discs were analog sourced and now sound much better.

Unfortunately, not all the remasters are better. I used to fall for the ol' trick- every remaster I saw, I bought. I learned that some of them merely have the levels bumped up to make them louder. Sadly, many of these discs are lifeless & flat, having so many clipped waveforms.

 

[WmAx]

The 'poor' quality of lossy compression is essentially a myth. Sure, with poor encoders and/or insufficient bitrates for a given codec, yes, their willl be problems. But with hi quality encoder(s) and the proper bitrates, even picking out the lossy compressions on a very high quality reference headphone(more sensitive then any speakers due to no room effects/masking) is exceedingly difficult, and limited to particular 'problem' sound samples that are not represenative of the overwhelming majority of the music program. But if you are listening and cmoparing in NON-CONTROLLED circumstances, then it may seem 'obviously' inferior. This evidence suggest that this is a subconscience bias, not a reality.

-Chris

It is not so much they don't care about quality. But majority of those in the hobby are quite happy and content with the quality of MP3s or other compressed formats downloaded from the net. Mobility and transportability are often a higher priority for them.

I've heard them and they do offer respectable quality with near CD quality at high bitrates for some compressed pop materials. They most likely play these on their PC speakers, discmans, ipods or portable MP3 devices or even their cellphones. They really couldn't care less about expensive CDs and high resolution DVD-A and SACD. I may have limited exposure, but I have yet to meet someone who plays MP3 downloads on Martin Logan speakers using high-end amps and player separates. I am a confirmed snob, so let me just say that from what I know, people who have high end set-ups wouldn't touch an MP3 download with a 10-foot pole. Exceptions probably abound.

And yes, CDs these days have a higher percentage of better sonics than early CDs. Thanks to the long learning curve by sound engineers. I've noticed that many digitally REMASTERED analog sources sound better now than their first CD transcription 10 or so years ago. Using HDCD, 20-bit or 24-bit remastering, they seem to get the mix right with modern equipment compared to some experimental hit and miss affair during the early days when CD transcriptions sounded so bright becausee engineers failed to re-equalize from tape masters intended for LPs.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I really see no point to MP3, at least for my own use. I have no portable player nor do I need one, and I never download music. Blank CD-Rs are very cheap, so I have no need to try to fit 10 hours on one. MP3 is a PITA on a DVD player (as opposed to a PC) since there's no way to program them or list them in any way but alphabetically. Most of my standalone CD players won't recognize MP3s nor play them back. Plus, I have software from Eximius to burn WAV files onto DVD-R, giving MP3 playing time with Redbook bitrates.

NOTE: I'm not saying MP3 has no usefullness, merely that I don't need it.

As to the SQ of codecs, I've read a lot of articles and DBT results. Different codecs have different strenghts and weakness. S&V had an interesting article on "codec killers" a few years back- it was a DBT plus a section of selections that were fairly reliably picked from Redbook with most all of the codecs. I can't remember all of them, but it seems like a Nirvana song from "Nevermind" was one of them (something to do with extremely distorted guitar being a codecs worst nightmare). My admittedly unsubstantiated conjecture (I call it that so WmAX doesn't take me to task for stretching to call it a theory!) is that although the process can be very effective, the 1-in-100 or 1-in-1000 instances where we can hear the difference may be what leads to listener fatigue.

What's considered to the best encoder nowadays?

BTW, sorry to stray off topic- I just remembered this was about Redbook CDs/

 

[djoxygen]

I was a little bit embarrased, a couple years ago, when I was first giving in to the mp3/aac/m4p (r/d)evolution. I set up some tests to see if I could determine which encoder was the least objectionable and how low a bit rate I could even stand to listen to.

For most of the music I have in my (now over 30GB) mp3 collection, a 320kbps mp3 is almost indistinguishable from an AIFF rip of the same track. Granted most of my music is electronic dance-oriented stuff (NOT top-40) so the masters run pretty hot, but the needle isn't quite buried like a Britney track. With the proper tools (ear and brain) a track can be made hot without getting crushed, but the major labels are obviously pressing the producers to get those tracks to pop on the radio.

Comparing to older stuff, the learning curve the mastering engineers went through is obvious. Many of the early CD masters were pulled straight from the same masters used for the vinyl which was disastrous for many recordings. By about 1990 it seemed that most engineers had it figured out, but they still didn't have the digital look-ahead peak limiters that allow the current pop stuff to be so incredibly over-compressed, so many of the early- and mid-90s CDs are beautifully mastered, IMO.

 

[Rob Babcock]

As engineer Rip Rowan points out on his website, producers are pressured to make their discs "louder" to stand out on the radio, but radio stations have their own compression, etc to normalize the volumes. I was a 'jock in college, and can attest to the fact that you want the music to flow, not to have one track way louder. Besides, if everyone bends the needle over, it's all gonna be that loud!

Yeah, there was a definate learning curve, but a lot of rock/pop stuff seems to show we're moving backwards with regards to SQ.

 

[WmAx]

ONe of the better lossy formats is ogg vorbis, but it is not supported universally as is mp3, etc. As for mp3, one of the best encoders is considerd to be Lame. However, their are numerous switching options to vary the quality of it's encoding.

In most circumstances, a high qualityh 256kbps mp3 encode on lame with a higly quality mode will yeild transparent results. In some cases, 192kbps can be transparent. Their are always those rare problem samples, though. If a 1/5th second sample that occurs a few times in the exceptional song in a large collection of songs is unacceptable, then I suppose mp3 is not for you. But, some specific music types(such as harpsichord solos) make cause constant audible problems. But then you might just ask yourself if you usually listen to harpsichord music(or other very hard to encode known sounds)....

I think that it's far to early to make accusations of 'fatigue' from mp3 compression. But what is this based on? Properly encoded hi bitrate mp3s or low quality encodings off of P2P networks? What was the testing methdology used? But I do think it's fair to make that accusation concerning dynmaic compression. That is an easily audible difference. As a recent example, I like that new Ashlee Simpson album, but I can't listen to it for more then a few minutes. The complete lack of dynamics is extremely annoying.

-Chris

I really see no point to MP3, at least for my own use. I have no portable player nor do I need one, and I never download music. Blank CD-Rs are very cheap, so I have no need to try to fit 10 hours on one. MP3 is a PITA on a DVD player (as opposed to a PC) since there's no way to program them or list them in any way but alphabetically. Most of my standalone CD players won't recognize MP3s nor play them back. Plus, I have software from Eximius to burn WAV files onto DVD-R, giving MP3 playing time with Redbook bitrates.

NOTE: I'm not saying MP3 has no usefullness, merely that I don't need it.

As to the SQ of codecs, I've read a lot of articles and DBT results. Different codecs have different strenghts and weakness. S&V had an interesting article on "codec killers" a few years back- it was a DBT plus a section of selections that were fairly reliably picked from Redbook with most all of the codecs. I can't remember all of them, but it seems like a Nirvana song from "Nevermind" was one of them (something to do with extremely distorted guitar being a codecs worst nightmare). My admittedly unsubstantiated conjecture (I call it that so WmAX doesn't take me to task for stretching to call it a theory!) is that although the process can be very effective, the 1-in-100 or 1-in-1000 instances where we can hear the difference may be what leads to listener fatigue.

What's considered to the best encoder nowadays?

BTW, sorry to stray off topic- I just remembered this was about Redbook CDs/

 

[WmAx]

It's odd. What is this pressure based on? Certainly not a valid perceptual study that I am aware. Loudness is not the sole variable in these cases, so a simple loudness vs. quality perceptual test is not suitable. Where are the perceptual tests confirming that people prefer a louder AND heavily dynamically compressed musical passage compared to the dynamic, but quieter version?

It is ironic that the digital mastering equipment/processors are better then ever, yet the end results more often than not are inferior to what was produced 10-15 years ago. Just becuase of compression/limiting abuse ?!?!?!?! Man, this gets my goat.

-Chris

As engineer Rip Rowan points out on his website, producers are pressured to make their discs "louder" to stand out on the radio, but radio stations have their own compression, etc to normalize the volumes. I was a 'jock in college, and can attest to the fact that you want the music to flow, not to have one track way louder. Besides, if everyone bends the needle over, it's all gonna be that loud!

Yeah, there was a definate learning curve, but a lot of rock/pop stuff seems to show we're moving backwards with regards to SQ.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Hey, don't knock the harpsicord, bub! I actually do listen to that instrument a lot (even if I can't spell it), and I have several hundred classical CDs. I'd say piano & cello are also stern tests for a codec. Again, I have no experience with P2P stuff- all the MP3 I've used has been ripped directly from RBCDs in my own possession. The only stuff I've been very pleased with has been 320 kbps & the highest rate VBR. But then, I'm no expert on MP3, and I've only tried Nero, Music Match Jukebox, & EAC. I did try the DMX plugins, but I didn't really detect any difference. Probably there's better encoders. As I said, my interest in MP3 was short lived, and ultimately I just don't really need it.

BTW, one use for MP3 is to put many hours of music on a disc, but I don't see that as desireable. Again, with no good way to change the order of the songs from alphabetical, 6 hours is just not necessary. I did make some MP3 discs where I changed the song names to incorporate a numerical prefix so they were in a specific order of my choosing. But man, that's a lot of work- not practical on a daily basis.

I know of no tests of or studies of listener fatigue. As you allude to, it would be a complex thing to attempt to subject to DBT. ABX style testing is great for determining if there's a JND between two things, but it's problematic for trying to diagnos an effect that may take hours to experience. To set up a test you'd have to know what you were looking for.

It might be a bit like listening to your mother in law. A short period of time doesn't seem so bad, but an hour or so and you're ready to puncture your eardrums with an ice pick.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I know of no tests of or studies of listener fatigue. As you allude to, it would be a complex thing to attempt to subject to DBT. ABX style testing is great for determining if there's a JND between two things, but it's problematic for trying to diagnos an effect that may take hours to experience. To set up a test you'd have to know what you were looking for.

Some time back, there was a DBT test
"The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double Blind Testing", Shanefield, Daniel, Hi-Fidelity, Mar 80, pg 57-61.

that went on for several month to test the notion of 'long term listeing'

Didn't help. But it was duable. So, I think listener fatigue could be tested in a similar way. You set up a component that is known to cause such fatigue under biased conditions and one that doesn't and see if you can pick it out in a significant number of times. If not, then it is yet another audio voodoo song which is what I am sure will be the case.

It might be a bit like listening to your mother in law. A short period of time doesn't seem so bad, but an hour or so and you're ready to puncture your eardrums with an ice pick.

Better hope she is not reading behind your back

 

[Rob Babcock]

Mine is fortunately of the "ex" variety.

 

[WmAx]

I did say 'may' though I noticed i mispelled and stated 'make'..lol. but I mean it may have problems, as have been discovered with some particular harpsichord samples at hydrogen audio under ABX tests. However, this is dependant on many things. I would very much like to test/encode some songs that you consider to be hard to encode. Please consider either (1) sending me a CDR with a selection of songs you choose, ripped with EAC and sent as wave files. [or](2) rip some wave samples with EAC and go into an audio editor and trim to the most 'complex' parts that are a few seconds long and save these short wave files and upload for me to test/encode. I am interested in the samples you believe are difficult to encode properly. I'll provide you with the test encodes and a link to a nice ABX comparator software so that you can try too.

-Chris

Hey, don't knock the harpsicord, bub! I actually do listen to that instrument a lot (even if I can't spell it), and I have several hundred classical CDs. I'd say piano & cello are also stern tests for a codec. Again, I have no experience with P2P stuff- all the MP3 I've used has been ripped directly from RBCDs in my own possession. The only stuff I've been very pleased with has been 320 kbps & the highest rate VBR. But then, I'm no expert on MP3, and I've only tried Nero, Music Match Jukebox, & EAC. I did try the DMX plugins, but I didn't really detect any difference. Probably there's better encoders. As I said, my interest in MP3 was short lived, and ultimately I just don't really need it.

BTW, one use for MP3 is to put many hours of music on a disc, but I don't see that as desireable. Again, with no good way to change the order of the songs from alphabetical, 6 hours is just not necessary. I did make some MP3 discs where I changed the song names to incorporate a numerical prefix so they were in a specific order of my choosing. But man, that's a lot of work- not practical on a daily basis.

I know of no tests of or studies of listener fatigue. As you allude to, it would be a complex thing to attempt to subject to DBT. ABX style testing is great for determining if there's a JND between two things, but it's problematic for trying to diagnos an effect that may take hours to experience. To set up a test you'd have to know what you were looking for.

It might be a bit like listening to your mother in law. A short period of time doesn't seem so bad, but an hour or so and you're ready to puncture your eardrums with an ice pick.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I did say 'may' though I noticed i mispelled and stated 'make'..lol. but I mean it may have problems, as have been discovered with some particular harpsichord samples at hydrogen audio under ABX tests. However, this is dependant on many things. I would very much like to test/encode some songs that you consider to be hard to encode. Please consider either (1) sending me a CDR with a selection of songs you choose, ripped with EAC and sent as wave files. [or](2) rip some wave samples with EAC and go into an audio editor and trim to the most 'complex' parts that are a few seconds long and save these short wave files and upload for me to test/encode. I am interested in the samples you believe are difficult to encode properly. I'll provide you with the test encodes and a link to a nice ABX comparator software so that you can try too.

-Chris

That would be interesting. I'll have to take some time, though- it's been a while since I've used MP3. I'll have to see what I can find. If memory serves, between the S&V article and my own admittedly subjective recollections, 1) massed strings, 2) cello, 3) a large brass section, 4) piano & 5) large orchestra were the least satisfying things I've encoded. Again, I may not have used the best encoder, either. Lastly, some of my playback gear doesn't like MP3: my older Pioneer won't always play them & sometimes has static, and my Denon doesn't always recognize any track #'d above 20. I have no idea why.

PM me your addy and I'll try to come up with a CD-R of wav files. Be advised that it may take me a while to do so, though.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Doesn teh ABX software allow for performing the comparison on my computer or would it mean I'd have to connect my PC to my main rig? My PC sound rig is pretty modest: Griffin Powerwave Tripath amp/soundcard driving a pair of JBL HLS-610s. Fine for cranking tunes while I surf or monitor compilations, but hardly high end.

 

[av_phile]

Comparing to older stuff, the learning curve the mastering engineers went through is obvious. Many of the early CD masters were pulled straight from the same masters used for the vinyl which was disastrous for many recordings. By about 1990 it seemed that most engineers had it figured out, but they still didn't have the digital look-ahead peak limiters that allow the current pop stuff to be so incredibly over-compressed, so many of the early- and mid-90s CDs are beautifully mastered, IMO.

Those early Telarc releases on CDs that were previously issued on LPs are excellent even by today's standards. They have reissued some in SACD using the same 20-bit soundstream masters that were used for LPs, and I must say that with the few titles I have, I can't distinguish the SACD stereo tracks reworked in DSD from the early CDs.

But I think these are more of exceptions during the early CD years. And they are mostly in the Jazz and Classical domain. I could swear I started noticing some gorgeous CD titles startng to appear with some Jazz fussion and pop in the mid-90s or a bit earlier.