Why are CDs the current hot topic?

[Mart Mccall]

I don't know which is true, but I have read more than once that for a one, or two week period....EVERY CD manufactured in the world was an AOL setup disc.

I remember getting one in the post, totally unsolicited. I suppose if they sent one to every address in the western world, that's a lot of discs.

 

[Gigantic]

But can most people tell the difference after they are 30+ years old?

I'm 55 and my hearing is trashed from growing up on a farm, playing in bands, US Army 8" artillery & generators, a decade spent coaching motorcycle trackdays, as well working in professional motorcycle flat track and road racing, not to mention a 30-year career in high-end residential construction. My hearing has a mass roll-off at 9750Hz and I can hear a difference. Listening for differences in components is a matter of learned skill, not hearing frequency response

 

[intro6]

Listening for differences in components is a matter of learned skill, not hearing frequency response

Although I'm someone who's into having a higher quality audio system (or else I probably wouldn't be here), it's never really been my method to keep switching out different components and doing comparison listening. Instead, I'll make my decisions based on what I read to tell whether if it's the best overall fit for me, and that has given me very satisfying results. I guess that I just don't have the patience for ongoing comparison listening with the related switching out of components. Also, audio stores are few and far between these days. The good quality stuff is very good these days, so you're not going to go very wrong.

IMO, the best way to get this learned audio skill is simply to listen closely to well done recorded music on a quality audio system. Lower hearing frequency response is an overrated problem, I think. Practically every instrument's and voice's range ends well before 10 khz, meaning you'll probably just only lose a little of the shimmery effects that you may hear once in a while. Also, while quality audio is important, it's the good musicality of the source, something which spans a whole spectrum of genres, which is the most important. It's like the old computer saying: "Garbage In, Garbage Out".

 

[RunOutGroove]

They are no 'better' but they almost always are a different mastering to the CD version, so they do sound different.

Often the SACD remaster has less dynamic range than the CD which makes a mockery of the supposed 24 bit capability.

I believe that differences in mastering probably account for why a SACD would sound very different, if not better than a regular CD. As for 24 bit dynamic range, it seems that it's so far beyond what's called for as it be a bit silly. I think that level of dynamic range would be something like hearing a tiny gnat buzzing from a yard away vs standing right next to a jet airplane about to take off... something that few if any systems can reproduce and that virtually no people would even want to experience.

Never had any interest in them. When well recorded and mastered CDs already sound utterly fantastic, why would I pay a premium price for something which "supposedly" ekes out a minuscule (and hardly audible) amount of improvement. They were also obviously a failure since I've never encountered any out in the world, and don't recall any SACD players either, at least for a long while. Maybe at least some DVD players play them, but I could care less. From what I know, most artists don't bother putting their albums out on them either.

I really liked the idea of those things, but having checked it out, it seems to me that the chief advantage of them is multi-channel sound, if you're running that type of system. I don't think it really offers anything extra, or at least anything perceiveably more, for stereo.

 

[Zygmo]

I remember getting one in the post, totally unsolicited. I suppose if they sent one to every address in the western world, that's a lot of discs.

Yes...they were in displays by grocery store checkout lanes, department stores, auto stores, flooded the mails...you name it. Started out with slow dial-up, charge by the minute. I sure enjoyed the chat rooms!!

 

[Mart Mccall]

I believe that differences in mastering probably account for why a SACD would sound very different, if not better than a regular CD. As for 24 bit dynamic range, it seems that it's so far beyond what's called for as it be a bit silly. I think that level of dynamic range would be something like hearing a tiny gnat buzzing from a yard away vs standing right next to a jet airplane about to take off... something that few if any systems can reproduce and that virtually no people would even want to experience.

Yes, you would need a very quiet room and a recording that had that sort of dynamic range. I understand there's only a handful of recordings in existence that exceed 16 bits of DR and they are all classical music.

 

[Vlad Soare]

I don't think it's possible to exceed 96dB of dynamic range in real life, in a concert hall. In which case, making a recording that exceeds that, and that would require an anechoic chamber to hear the softest passages without blowing your ears out on the loudest ones, is a completely futile exercise, in my opinion.
Such a recording would be unlistenable in normal conditions, even in a reasonably quiet living room, without fiddling with the volume knob all the time. Who wants that? I know I don't.

 

[Mart Mccall]

I don't think it's possible to exceed 96dB of dynamic range in real life, in a concert hall. In which case, making a recording that exceeds that, and that would require an anechoic chamber to hear the softest passages without blowing your ears out on the loudest ones, is a completely futile exercise, in my opinion.
Such a recording would be unlistenable in normal conditions, even in a reasonably quiet living room, without fiddling with the volume knob all the time. Who wants that? I know I don't.

There's a practical limit - and if you look at the trend in mastering since the mid 1990s it is to reduce the dynamic range, in some cases down to nothing. Which made the appearance of formats like SACD and DVD-A in the early 2000s even more bizarre.

Especially when the new mastering done specifically for those formats often reduced the dynamic range compared to the original CD release of the same album.

But it was never really about better sound, just getting people to buy the same thing over again. I admit I fell for it. Although in some cases the new masterings are genuinely improved (Rolling Stones 'Beggars Banquet' for example). You get the benefit even if you don't have a SACD player since it's a hybrid and the CD layer is identical (it isn't always).

 

[bluesky]

Simple:
M- outstanding titled CD albums for $1 to $2 each.

 

[Apreggiator]

I don't think it's possible to exceed 96dB of dynamic range in real life, in a concert hall. In which case, making a recording that exceeds that, and that would require an anechoic chamber to hear the softest passages without blowing your ears out on the loudest ones, is a completely futile exercise, in my opinion.
Such a recording would be unlistenable in normal conditions, even in a reasonably quiet living room, without fiddling with the volume knob all the time. Who wants that? I know I don't.

That's not true. Many bombastic classical pieces will clock in at over 110db in a concert hall.
How low versus loud is handled recording it, is a different story. A sound engineer needs to manage the recording mics to capture both quiet solo passages vs full orchestra hits. When left at the level that captures low volume all the time the mics will clip with the loud ones and you'll have an unusable recording. (And yes, the sound engineer could also set up more mics for different purposes and cut parts from different mics/channels together.)

 

[Vlad Soare]

That's not true. Many bombastic classical pieces will clock in at over 110db in a concert hall.

Yeah, but if the ambient noise in my listening room, which I regard as pretty quiet, is around 30 dB at the best of times (usually around 35), then I imagine that in a concert hall it must be at least 40, if not more. So, if the softest passages must be at least 40 dB in order to be audible, and the peaks are at 110 dB, that makes for a dynamic range of about 70 dB.
A dynamic range of 96 dB would require the softest passages to be at 14 dB, which would be completely inaudible. But they aren't. You can hear everything perfectly in a concert hall, which means you can't possibly have 96 dB of dynamic range.

 

[Apreggiator]

Yeah, but if the ambient noise in my listening room, which I regard as pretty quiet, is around 30 dB at the best of times (usually around 35), then I imagine that in a concert hall it must be at least 40, if not more. So, if the softest passages must be at least 40 dB in order to be audible, and the peaks are at 110 dB, that makes for a dynamic range of about 70 dB.
A dynamic range of 96 dB would require the softest passages to be at 14 dB, which would be completely inaudible. But they aren't. You can hear everything perfectly in a concert hall, which means you can't possibly have 96 dB of dynamic range.

I can only repeat myself, when a full orchestra hits (playing a bombastic piece), the sound volume will exceed 110db.
Take a db meter with you to the concert hall if you want to verify it for yourself next time you visit a concert.

 

[Vlad Soare]

I can only repeat myself, when a full orchestra hits (playing a bombastic piece), the sound volume will exceed 110db.
Take a db meter with you to the concert hall if you want to verify it for yourself next time you visit a concert.

I know that. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the dynamic range, which means the difference between the softest and the loudest passages.
I never said the peaks cannot exceed 96 dB. I know they can. I know a full orchestra can reach 110 dB in a bombastic piece. That's not the point.
What I said was that it's impossible to have a difference of 96 dB between soft and loud. If the peaks are at 110 dB, as you say, and the softest passages must be at least 40 dB (because otherwise they would be completely inaudible in a concert hall), then the dynamic range is a mere 70 dB.

 

[Apreggiator]

I don't think it's possible to exceed 96dB of dynamic range in real life, in a concert hall. In which case, making a recording that exceeds that, and that would require an anechoic chamber to hear the softest passages without blowing your ears out on the loudest ones, is a completely futile exercise, in my opinion.
Such a recording would be unlistenable in normal conditions, even in a reasonably quiet living room, without fiddling with the volume knob all the time. Who wants that? I know I don't.

I know that. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the dynamic range, which means the difference between the softest and the loudest passages.
I never said the peaks cannot exceed 96 dB. I know they can. I know a full orchestra can reach 110 dB in a bombastic piece. That's not the point.
What I said was that it's impossible to have a difference of 96 dB between soft and loud. If the peaks are at 110 dB, as you say, and the softest passages must be at least 40 dB (because otherwise they would be complete inaudible), then the dynamic range is a mere 70 dB.

I see.
You mean that the noise floor isn't removed by over 96db from the loudest peak. Situations where this occurs will indeed be rare, concert hall or otherwise.
It's just that the way you put your example read like exceeding the 96db limit, but I understand what you mean now.

Also, your point (that a recording with an exceedingly large contrasts between quiet and loud becomes unlistenable and would require constant manual volume adjustments) is 100% corrrect.

 

[Vlad Soare]

Well.
You mentioned literally that it's not possible to exceed 96db of dynamic range in real life. This is what I responded to.

Exactly. It's impossible to exceed 96 dB of dynamic range in real life, if you want to be able to hear both extremes of the spectrum. I never said it was impossible to reach a momentary output of 96 dB SPL or more. The latter is obviously possible, as you say. I don't contest that.

 

[Apreggiator]

I feel like ordering a beer now! Cheers

 

[twiiii]

I wonder when people are going to wake up and realize how much better the image quality and sound are on a Blu-ray DVD and it doesn't always have to be a 4K dvd either. Or are we going to have to wait until they are almost unavailable like the LP was for quite a few years before people wake up and realize what they are missing. If any of you have seen Oppenheimer did you realize that there were no digital effects in the movie? I might be wrong but I think the movie was captured on old fashion Kodak film. Analog all the way!

 

[unknownk]

Oppenheimer had no CGI, but had other visual effects done digitally plus color corrections etc. CGI gets way over used these days while prefer practical affects like in Carpenters move The Thing.

Image quality has come a long way, but I still enjoyed watching a VHS movie on a rear projection TV done in letterbox format back in the day. Laserdiscs were better than VHS, and DVD came along but the problem with HD-DVD, Blu-Ray and 4K Blu-Ray was few if any places rented them for home use and now stores like Best Buy are killing retail media sales altogether. I have a 50" 4K TV in the living room with no 4K content to view, and a 40" 1080P TV with Netflix/DVD player in my room. It's like PC gaming, if you freeze a screen, you can see the difference in resolutions, but it's mostly lost in full motion video. At least with VHS you didn't have motion blur and artifacts in action movies like some early DVDs has. If anything, I think Dolby DTS and later versions plus a decent surround sound setup was better for home viewing experiences more than Blu-Ray resolution.

 

[Late Boomer]

I would not want to be in that concert hall with 110 dB sound volume. 120 dB is pain threshold, anything louder can permanently damage ears.

 

[bruhl001]

I never gave up on CDs, and that's probably why I don't get the current flood of CD and CD player content on YouTube as well as many of the music and hi-fi gear related sites. I have CD players and changers in my trucks, and I have a carousel style CD changer plus remote DAC for my vintage home system. I have purchased way more CDs than LPs over the past 10 years, and I don't see that ever changing.

Why are CDs the current hot topic?

Do you think audiophillia contains unlimited subject content?