Jump to content
IGNORED

Why audiophiles still use CDs?


hdo

Recommended Posts

...Barry,

Thanks for sending me your files some time ago. I sold my house and put all my gear in storage, which is why I haven't responded. However, I recently bought a Devialet 200 with ATOHM GT1 speakers (Ensemble) and have been playing your files but so far are unable to hear a distinct difference, even between the 16/44.1 and 24/192.

 

If the files are all from the same original master recorded at 24/192, and then properly dithered with noise shaping down to 16/44.1, then I am not so sure I should hear a difference. According to Bob Katz...

 

Hi Ajax,

 

The files are once again downloadable via our Format Comparison page.

 

I can't speak to "should" other than to say that my experience has been that "should" and "is" don't travel together as often as some of us might expect or wish. Further, I could be wrong of course, but I believe if you ask Bob, he will say he can hear clear differences between 24/192 and the 16/44 created from the same master, even with the best dither in the world (whatever one deems that to be).

 

I have not heard the converter you used but even so, I'm also aware that different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound. My best suggestion for finding out if your system can reveal the differences, or if you hear them, or if any that you might hear are meaningful to *you* is to listen for a while to the 24/192. Forget A/B-ing and just enjoy the music on the 24/192. After spending some time with this, switch to the 16/44. When I do this, my first instinct is to suspect something just broke in the system.

 

I recently posted about spending the day mastering the latest Soundkeeper release, working with the 24/192 originals. When it was all done, I created the other versions and just for "fun", played some of the 16/44 for myself and for the artist who sat with me all day. His "Wow" was very telling. I immediately got up and checked all the connections and walked around to check all the gear and to make sure the speakers still had all the drivers working properly. The system was fine as was easily confirmed by playing some of the 24/192 again.

 

If it helps, listen for things that are not in the "foreground", things that are lower in level than the loudest sounds occurring. For example, instrumental harmonics, lower level (background) insruments, spatial cues, etc. Harmonics will tell you a lot (I find things like cellos start to sound like kazoos at CD resolution). Listen for what you can hear about the room in which the musicians are playing, assuming such is contained in the recording. How easy is it to tell the size of the space or what the walls are made of? Listen for things like the reverberation after louder sounds decay (which I find defocused and truncated at CD resolution).

 

In the end, I suppose not everyone is going to hear the same thing. I know folks who clearly hear benefits in .wav over .aif, yet to my ears, they are utterly indistinguishable. I always suggest to potential Soundkeeper customers to purchase the CD if they don't hear a difference. The price is much lower as is the hard drive space consumption when ripped to a music server.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
If the files are all from the same original master recorded at 24/192, and then properly dithered with noise shaping down to 16/44.1, then I am not so sure I should hear a difference. According to Bob Katz; (Bob Katz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

"When performed properly, dithering will help your music to retain its depth and purity of tone. Although the required amplitude of the dither is about -96 dB, it's possible to shape (equalize) the dither to minimize its audibility. Noise-shaping techniques re-equalize the spectrum of the dither while retaining its average power, moving the noise away from the areas where the ear is most sensitive (circa 3 KHz), and into the high frequency region (10-22 KHz).

I find that with modern DACs, noise shaping is not as necessary and can even be detrimental to the sound quality.

I would much rather use a flat TPDF dither than a noise-shaped one.

Another advantage of this, in my opinion, is that this noise is identical in character to analog noise.

 

However, since modern DACs are capable of a low enough noise floor that their effective number of bits is around 21, I would much rather have a 24-bit (dithered) track than a 16-bit one.

Properly dithered 16-bit tracks should not have any more distortion than a 24-bit one, but the noise floor is a bit higher. In most setups that should be inaudible, but in some cases it may start to become audible.

Link to comment
and have been playing your files but so far are unable to hear a distinct difference, even between the 16/44.1 and 24/192.

 

ajax

Was the 24/192 version originally downloaded from the formats comparison page too?

Another member had difficulty there too, so I uploaded the 24/192 .wav version directly from my DVD, then he was able to hear a difference. I won't be going further into reasons why this should matter, just mentioning it.

Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

I have been trying to think of the advantages of having 16/44.1 in files instead of a disc.

Are there any other besides taking up a tiny fraction of the in-room storage space and the ability to use playlists?

 

My experience with computer audio is very recent but I feel that getting good sound isn't as straightforward as one could be led to believe...one doesn't just plug a PC, a hard-drive and a D/AC and it automatically sounds "better" (or is more accurate) than what you get from a CD player.

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
I have been trying to think of the advantages of having 16/44.1 in files instead of a disc.

Are there any other besides taking up a tiny fraction of the in-room storage space and the ability to use playlists?

 

My experience with computer audio is very recent but I feel that getting good sound isn't as straightforward as one could be led to believe...one doesn't just plug a PC, a hard-drive and a D/AC and it automatically sounds "better" (or is more accurate) than what you get from a CD player.

 

R

 

Hi R,

 

For me, the main advantage is the sound is now like that of the master used to make the CD. I've never heard a spinning CD disc sound like the master form which it was made, regardless of the transport or player. Properly ripping the disc to a computer fixes the issue.

 

Aside from the sound, there is the virtually instant access to anything in your library and the ability to search by artist, composer or any other category for which metadata is entered. (Certainly not plug-and-play - I found a great deal of time and effort is needed to properly get all the metadata I find useful. But once the work is done, I find it so very worth it. There is access to my music library in ways I'd never have imagined before.)

 

Getting back to the sound, as I always say, what is "good", "better" or "best" depends on exactly what one is seeking. My experience has been that not all formats are equal. My own preference has been to load files in a raw PCM format. I use .aif. It is the format in which I do all my recordings, mixes and mastering too.

 

The choice of external DAC will of course impact the sound, as will the connection protocol. Some of the earlier USB connections (the "adaptive" ones) are not suggested as I find these do some serious harm to the sound. (Again, this depends on what one seeks but "adaptive" USB does not do timing well and this will impact tonality as well as other characteristics of the sound.)

 

It does take some work to set up a good server. I spent the better part of a year loading all my CDs and finding the correct metadata and cleanest cover art on the web. Now, when I purchase a new disc, it takes only minutes to add it to the library.

 

For a bit more on the subject, I wrote a blog entry on the subject called Listening to Tomorrow. I hope it is of interest.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com

Barry Diament Audio

Link to comment
Hi Ajax,

 

The files are once again downloadable via our Format Comparison page.

 

I can't speak to "should" other than to say that my experience has been that "should" and "is" don't travel together as often as some of us might expect or wish. Further, I could be wrong of course, but I believe if you ask Bob, he will say he can hear clear differences between 24/192 and the 16/44 created from the same master, even with the best dither in the world (whatever one deems that to be).

 

I have not heard the converter you used but even so, I'm also aware that different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound. My best suggestion for finding out if your system can reveal the differences, or if you hear them, or if any that you might hear are meaningful to *you* is to listen for a while to the 24/192. Forget A/B-ing and just enjoy the music on the 24/192. After spending some time with this, switch to the 16/44. When I do this, my first instinct is to suspect something just broke in the system.

 

If it helps, listen for things that are not in the "foreground", things that are lower in level than the loudest sounds occurring. For example, instrumental harmonics, lower level (background) insruments, spatial cues, etc. Harmonics will tell you a lot (I find things like cellos start to sound like kazoos at CD resolution). Listen for what you can hear about the room in which the musicians are playing, assuming such is contained in the recording. How easy is it to tell the size of the space or what the walls are made of? Listen for things like the reverberation after louder sounds decay (which I find defocused and truncated at CD resolution).

 

Hi Barry,

 

I wanted to get back to you with my initial thoughts as soon as possible as I'm going away for few weeks tomorrow and you have been so generous with your time. However, I would like a little longer before I draw any conclusions on what I do and do not hear.

 

I spent most of the day listening to the various formats on your web site via Audirvana on a MAC Mini (8G Ram) through my Devialet Ensemble and again struggled to hear a "difference" with A/B type testing. I then put all the 24/192, 24/96 and 16/44.1 files into 3 separate folders and played as you suggested, ie. only the 24/192 format files for all songs (several times) and then changed to 16/44.1 for all songs. I haven't bothered yet with 24/96. I didn't listen for anything and just played the music.

 

I did not do this blind and therefore my results could easily be biased but one thing I noticed is that I enjoyed listening to the 24/192 more than the 16/44.1. At one stage I found myself tapping the spoon on the sink while cooking dinner. I also felt the need to turn down the 16/44.1 as it was grating a little. I think the overall sound of the 24/192 was richer (fuller) and more engaging. Not very technical terms are they!

 

If I was to have a guess at what I experienced I would say that the 24/192 conveyed more feeling and there was a better connection with the music. It was more real and the voices and individual instruments sounded more natural and were more easily to identify and follow. Strangely I couldn't hear this while A/B testing ... maybe I was trying to hard to "hear" a difference. Anyway I'm not trained in listening so I will download the Phillips and Harmon guides and have another go when I return.

 

FYI here is a link with Bob Katz talking about mastering in general, and from about the 20 minute mark onwards he talks about his preference for 24/96 as you suggested. The clip is about a year old so apologies to you and those who have already seen it but I felt it was on thread as he actually states "now the CD is dead".

 

As you would know he is assisting Apple to produce 256 VBR straight from the original 24/96 (and 192) masters so there is no more dithering (as in you dithering fool - my joke and a bad one). It makes me think that this is probably as far as Apple will go in terms of audio quality as 256 VBR in ACC from a master IMO will sound easily "good enough" for the masses and will certainly satisfy my son's generation who value convience as much, if not more, than sound quality. He plays all his music from a 16G iPhone 4 and recently asked for an upgrade as he is out of disc space. If I say listen to this amazing sound and you can only fit about a 10th of what you already have he will tell me to go fly a kite (no he won't .... he's recently learnt some new words courtesy of boarding school and they are not very long).

 

I believe that B&W's society of sound (who IMO produce wonderful recordings under the guidance of Peter Gabrielle) previously recorded and distributed in 24/48 and are now providing 24/96, and since the "death" of the CD my guess is this will not only be the recording standard but the distribution standard for audiophiles.

 

I will continue to listen and explore the various formats but at the end of the day my attitude will most likely be the same as the codec wars ... i.e. if you really think AIFF is superior to ALAC then for another $50 buy a 2TB hard drive instead of 1TB and rip in AIFF and forget about it. If I can get music at 24/96 then that is what I will most likely choose in the future. My only problem is justifying the additional cost - it doesn't make a lot of sense to me if the material is recorded at 24/96 or 24/192 why the additional cost to distribute?. We've had this discussion before and I think it will eventually be a deal breaker for the studios to charge more - only audiophiles will value the extra fidelity and that market is way too small in my guestimate for it to be commercially viable.

 

I personally think Apple are on the right track - very good sound (not excellent but very good) that is affordable and convenient. An iPhone 6 with 64G can hold a lot of 256 VBR and there will be no need for another device if they continue to upgrade the internal DAC.

 

Anyway my 2 cents and thanks again for your kindness in helping educate myself and others here at CA.

 

Ajax

LOUNGE: Mac Mini - Audirvana - Devialet 200 - ATOHM GT1 Speakers

OFFICE : Mac Mini - Audirvana - Benchmark DAC1HDR - ADAM A7 Active Monitors

TRAVEL : MacBook Air - Dragonfly V1.2 DAC - Sennheiser HD 650

BEACH : iPhone 6 - HRT iStreamer DAC - Akimate Micro + powered speakers

Link to comment
I will continue to listen and explore the various formats but at the end of the day my attitude will most likely be the same as the codec wars ... i.e. if you really think AIFF is superior to ALAC then for another $50 buy a 2TB hard drive instead of 1TB and rip in AIFF and forget about it. If I can get music at 24/96 then that is what I will most likely choose in the future. My only problem is justifying the additional cost - it doesn't make a lot of sense to me if the material is recorded at 24/96 or 24/192 why the additional cost to distribute?. We've had this discussion before and I think it will eventually be a deal breaker for the studios to charge more - only audiophiles will value the extra fidelity and that market is way too small in my guestimate for it to be commercially viable.

 

This has also been my big question "Why so expensive when compared to the CD?". As there is no cost in manufacturing the CD or producing the packaging, I'm a little baffled why most labels feel the need to charged a premium for a digital file to the tune of as much as 3x times that of the CD. In this era where most people are not buying music anymore but rather streaming or torrenting at the price point for some that the labels are asking. I have already refused to buy any Hi-Res albums where the label is asking anymore that $20 and I have to think twice at $17.... And as Barry mentioned he created the 44.1/16 master from the 192/24, so in fact it created more work for the CD to be made.

Link to comment

Apologies Barry,

 

Here's the link to the Bob Katz interview

 

LOUNGE: Mac Mini - Audirvana - Devialet 200 - ATOHM GT1 Speakers

OFFICE : Mac Mini - Audirvana - Benchmark DAC1HDR - ADAM A7 Active Monitors

TRAVEL : MacBook Air - Dragonfly V1.2 DAC - Sennheiser HD 650

BEACH : iPhone 6 - HRT iStreamer DAC - Akimate Micro + powered speakers

Link to comment
Hi,

I am new to here.

 

About 10 years ago when DVD was first introduced, I bought a multimedia laptop with high definition sound card. I noticed that the sound quality of music DVDs is significantly better than CDs. Once I got used to music DVD sound, CDs sound terrible. So I stop using CDs and thus stop buying them.

 

DVDs use 48khz sampling rate. It's just 9% more samples than CD's 44.1khz. DVDs can have 16, 20, 24 bits PCM tracks. But mostly 16 bits. Still sound is noticeably better. CDs sound somewhat like earphones! Especially female vocals are distorted. With DVDs, you can hear noticeable improvement.

 

I stopped using CDs long time ago. At the moment, I am limited to music DVDs. Some are in 24bits. Sound is quite nice. I listen using 24bits/192khz USB-DAC and headphones, normally upsampled to 24bits/96khz on-the-fly. I also found that high definition is better with headphones, over speakers. There are reasons that can be explained with laws of physics for this.

 

Starting from 16bits/48khz, I can hear all sort of sound, including sound characteristics of original media (=tape) and microphones, limitations/mistakes in original sound recording, sound localtion/distance, air/breath sound, etc. So the importance of recording quality. But it is difficult to find quality tracks.

 

Here's is an important question: Why some audiophiles still spend heaps of dollars to listen CD's disgusting sound? I would expect them moved away from CDs long time ago, because they are audiophiles. They can move to high-definition for better sound. Note that high definition doesn't require you to invest on expensive equipments. With honestly priced DAC and good headphones, you can enjoy high definition sound, of course, with your computer.

 

The problem I have is finding tracks with quality recording!

 

I buy CD's simply because the downloaded CD quality 16/44.1 file costs more than 99% of the CD's out there so ripping is far cheaper than downloading.

I have found you an argument; I am not obliged to find you any understanding – Samuel Johnson

Link to comment
I buy CD's simply because the downloaded CD quality 16/44.1 file costs more than 99% of the CD's out there so ripping is far cheaper than downloading.

 

Plus you have all the packaging artwork, which I find important... I'm still puzzled why it is that a music label will price there cd version cheaper than a lossless digital version of the exact same thing...very puzzling.

Link to comment
Plus you have all the packaging artwork, which I find important... I'm still puzzled why it is that a music label will price there cd version cheaper than a lossless digital version of the exact same thing...very puzzling.

 

The price of downloads and CDs has been discussed before, in the end, the winner is the label and the loser is the buyer, no surprise.

 

The cost of the download also includes upsampling the Redbook copies or ripped files to 192 or 96fs and creating file names for the downloads, it's a lot of effort (pffft). Depends on where you buy the downloads, Qobuz has the latest album from Bjork in 24bit for EUR15, the Redbook is EUR13. On the net, it's easy to compare prices, but of course regional restrictions apply and you grudgingly forced have to use the local on line merchant (a VERY kind and opposite word due to the respect of the forum), HDTRACKS, comes to mind and some of the titles just aren't available from them either. VPN is a great tool, the best invented, but just ask the Chinese about shutting off VPN....

 

Amazon 99.9% of the time will export CDs to other countries. This is my major source of supply, followed by Qobuz for downloaded titles which aren't that easy to come by from Amazon, mainly due to specialisation and out of print. First choice though is the Music Direct catalogue of Mobile fidelity SACD or CDs, or the SHM versions from Japan. If you're going to spend, then get the best, which I rather do than a faux PCM hires issue and be cheesed off.

 

In rare and exceptional circumstances does the original master (tape) be used to record in DSD or 96fs and to this, a cost is justifiable, since it's more or less remastering from the beginning. There's also the cost of maintaining the tape recorders which is not that cheap anymore. To date, I've been pretty happy with DSD downloads especially from Blue Coast, Channel Classics, DSDNative and Acoustic Sounds, but any PCM download above Redbook, it's a real crap shoot, and am not interested in these any more unless the providence can be proved without doubt or the title is out of print.

 

Maybe we should start another thread to re-visit pricing of CD versus PCM downloads and why the gap is widening.

AS Profile Equipment List        Say NO to MQA

Link to comment
Plus you have all the packaging artwork, which I find important... I'm still puzzled why it is that a music label will price there cd version cheaper than a lossless digital version of the exact same thing...very puzzling.

+1

NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock 

SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono 

Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo

Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono

Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul

system pics

Link to comment

Anyway, these are exemples of 24/192 downloads that beat flat (well, not true of every BN) LP's I paid indecent money for (only originals; ear P for Plasticine pressing plant, right adresses etc etc)...

No need to feel sorry, Velvet Undergound is not my scene, man :) Blue Note, not that tempted, but understand many good recordings come from that stable. The exception is Anita Baker.
Link to comment
  • 7 months later...
Good question

 

Some may just have a much better CD player than their computer/DAC counterpart and some including me like having the packaging/physical media and I can rip my own copy and it has some value whereas digital files have zero resell value at all.

Link to comment
I have over 200 cd's maybe 300 that's been collecting over the years but ever since I recently listened to the first DSD track, there's no more buying CDs for me. DSD should be made a universal format so everybody could enjoy it, not just audiophiles.

 

So, you're no longer going to listen to CDs, but you will listen to DSD tracks, yes?

 

Personally, I listen to music.

 

Dave, who says there's waaaay too much music that he wants to listen to that's available only in CD format not even in more-costly 44.1/16 downloads so he rips the CDs before putting them away as some kind of ultimate backup

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Music is love, made audible.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Link to comment
So, you're no longer going to listen to CDs, but you will listen to DSD tracks, yes?

 

Personally, I listen to music.

 

Dave, who says there's waaaay too much music that he wants to listen to that's available only in CD format not even in more-costly 44.1/16 downloads so he rips the CDs before putting them away as some kind of ultimate backup

 

In my view, this is the reason for using CDs (at least, it's my reason).

Besides, I can buy used CDs in mint condition for a £ or two.

 

Unless audiophiles don't listen to music.

I wonder how many people here spend at least as much time here listening to music as they do evaluating equipment and tweaks...

 

Would you give up on listening to more or better music just because it's not available "high-res"?

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment

Why are downloads more expensive than CDs? Because there are people like us willing to pay a higher price for them than what CD buyers are willing to pay for CDs.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
LOL I never said I wasn't going to listen to cd's anymore.

 

Yes, I was exaggerating in my post.

 

But if you do not buy CDs anymore, it would seem there's lots of good music that you won't be able to listen to.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Music is love, made audible.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...