So how do you make CD sound as good as vinyl?

[maxg]

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/metronome/kalista.html

Only $20,000 for a CD player? Actually no - that is 20,000 Euros (about $24,000) and it is only a transport!!!

Looks a bit like the Shandling to me - on steroids of course!

Apparently it sounds good - well Gee - for that kinda money......

[Daddy Dee]

Yeh, for that kind of money, I am sure the purchasers think it sounds fabulous. It better.

The thing I find odd about these really high end CD players, or transport in this case... they seem to take what the audiophile thinks (appropriately so) about the turntable (that the higher precision, smoother turning of the media, etc) actually would help the reproduction.

In a turntable, the analog nature of the beast makes that true. However, in a CD transport, all the transport has to do is read that data off the disk. It seems to me, that beyond "adequate" that is reading the data accurately, the rest is just high end fluff.

I do not believe my attitude is sour grapes, even though there is no way I could spend $24K on a CD transport. I just don't believe it can deliver better than a CD player that is already adequate.

[maxg]

DD,

You raise some interesting questions. How important can the physical aspects be in the reading of "digital data" from the disk? Of course in reality the data is just as physical as it is on a record. There are pits in the Disk that are "read" by the laser and translated into digital data that is then further interpreted into analogue data - music in this case.

I have had a suspicion for a while that the biggest problem with CD is actually the thing that makes it work - the error correction system. If that is true then the more steps you take to minimize its interferance in the production of the music the better. This, in turn, would imply that investing (in engineering terms) in the most accurate reading possible of the disk should provide an audible return.

As I said - this is just a pet theory of mine - could be miles away from the truth...

[maxg]

No name for that TT Mark?

From the style I would guess Transrotor. Funnily enough Clearaudio have a table of this design - with the low slung counterweight - but I aint seen it in the flesh - nor heard it of course...

[Cal Blacksmith]

Max, you said:

"You raise some interesting questions. How important can the physical

aspects be in the reading of "digital data" from the disk? Of course in

reality the data is just as physical as it is on a record. There are

pits in the Disk that are "read" by the laser and translated into

digital data that is then further interpreted into analogue data -

music in this case."

I think that I would follow the good enough is good enough argument.

The data on a cd could be read up to 52x it's play speed with current

readers. Once the data is stored in a buffer or in memory, it is spoon

fed out at 1x speed to the play back circuits. Thus it makes little

difference how perfect the transport is if it can still read the disc

with a minimum of errors.

EDIT: This is not the case with Vinyl. In the analog world, you get one

chance to get it right. The better the player is at steady, constant,

correct speed, the better the playback CAN be. The degree as to what is

perceptable is a personal thing though and thus the range of players in

the market place.

[maxg]

Cal,

My understanding (possibly wrong) is that the difference between Red book CD playback (i.e. audio CD) and a data CD is that the timing issues for audio playback are all important and that memory buffering as such does not happen. Isn't this what Jitter is all about? I never heard of Jitter issues for a data CD.

[Mallette]

Well, Max, you know this kind of thread can deteriorate fast. However, since you dare to go there...

I am convinced that a true "golden ear" will hear, in fact, a difference between a 50,000.00 TT and a 500,000.00 TT. These are analog, mechanical devices and "perfection" is not possible, though ever smaller incremental improvements can be made with enough time, money, and brains thrown at the problem. I believe that, someday, perhaps not long, a "geek" will write a program that will allow one to scan an image of an LP and translate that to 24/196 or better digital that will rival any analog playback method concievable. However, for now, only kilobucks will improve the LP playback.

As for CD, (dare I say it?), bits is bits. I simply eliminate the error correction, mechanics, and such by ripping the things to a hard drive using slow, but highly effective settings with EAC that correct any errors for good. After that, it is subject only to the DA converter when I play it back. Granted, big bucks can be spent on these, but I've yet to hear substantial differences past several circuits that can be had in the 500.00 or less range. Your mileage may (and probably will) differ.

As to CD vs. LP, even with my past-50 hearing I can hear the limitations of the CD specs compared to LP. However, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CD SPEC (emPHAsis, not shouting), I think the difference is audibly negligible. That is, if you recorded an LP simultaneously with precisely the same "shaping" as a CD, you'd hear little or no difference.

In my case, I think that a virgin, direct-recorded, mono 78rpm record sounds more "real" than a CD. Just like LP's, I've found that the very finest 78's have to be recorded at 24/88.2 or above to sound as good in digital as they do in analog.

Dave

[maxg]

Really Mark - I am surprised at you!!!

It is not about attaining the magical 33.333333 rpm. It is about CONSISTENT speed of rotation - be that 33.2 or 33.4 or whatever. With a high mass platter the motor only has to tune the speed of rotation as the thing acts like its own flywheel most of the time (the logic Nottingham TT's use to the greatest extent of all - the motor on those is not actually capable of starting the platter spinning - you have to do that by hand - but once running the motor can maintain the speed well enough).

Thereafter there are various power cleaners and mains voltage frequency stabilizers that make sure the power to the motor is as stable as possible.

Of course - I am the idiot that spent all his money on this bunk - but I do quite like the result.

[maxg]

"As for CD, (dare I say it?), bits is bits. I simply eliminate the error correction, mechanics, and such by ripping the things to a hard drive using slow, but highly effective settings with EAC that correct any errors for good. After that, it is subject only to the DA converter when I play it back."

Well - yes and no. As I understand it you are ripping the CD with full error correction on - and therefore permanently recording the result onto your hard disk. After that -playback from the hard disk also goes through error correction doesn't it?

I do wonder if there is a CD player out there we could disable the error correction on and try playback - just to see if there is any sound to come out, firstly, and thence to see if the quality is any better. As I said all the way through - this is just a pet theory of mine - but one I find hard to shake.

[sfogg]

Max,

"My understanding (possibly wrong) is that the difference between Red book CD playback (i.e. audio CD) and a data CD is that the timing issues for audio playback are all important and that memory buffering as such does not happen."

Most CD players don't buffer the data but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. A couple of the current high end Meridian's read the data into buffer at high speed and it has the ability to re-read a section of the CD multiple times if needed.

BTW, the error correction on a CD works in the vast majority of the times. When it works the data is recovered exactly. In the few cases where it can't work (damaged discs for example) it is also known that it didn't work.

Shawn

[Marvel]

Max, you said:

"You raise some interesting questions. How important can the physical

aspects be in the reading of "digital data" from the disk? Of course in

reality the data is just as physical as it is on a record. There are

pits in the Disk that are "read" by the laser and translated into

digital data that is then further interpreted into analogue data -

music in this case."

I think that I would follow the good enough is good enough argument.

The data on a cd could be read up to 52x it's play speed with current

readers. Once the data is stored in a buffer or in memory, it is spoon

fed out at 1x speed to the play back circuits. Thus it makes little

difference how perfect the transport is if it can still read the disc

with a minimum of errors.

EDIT: This is not the case with Vinyl. In the analog world, you get one

chance to get it right. The better the player is at steady, constant,

correct speed, the better the playback CAN be. The degree as to what is

perceptable is a personal thing though and thus the range of players in

the market place.

Of course, music players only read at 1x, and most argue that the "data' is read more accurately at 1x.

Probably the best to date is the DSD format 2.8Mhz sample rate, that

has now been done as a multitrack recorder. Those who have used the

system say that it literally sounds no different than the source.

But... that isn't CD is it?

Bruce

[maxg]

"And BTW, isn't it VPI that make such a big deal out of the several thousand dollar speed controller? great fun. "

Sadly no - the VPI speed controller is parsimonious is comparison to the Clearaudio - as is their outer ring - oh aren't I the lucky one!!!??

As for the mass that represents the point of diminishing returns for the flywheel effect - search me - but I guess it is related to the quality of the main bearing for the platter in terms of its frictional properties.

[Parrot]

I would like to test you with a pitch controlled record player. I think

I could manipulate the speed 1/10 of a percent at any old time without

you being able to tell. I have done this with a pitch-controlled CD

player and with cassette and open reel tape machines.

[LarryC]

There are several things to enhance a CD transport, such as very heavy disc spinning and clamping mechanisms for vibration control, clock-linking the transport to the DAC part, and sometimes using internal optical transmitters and more complicated dithering. A PS Audio P-300 improves the clarity, probably like Max's controller does with his TT. To me, it's like a heavy, well-engineered TT plus digital info handling and manipulation.

[maxg]

I would like to test you with a pitch controlled record player. I think I could manipulate the speed 1/10 of a percent at any old time without you being able to tell. I have done this with a pitch-controlled CD player and with cassette and open reel tape machines.

Me? Why? Well OK - why not?

A tenth of one percent? 0.0033 RPM? No need - I will not be able to hear that I am sure - well I would amaze myself if I could. Do you think my TT with power cleaner is that accurate? Crickey - I had no idea. I was expecting 1% accuracy more or less.

When I had my old Project TT it ran at about 33.1 to 33.4 depending (on power - the weather - that pesky butterfly in South America - W.H.Y.) and I could hear that - it added a warbled "texture" to the sound I never get now. It was most obvious on soprano arias (to me).

Of course in reality it is the wrong challenge. The real challenge would be to see if I could spot the insertion of the power cleaning device into the circuit (running from Greek mains supply) and there I am fairly sure I can (blind).

[Mallette]

Max:

"After that -playback from the hard disk also goes through error correction doesn't it?"

No, it does not.

Dave

[Parrot]

Sorry for my lack of clarity, as to percent of what. I haven't done the

math translated to LP, but what I really meant was 1/10 of a percent of

the time of a recording. To make it easy, let's say a recording is 100

seconds long. 1% faster would take it to lasting 99 seconds in its

entirety. My challenge would be that one could manipulate the pitch

control of a device by just 1/10 of 1% many times during a listening

session up or down and the listener couldn't tell.

Some material is easier to hear an unsteady pitch in than other

material and of course some people are much better at discerning

differences than others. I'm just skeptical that dead-steady pitch is

the big factor in turntable quality. Also the speed of the transition

is important, whether it is a painfully slow one or instantaneous.

[sfogg]

Max:

"After that -playback from the hard disk also goes through error correction doesn't it?"

No, it does not.

Dave

It doesn't use the original error correction that was on the CD but it does in fact get played back with error correction. Hard drives use error correction on any file stored on them too. You store a digital audio file on a hard drive and the drive is going to impse its own error correction to the file. And it will use that again when you read the file back off the hard drive.

Shawn

[Cal Blacksmith]

Bruce,

I think I am one of the few here that advocate using a PC as a source.

"Bits is bits" and they should be the same at 1x as they are at 52x.

Now it is true that the error rate can go up the faster you read the

disc but I see no reason that with proper software, you shouldn't be

able to read that section of a disc, say 20 times at 52x and get it

right if it is indeed possible to extract error free data from a

questionable section of a disc.

This is not taking into account the huge lead you have built up by reading the disc faster than 1x.

I guess what I am saying is that improvement in the playback system

would be better served with faster drives and buffering than it would

be by trying to perfect a 1x drive. Data is nothing but bits and so is

music when stored in a digital media. We have the ability to read

multiple times to reduce error, why are we relying on software to

correct a single read?

[Mallette]

We could get into PC "error correction," but that would, as it already does, confuse the heck out of everyone. Suffice it to say that if so much as a single significant bit of your program or OS is delivered differently from one time to the other, you are going down... Computers are MOST unforgiving about such things compared to ears.

I am one of those PC for music advocates, Cal.

Dave