The Quest for Perfect Sound: The Myth of the CD and the Miracle of the LP

Dear Caelin,

I am glad that you, too, liked the article. I had a strong feeling that many WBF members might not have read it in 1985. (I am also dating myself, of course!) I felt a bit like an archeologist unearthing the article for WBF.

I agree with everything you wrote. One of the fun things about our hobby (as well as about many aspects of human endeavor and progress) is that incremental progress can drive us to revise our definition, and our perception, of perfection.
 
Dear Caelin,

I am glad that you, too, liked the article. I had a strong feeling that many WBF members might not have read it in 1985. (I am also dating myself, of course!) I felt a bit like an archeologist unearthing the article for WBF.

I agree with everything you wrote. One of the fun things about our hobby (as well as about many aspects of human endeavor and progress) is that incremental progress can drive us to revise our definition, and our perception, of perfection.

I truly hope that people read the article even though it is quite long for our internet attention span.
 
Great read Ron, thanks for digging that up and sharing it. One of the pleasures I find in this hobby (reading about it) is the occassionally terrific prose from gifted writers. Unlike music, where we can hear (to varrying levels of fidelity) the intent of the musician, the writer must rely on descriptive phrasing, analogy and allegory, even parable, to get his point across. Some do it better than others. I read a couple bicycling blogs too, with gifted writers, whose turn of phrase often has me rolling on the floor laughing.

Your article, I find, shows even as time marches by, the quest for the 'truth' however one might define it (in terms of audio in this case) remains. The writer uses 'veils' where in another culture the analogy of the lotus would be equally understood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron Resnick
Thanks for this voyage back into audio nostalgia. CD sound was rightly criticized in the 80's and 90's. I lived through that transition myself and I learned a great deal from it. But, today, I listen neither to LP or CD or in stereo, even, except on rare occasions.

Discovering discretely recorded, hi rez multichannel sound for classical music via SACD was easily the most transformative listening experience ever in my home audio system. It changed my home listening like nothing else by virtue of breaking a major barrier between me and the sound of the live concerts I frequently attend. It is simply based on a superior model of what we hear in the hall and how we hear it. It is the closest approach to Harry Pearson's ideal of the sound of live acoustic instruments in real space that I have found.

I have revisited vinyl, even in 6 figure systems from time to time since, and I just have to shrug my shoulders. It disappoints me in terms of reproduced realism. I understand and respect audiophiles who prefer vinyl or CD or stereo. I am in a distinct minority, I know. And, even in stereo, I hear no sonic advantage to pure analog vs. well done hi rez digital. In fact, I hear the opposite. So, there is no going back for me, unless I wish to have a sentimental reverie on things as they once were and how recordings sounded in the distant past.
 
Hm, the phone did have a bell in it. And that would act as a secondary resonant radiator. Oh, wait a minute - aren't we putting those things on the walls now along with our wooden blocks? :)


When the wire to the telephone is disconnected, the degratory effects on audio equipment will cease.
I've tried it so many times.
And the bloody phone is in another room....!!!??!
 
Dear Al,

I am delighted you enjoyed the article! I love the article more for the ride-along with the author as his passion for high-end audio blossoms, and for the eloquent statements he makes about our hobby such as "The High End is partly a Romance, a quest for something beyond the reach of any equipment. That quest means using technology to overcome itself, making itself invisible at the very moment of its greatest achievement," rather than for the analog versus digital debate.

To answer your question I state at the outset that I am almost wholly unqualified to answer your question. Because I believe for music reproduction in the theoretical superiority of a continuous analog waveform over any rate of digital sampling of that waveform, I have chosen to stick my head in the sand with respect to digital progress. As a perfectionist I would rather spend my time reaching for small improvements in analog playback (i.e., striving to achieve perfection, even with the increasing burden of diminishing returns) rather than perfecting a system which I believe is theoretically inherently inferior no matter how good it gets.

While I have not yet found myself engaged emotionally by music reproduced even by high quality DSD, I do think that DSD sounds good (and I have never heard 2XDSD or 4XDSD). I am completely making up a number here but maybe good DSD gets me to 80% or 90% of the best analog in terms of sound quality. But no digital playback I have ever heard (and, again, I readily stipulate that I have not made any effort to seek out the best digital playback) establishes for me the emotional connection with music which analog creates for me.

Dear Ron,

thank you for your extensive reply. Personally, I enjoy very much the top level analog and its beautiful resolution that I hear in the systems of others. Yet on an emotional level I connect just as much with the CD playback in my system. Especially now that my acoustic problems are solved, see my systems thread,

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?17334-My-minimonitor-subwoofer-system

I am even more deeply addicted to the music that comes out my speakers. I noticed that you posted about a pleasurable experience with CD playback on the system of SpiritOfMusic. If you are ever in the Boston area you are cordially invited to listen to my system, just send me a PM.

Al
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much, Al. I am very happy that your system gives you so much joy!
 
Last edited:
Dear Ron... If you are ever in the Boston area you are cordially invited to listen to my system, just send me a PM.

Al

And Ron, please don't forget to call me too. Al and I live only ten minutes apart. We could make a day of it. Between London and LA, you must think of Boston as a "flyover" region, but we would be happy to host a visit.
 
And Ron, please don't forget to call me too. Al and I live only ten minutes apart. We could make a day of it. Between London and LA, you must think of Boston as a "flyover" region, but we would be happy to host a visit.

Oh yes, Ron, you would very much enjoy Peter's excellent all-analog system!
 
Thank you, Peter and Al. When my girlfriend and I are firmly re-ensconced in LA (in about a year) we definitely will make plans to visit you.
 
Thank you, Peter and Al. When my girlfriend and I are firmly re-ensconced in LA (in about a year) we definitely will make plans to visit you.

Thank you Ron, we would enjoy your visit!

***

As for finding an emotional connection to digital reproduction, let me add that I agree with many that one of the main problems with it has been in the area of rhythm & timing. Digital, until recently, never had that effortless 'foot-tapping' quality that even moderate analog equipment is so good at, not to speak of top-level analog which excels even more. The aspect of rhythm & timing of course also encompasses more subtle aspects that are also touched upon in the article that you posted (page 36).

I personally have gone through 4 other CD players before I arrived at my current CD playback that finally also excels in the area of rhythm & timing. I believe that my digital now can rock and swing with the best turntables, and like these addresses those subtle issues of rhythmic fluency, also pertinent to classical music, very well.

You might enjoy this article in Stereophile on the topic by Martin Colloms. I believe it is one of the most important articles on audio reproduction ever written:

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/23/index.html

The article is from 1992, when this isssue was still very much at the forefront of problems with digital. I also fully agree with Peter van Willenswaard's assessment in this link:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/pace-rhythm-dynamics-one-listeners-lament

Al
 
I just unearthed in The New Republic archives this interesting reply by Edward Rothstein to comments critical of his original article.

IMG_5827.jpeg
 
IMG_5828.jpeg
 
IMG_5829.jpeg
 
At the top of the article he talks about the SOTA table.
They are not a bad TT to start with.
 
I remember the publication of this article well, and was a subscriber to TNR. At the end of 1985, my hifi consisted of Quad ESL57 speakers, a pair of Futterman (by Julius) H3aa mono OTL tube amps, a New York Audio Labs NCP-2 preamp, a Tandberg 440A cassette tape deck, a Mitsubishi CD player, and for phono I had two Luxman PD-444 DD turntables -- one with a circa 1970 Stax UA-70 tonearm and a variety of MC phono cartridges including SPU, Koetsu, Denon, and also a VPI HW-19 belt drive with a Souther Engineering linear tonearm. I worked with Lou on the development of that tonearm. Cartridge for that was a Denon DL-103D MC and sometimes a Signet TK-10L MM. During the rest of the '80s and into the '90s, I was buying a new CD player about every year, in a quest to find good sound from CDs. I was living and working in the Boston area at the time, and made frequent trips to NYC for many reasons, but often made my way into Lyric HiFi. I heard that ~$90,000 system.

Now throughout the '80s I also had a share of season tickets for the Boston Symphony Orchestra, in famed Symphony Hall. Seiji Ozawa was musical director and conducting in those years. I also grew up in southeast Pennsylvania and got to attend Philadelphia Orchestra concerts in Philly when Eugene Ormandy was conducting -- from 3rd grade through the end of high school. I mention this for context to say, I got the hifi bug early and had a solid reference for what a live symphony orchestra sounds like. I also worked in hifi retail during college and graduate school at the birth of "High End" in the 1970s. I saw the debut of TAS and was reading Gordon Holt's Stereophile years before that. And while I'll say that the continual refinement of high end analog audio was yielding revelations in realism almost quarterly for awhile in the mid-1970s, none of it was even the barest approximation of hearing music performed live. And arguably today, we're only a little closer, even if you spend $2M and build a concert hall for the system.

In inflation-adjusted terms, Mike Kay's $90K system from the mid-'80s is now equivalent to about $271,000. Today, *real* rich audiophiles would just be getting started at a quarter-mil. But by 1985, high-end audio and hifi in general was already being undermined by the upside down economics of a then-shrinking shrinking overall hifi market as other interests competed and became more accessible. In the '70s, everyone had some kind of hifi. By the mid-latter '80s, hifi began fading from domestic scenes. It hadn't disappeared, but by 1985/6, if people visited, there'd be some comments like "...you still do this?... In 1975, an audiophile interested in the emerging hig-end could imagine owning The Best system, over time, by buying one component at a time over some interval of time. By 1985, that was no longer true. Unit costs per "best" components became in the aggregate beyond most people. The article author is right about the striving nature of high end audiophilia, but he was also writing concurrent with the end of broad-based high end hope on the part of buyers. High end audio as Pearson defined it was broadly exciting circa 1975. The traffic into high end stores was demographically and econometrically much more diverse than it was by 1985. Once average interested people could no longer hope to own the best, gas started leaking rapidly from the balloon. The constituency became stilted.

Digital offered some hope for some reflation. A lot of people really were over the rituals of LP care, the noise(s), the quality deviations, the general fussiness of turntables/tonearms/cartridges and they were more than ready for the CD. The sound, though. Initially thrilling in its way; quickly fatiguing in new ways people hadn't experienced before. Still, the discs sold. But a portion of the hifi dreamers just decided if this was supposed to be perfect sound, then there was no point to sacrificing to climb the hifi ladder. They lost faith in vinyl and in digital, but found digital majorly more convenient. By the time the first personal CD players like the Sony Discman came out, and cars came with disc players, people could widely agree, "...well, it's good for this."

What the TNR writer couldn't know in late 1985 was that the engineering class wasn't sure about what was wrong with CDs and 44/16 sound. There were a lot of ideas but not a consensus. Upsampling, resampling, filters, variable dithering. I remember there was a time when we made CD music sound better by transferring to analog tape to listen -- tape hiss provided some useful dithering and masking to tame the high-sonics artifacts. There wasn't really a lot of progress until about ten years later, with the explosion of high end DACs and drives (Wadia, et al). Meanwhile, after the turntable almost died, new design physics, hypercritical machining & materials science launched a turntable rebirth suited for high end audio alone, since in the '90s only the high end customers left could afford the step function upgrades coming to market. But digital had a long learning curve for an industry having to bend to discernments of listeners instead of measurements exclusively.

Once digital designers got serious about investigating musicality and engineering for it, digital made a ton of progress in the 2000s and 2010s, albeit at some challenging prices for buyers not heeled for the high end, and then the Chinese and Koreans got in the game. So the irony is that vinyl has since progressed incrementally, while digital improved by intervals of leaps and bounds. The first major label, mass commercial digital recording released was Ry Cooder's 'Bop Till You Drop' in 1979, before the CD, so on vinyl only at the time. It was recorded on a 3M digital tape recorder. There was a lot of excitement around the release when it debuted and I bought the LP the week it came out.

The pressing was clean and quiet. The sound was icy and off-putting. Now I have vinyl that had mediocre recording an mastering that sounded bad from day one, but the sound improved as analog playback improved over time. But there is no turntable/tonearm/cartridge nor phone preamp today that can make a vinyl copy of 'Bop Till You Drop' sound acceptable, let alone good. Want to hear it much better? Play that crappy, spiky-sounding '80s CD copy on a modern, musical DAC. Still flawed but much better than you can get having a phono cartridge ride the analog undulations in plastic, that captured the digital origins.

We know now that not enough was known about implementing 16/44 digital in the '80s to make it musically tenable to us. How? People are building -- or buying -- 1980s and '90s R2R DAC chips out of mediocre old CD players or finding scrounged NOS of same, to make organic sounding, musically satisfying DACs that just weren't convincing encased in a vintage '80s CD player. Compare any '80s Philips CD player with an MHDT DAC with the same 15XXA chipset, fed by the digital output of any CD player that has one, and you'll think you're hearing two entirely different technologies.

Today, I listen about 50/50 vinyl/digital. After a lot of fits and starts, in the 2020s we got realy good streamer options and they don't all cost a fortune. We have a plethora of musically-authentic DACs. I have maybe 6000 CDs and a similar number of vinyl LPs. A Bricasti M21 Platinum DAC made the distinction between vinyl and digital moot in terms of music enjoyment. That's not to say that real, discernible, meaningful, qualitative differences don't persist. They do, and I appreciate both. But it took until 2022 for me to appreciate and enjoy either, equally, when source quality is the similar.

Meanwhile, the writer's SOTA turntable looks the same as then but sounds better today, and that has nothing to do with what wood the base wrapper is made from.

Phil
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al M.
Thank you, Phil, for this wonderful retrospective!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al M.

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing