What's wrong with Redbook, really?

[fas42]

Redbook is fine.... as long as you maintain signal integrity throughout the process. It is way harder to create a good musical CD than it is for a hi-rez file. So many things you need to take in consideration. Everything is cumulative with no margin for error (pun intended)

Sorry, Bruce, I don't quite follow what you're pointing the finger at here: are you referring to the audio signal mastering, things like maximum signal level, resampling; or the physical production of the CD object itself?

Frank

 

[Bruce B]

Sorry, Bruce, I don't quite follow what you're pointing the finger at here: are you referring to the audio signal mastering, things like maximum signal level, resampling; or the physical production of the CD object itself?

Frank

I'm talking everything.... correct microphone placement, using good cables, using decent mic preamps correctly, recording to tape or digital using good A-D converters without overloading/clipping, mixing for a sound and not a loudness, mixing in a great room with accurate monitoring, mastering also with great ancillary equipment and a great room, mastering for dynamics and texture and not loudness, burning optical discs instead of using stampers. ... etc......

 

[rbbert]

The fact that there are ANY great sounding CD's (and I certainly think there are) strongly suggests that it's not the format that is problematic, but rather the recording/mastering and the subsequent mastering/production chain. I would unhappily but willingly give up hi-res if all CD's lived up to the sonic potential of a few.

 

[fas42]

I think I understand where Bruce is coming from: because the consumer level of CD playback is typically relatively poor, the margin of error for the CD sounding fine, versus somewhat mediocre, is very small. The CD has to be mastered to compensate for the replay gear not being up to to scratch, a version of the inglorious Dynagroove philosophy.

Of course, the real solution is to lift the quality of replay in ordinary people's listening rooms, so that you recording engineers can breathe easier ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

Why are they not using High Res Audio Blu-ray as a fantastic music medium?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm talking everything.... correct microphone placement, using good cables, using decent mic preamps correctly, recording to tape or digital using good A-D converters without overloading/clipping, mixing for a sound and not a loudness, mixing in a great room with accurate monitoring, mastering also with great ancillary equipment and a great room, mastering for dynamics and texture and not loudness, burning optical discs instead of using stampers. ... etc......

?
I'm still not getting it, bruce. Is there anything there that woud not also apply to hi-res?

Tm

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Oh and Vincent, thanks for the clarification. I don't play CDs. I meant 16/44.1.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

I'm talking everything.... correct microphone placement, using good cables, using decent mic preamps correctly, recording to tape or digital using good A-D converters without overloading/clipping, mixing for a sound and not a loudness, mixing in a great room with accurate monitoring, mastering also with great ancillary equipment and a great room, mastering for dynamics and texture and not loudness, burning optical discs instead of using stampers. ... etc......

?
I'm still not getting it, bruce. Is there anything there that woud not also apply to hi-res?

Tm

or to analog to repeat myself

 

[JackD201]

Curious, Jack, at one stage you said you were not able to get along with New Wave, unless in MP3 format or reproduced in a lossy way: as that still the case or have things improved in the meantime?

Frank

It isn't a miracle working box Frank. Bad recordings are still bad recordings, just more spacious and full bodied bad recordings. LOL. Unfortunately what I consider really bad recordings suffer from poor tonal balance more than anything else. I mean I love good mono even if the stage generally isn't as wide as stereo.

When it comes to spatially compressed passages like orchestral crescendos or big production numbers in my experience low noise electronics and higher resolution loudspeakers have been what the key to sorting these out (both in analog and digital).

 

[fas42]

Unfortunately what I consider really bad recordings suffer from poor tonal balance more than anything else. I mean I love good mono even if the stage generally isn't as wide as stereo..

When you say poor tonal balance do you mean that it's too hot: compressed, and too much upper midrange and treble?

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What's not to understand? Too much of one area of the frequency spectrum, not enough of another -- poor tonal balance. Searching for a way to make this about those small distortions, Frank?

Tim

 

[fas42]

Nope. I've many of those style of recordings, and agree that they can be trying on many systems. Including my own at times. The sound can be very "intense", just as real sound, from real instruments is at times. But I've never tuned into the tonal balance thing that so many audiophiles worry about, talk of: I've certainly experienced "tonal inbalance" from live sound, where the bass notes are overpowering, or the treble of a real brass instruments drills holes in your head. But it still sounds the real deal, which is what I tune into.

So I'm curious if there is some agreement, some further clarification on the meaning of this; maybe it always comes back to being a purely personal issue ...

Frank

 

[treitz3]

Of course anyone is free to weigh in with their subjective observations, but I'd really like to hear from the technical expertise on the forum, and I know we have our share. Nyquist theory says the Redbook standard shouldn't be missing anything, Age-old knowledge of human hearing says the cut-off at 22khz cuts off nothing that matters. Yet many, many audiophiles believe, and believe they hear, that Redbook is an extremely compromised format. Meyer and Moran gave evidence that a pretty big sample of folks couldn't differentiate Redbook from high-res, but it's just not a subject that's likely to get enough repetition and peer review to make that transition from evidence to anything resembling proof.

So, is there any data that indicates what it could be that audiophiles are (not) hearing in Redbook that makes it so wrong?

Tim

Hello Tim, This question has many angles but I will offer my evaluations on what I have observed throughout my own audio journey. I have no data, as data has no meaning to me as the end result as to what hits your ears. So with that said, I'll start with my observations and attempt to answer your question solely based upon my experience. In general, the recordings offered on Redbook are not up to a standard that audiophiles tend to prefer. Many of the redbook CD's I have sound horrible [the kind you only want to listen to in the car] to great [the kind that makes you want to sit in the sweet spot] but when compared to some other formats, in general, redbook seems to be "lacking" if you will. I'm talking in comparison to DVD-A, XRCD, HDCD, SACD and Blu-ray. I'll leave vinyl and RTR out of the equation just to keep things a bit simpler in this post.

I have some XRCD's and HDCD's that on the surface may sound better but upon close examination, many of them just seem to be remastered versions of the original that enhance some things. I have found this to be welcoming with some things but a definite deterrent to others. I'm sure many could relate to my description of them being recorded too hot. Great for the first couple of seconds or minute but not good for the balance of frequencies and overall enjoyment of the recording. This is all of course, room, listener, rig and a myriad of other things that effect playback performance dependent.

"DVD-A and SACD are clearly a "better" format than that of the CD". I have heard this many times and while I might agree, again in general, it begs me to wonder if it actually is the format or just the recording techniques. Here's why.

Take Burmester's CD III. I'll just pick one of the songs on this redbook CD for an example. Song #9. This is Hugh Masekela's Stimila. This song is incredible for dynamics, honestly one of the best I have ran across in my audio journey. I have both the original CD that has this song and the Burmester CD. While good, the regular everyday redbook CD sounds extremely bad when comparing it to the redbook Burmester CD. With the same room, listener and rig, different recordings of the same thing on the same format are on completely different levels of musical reproduction.

The redbook Burmester CD sounds better than many SACD recordings I have. That's a profound statement to make for what should, by the numbers, be a clearly better format. It begs the question to me that is it the format or the recording itself that is superior?

Now, I'm not saying that Redbook is just as good as SACD. In general, the SACD's I have blow away the same albums on Redbook and the difference is incredible at times. The same thing goes for DVD-A. A good example there would be Mic Fleetwood's "Rumors" album on DVD-A. But is it the recording, mixing and mastering that did it or the actual format? I don't know, I don't care. All I know is that I prefer that album on the DVD-A format.

So, I don't really think that there is anything "wrong" with redbook. It has the ability to sound absolutely fantastic. I just wish that the availability of these fantastic sounding albums exceeded more than the 1% or less I have ran across. Maybe that's what's wrong with the format and not the format itself.

Enjoy the music.

 

[JackD201]

What's not to understand? Too much of one area of the frequency spectrum, not enough of another -- poor tonal balance. Searching for a way to make this about those small distortions, Frank?

Tim

Frank, I couldn't have said what Tim said any better.

I have this thing about balance and harmony. I'm asian so maybe it's ingrained culturally. We typically aren't treble, mids or bass guys. How everything blends into a whole is how we take things in the very first seconds of listening. If something sticks out then there's work to be done. When I say poor tonal balance it can be overbearing in any one or more bands. Boomy bass like some Linn reissues are just as bothersome to me as those screechy New Wave recordings from my youth which by the way were screechy on LP and Compact Cassette as well. 'Twas not a format thing.

 

[fas42]

Makes sense, Jack. Such things don't bother me, I tend to savour the "texture" of the sound when listening, if that makes sense to anyone, as much with live music as recorded; and there are some experiences which would probably strike other people as unbalanced, that I have enjoyed. Like being in a local hall, and a soprana opera singer of decent capability let rip: the sound resonated around the room, pressurised my eardrums and head in a pretty overbearing way! If one didn't like intense single note assaults on their sensibilities it probably would be too much ...

The imbalances that bug me are the severely overcompressed thing firstly, that's an obvious of course; and secondly when everything is stripped bare, zero acoustic, ambience in a recording that is. The audiophile labels many times do an excellent job of creating a sterile landscape, it's like a photo of someone against one of those special white backdrops. Plus, they reduce the treble to the lowest level they can get away with, creating miserable violins for example.

Frank

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

So, I don't really think that there is anything "wrong" with redbook. It has the ability to sound absolutely fantastic. I just wish that the availability of these fantastic sounding albums exceeded more than the 1% or less I have ran across. Maybe that's what's wrong with the format and not the format itself.

Enjoy the music.

Hear ye! Hear ye! Excellent post (including the section I omitted for brevity's sake)

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I have no data, as data has no meaning to me as the end result as to what hits your ears.

I trust my ears as well, to a point. As Ronald Reagan said, Trust, but verify." So many times, when knowledge of what is playing is removed, preferences change; differences disappear.

In general, the recordings offered on Redbook are not up to a standard that audiophiles tend to prefer.

Remove "on Redbook" from the sentence above and we are in complete agreement.

I'll leave vinyl and RTR out of the equation just to keep things a bit simpler in this post.

Excellent. Thank you. This is not meant to be an analog/digital debate. If it were, I wouldn't have put it in the digital forum.

I have some XRCD's and HDCD's that on the surface may sound better but upon close examination, many of them just seem to be remastered versions of the original that enhance some things.

Not necessarily a bad thing. The original mastering enhanced some things, probably different things. Which is better is surely subjective, even in the case of the worst "loudness wars" mastering. I know music lovers who think these remasters have saved their favorite rock recordings. I try not to tell them they're wrong.

I have found this to be welcoming with some things but a definite deterrent to others.

Yep.

IThis is all of course, room, listener, rig and a myriad of other things that effect playback performance dependent.

Maybe. I think the worst victims of the loudness wars sound awful anywhere but in the car, with the windows rolled down. But there are plenty of recording mastered "hot" that are still very good. I'd like to hear them re-mastered, but they're very good.

"DVD-A and SACD are clearly a "better" format than that of the CD". I have heard this many times and while I might agree, again in general, it begs me to wonder if it actually is the format or just the recording techniques. Here's why.

I wonder as well.

Take Burmester's CD III. I'll just pick one of the songs on this redbook CD for an example. Song #9. This is Hugh Masekela's Stimila. This song is incredible for dynamics, honestly one of the best I have ran across in my audio journey. I have both the original CD that has this song and the Burmester CD. While good, the regular everyday redbook CD sounds extremely bad when comparing it to the redbook Burmester CD. With the same room, listener and rig, different recordings of the same thing on the same format are on completely different levels of musical reproduction. The redbook Burmester CD sounds better than many SACD recordings I have. That's a profound statement to make for what should, by the numbers, be a clearly better format.

I have a few 16/44.1 recordings that are as good as any "high-res" recording I've heard as well. Maybe better, though I couldn't know that without comparing versions of the same master in both formats, blind. The "verify" part of trusting my ears.

That's a profound statement to make for what should, by the numbers, be a clearly better format.

Should it? That's why I'm interested in data. Yes, the raw numbers are there. But there are some pretty seriously tested, peer-reviewed theories that say those numbers should not make a difference to our ears. You and I hearing 16/44.1 that sounds as good as hi-res is just anecdotal evidence, but because it's in our ears, it's pretty compelling.

It begs the question to me that is it the format or the recording itself that is superior?

Yep. That's the question.

Now, I'm not saying that Redbook is just as good as SACD. In general, the SACD's I have blow away the same albums on Redbook and the difference is incredible at times. The same thing goes for DVD-A. A good example there would be Mic Fleetwood's "Rumors" album on DVD-A. But is it the recording, mixing and mastering that did it or the actual format? I don't know, I don't care.

I don't care on any truly emotional level. Call it intellectual curiosity.

So, I don't really think that there is anything "wrong" with redbook. It has the ability to sound absolutely fantastic. I just wish that the availability of these fantastic sounding albums exceeded more than the 1% or less I have ran across.

Fantastic? Yeah 1% is probably about right. Damn good? I have had pretty good luck with that, especially in classical, jazz and acoustic recordings...the non-commercial.

Enjoy the music.

You do the same. I see we have the same home town. Welcome to the forum if I haven't already said so.

Tim

 

[rbbert]

...The imbalances that bug me are the severely overcompressed thing firstly...
Frank

I too am most sensitive to the tonal balance qualities, and didn't used to think (10+ years ago) that compression bothered me very much. I guess I just hadn't experienced much of the degree of compression that is almost ubiquitous nowadays, because now I find that is the second thing I'll notice about a recording, before the "soundscape".

 

[flez007]

Of course anyone is free to weigh in with their subjective observations, but I'd really like to hear from the technical expertise on the forum, and I know we have our share. Nyquist theory says the Redbook standard shouldn't be missing anything, Age-old knowledge of human hearing says the cut-off at 22khz cuts off nothing that matters. Yet many, many audiophiles believe, and believe they hear, that Redbook is an extremely compromised format. Meyer and Moran gave evidence that a pretty big sample of folks couldn't differentiate Redbook from high-res, but it's just not a subject that's likely to get enough repetition and peer review to make that transition from evidence to anything resembling proof.

So, is there any data that indicates what it could be that audiophiles are (not) hearing in Redbook that makes it so wrong?


Tim

There is nothing wrong Tim... until one hears master tapes

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There is nothing wrong Tim... until one hears master tapes

I have heard master tapes flez, actual master tapes, not the 15 ips second or third generation dubs that is the best (if we're very lucky) that most us can ever do with even remotely commercial music. But this is about hi-res digital and 16/44.1, not analog vs. digital.

Tim