[78-L] True in Sound, was Cassettes

[David Lennick]

I wonder if Mr. Burnham has any insight as to why commercially recorded 
classical music on CBC 2 sounds as if it's been put through an echo chamber and 
the highs boosted to ear splitting levels..or if there's a policy in place to 
program only those CDs that are unnaturally strident. Compare 94.1 with 94.5 
(WNED-FM, Buffalo) and the difference is amazing. I also have no problems with 
the audio quality on that idiotic so-called classical station in Toronto (I 
have problems with the announcers, the commercials and the music, but not with 
the audio).

dl

On 10/21/2011 4:48 PM, DAVID BURNHAM wrote:
> Kristjan Saag wrote:
>
> So why do we play those noisy, hissing, cracking, warping 78's? Bit of
> nostalgia involved, too - no?
> Besides: being an audiophile (lover of sound) does not necceseraly mean
> you define audio
>   fidelity (true sound) as a measurable entity. That's
> why it was perfectly reasonable that many audiophiles, in the early
> digital era, claimed that LP:s sounded better than CD:s, despite the
> surface noise, which usually is absent in the concert hall or recording
> studio. Some audiophiles still do.
> Kristjan
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> I was surprised nobody had mentioned this before in this discussion, that we 78rpm collectors also collect a medium which, by today's standards, is lower fidelity and noisy.  A good audio cassette recorded on a properly alligned machine can have superb sound quality and background hiss which is less obtrusive than reel-to-reel tapes.  But that being said, I have no desire to record on or listen to audio cassettes again.  One reason we collect 78s is because they were state of the art in their day, whereas the cassette was not introduced as an improvement in audio reproduction but as a convenient sound carrier.
>
> Audio fidelity doesn't exactly mean "true sound", it means "faithful sound", (which, I guess is roughly the same thing).  If you want an expression meaning "true sound", you need "Orthophonic" or, a little less accurately, "Viva~Tonal".
>
> I always wrote off as belonging to what I called the "flat earth society of audio", those who considered the LP to be superior to the CD, and I still believe that some of these LP enthusiasts were completely misguided.  When you asked them why they prefer the LP medium they always mention the "ambiance" of the LP compared to the vacuum from which the music emanates on a CD.  These souls would obviously prefer the sound of an LP to the sound of the master tape from which it was made;  this "ambiance" is nothing but the sound of a stylus rubbing against the walls of a vinyl groove, it has nothing to do with the recorded music.
>
> But I was wrong to so dismiss all LP supporters.  The sound from analog LPs, (as opposed to LPs cut from digital masters), does have virtues which are missing on CDs.  An LP is capable of recording higher frequencies than a CD, (remember the old Audio Fidelity LPs which had a notice that the recorded frequencies extended to 25,000 hz, which could be verified using a microscope);  CDs must have all frequencies over 20,000 hz eliminated as much as possible, and particularly in the early days, the frequencies over 20,000 hz which remained caused an unpleasant aliasing distortion.  At the other end of the spectrum CDs are superior since they can faithfully reproduce frequencies down to single digits.  But the most important disadvantage of CD reproduction is the deterioration of the sound as the level goes down.  The CDs impressive distortion spec only occurs at full level - not so much an issue with pop music but it's a real concern with classical
>   music which is almost never at full level.  This was made apparent years ago when a piano was recorded at full level and then the same passage was recorded at -20dB, -40dB and -60dB, in each case the playback level was restored so you could hear the distortion;  at -60 the piano sounded more like a synthesizer, (caused by quantization distortion).  The SACD overcame these weaknesses and they are particularly  impressive with quiet music.  The first SACD I heard was the beginning of Tchaikovsky's "Pathetique" Symphony on a 1954 recording and my jaw dropped when I heard sounds I didn't think any CD was capable of.  But the SACD also shines in louder music because the subtle harmonics which give instruments their colour are also very low level compared to the main body of the sound and these are lost on CD.  However, these subtleties are not missing on most LPs and I believe now that the presence of these harmonics is what the LP enthusiasts were
>   missing on the CDs and, (to Dr. Biel), these SACD advantages can survive the ravages of FM radio to a certain extent.  That's why "Live-to-air" broadcasts sound so much better than a CD, if they're properly miked and don't go through any digital processing.
>
> db