Posted by Jon Risch on March 08, 1999 at 21:18:39:
I thought that this might be interesting to some.
There has been a rash of CD release approval rejections lately, even worse than the last round of them last year. It seems that many popular artists have been rejecting or witholding approval for the release of their new CD's, as they DO NOT SOUND LIKE THE MASTER TAPE, or even remotely like what they heard in the studio's. I came across an article by one of the industries most staunce pro-digital mavens, Dave Moyssiadis, who also writes a column in Pro Sound News. Dave has always been a very outspoken proponent of digital "perfection", and one of those who often claims that the 1's and 0's do not lie, and can not be easily corrupted.
Imagine my surprise when I read this article in Replication News magazine:
The article "Horns of a CDilemma" by Dave Moyssiadis, in REPLICATIONnews Feb. 1999 issue.
Quotes:
==================================================================
Given the unresolved "CD don't sound like master" dilemma, lots of us are going to be frustrated until the problem is resolved.
.....
The problems pressings presented were understood and their limitations were accepted. But dealing with digital discrepancies is definitely difficult.
Most of us can't open up a panel on a CD player and adust jitter.
How to deal with this? It seems that there are several things causing the unhappiness here, not any one thing. In reading about CD technology and talking with people who know more than I do abpout it, there are at least five different things working together to degrade the final product from the first time it is laid to media to the output of a CD player (hey, sounds a lot like analog stuff, doesn't it?).
The culprits on my list are: jitter, rotational control of the disc, run out (or ecentricity of the track), isolation between signal processing and mechanical control sections of CD players, and a less than ideal signal transmission format.
All of these interact with each other. When any one of them-if held to spec-may be inaudible, taken cumulatively they become unacceptable....
.....
What I'd like to see happen is players be designed and manufactured to much tighter standards with regard to motors and electronics. The CD pressing itself could be held to tighter specs. And possibly the biggest culprit of all is the transmission system we use.
.....
It is probaly too late too fix CD-Audio and perhaps just as well. Maybe we should concentrate on DVD-Audio and try to fix all the (mostly mechanical) problems that will be exacerbated with the new format. Problem: how to get the guys with the money bags to open up.
================================================================
End Quotes
Last year, Sony was held hostage by several big artists that refused to let their CD's be released, due to the poor sound. Back then, the fix was generally seen as dropping back to "only" 2X mastering, from the then popular 4X or 8X. Now this is for _mastering_ the CD glass master! All to save a few moments in the mastering room! Every commercial CD pressed from one of these will have the same pressed in jitter, and will limit what the consumer will hear.
Note Dave's call for better motors, and better electronics in CD players! Sounds like high end audio components to me!
JVC has taken up the challenge, with their XRCD Mk II technology, and some of the other audiophile lables make it a regular practice to master at a reasonable speed and take the pains to make sure that all other digital equipment that could interfere is turned off in the mastering location.
Now, what will they do about DVD, now that an audio standard has finally been approved, and they will have the copy protection issue resolved soon?
Most cheap DVD's have higher playback jitter than even mid-fi CD players when they play back a regular CD at 44.1 kHz. When a 96 kHz/XX bit DVD is played back, they kick into a slightly better mode, but they still have their problems, and at higher levels than the current crop of decent CD players. Caveat Emptor!
Jon Risch
You can not post to an archived thread.