|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.205.188.63
In Reply to: RE: Do gold CDs sound better than silver ones? posted by genungo on April 04, 2016 at 17:01:43
Gold CDs don't sound better and probably don't last longer either.
Follow Ups:
the standard recording on silver discs. I don't particularly CARE for MFSL recordings (CD or
LP), but they certainly sound better typically.
Is that due to the mastering OR to the gold CD?
How would one know? HOW could one tell?
FEW MFSL CDs were ever pressed on silver disc and I don't believe anything pressed on silver was
also available on gold disc, so comparing equivalent recordings on the two different mediums is not possible.
Do you have a method for comparison or is your view just based on your opinion?
I'm thinking JM has a point.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
I only have one MFSL CD. That is the Grateful Dead's "From the Mars Hotel". I also have the standard vinyl and a Gem Mars Hotel/ Wake of the Flood, double album set. It sounds very good to me, but I am thinking of shelling out the money for the latest release CD which is on HDCD. I have a few Grateful Dead HD CD's and they all sound excellent. I do have a few CD players that can playback HDCD, and they are superior to the earlier non-HDCD releases.
I have never had a CD wear out, and I have ones dating back to the earliest days of CD.
Dave
A CD should never wear out if it is stored properly, handled carefully and played in good equipment.
There is a risk of "disc rot" but that is not a function of physical wear but more tied to defective manufacturing that allows the reflective surface to oxidize over time. This eventually results in playback errors and may render the disc unreadable. I've only had a few of those over the years -- from a quality control standpoint, the risk of getting a bad LP pressing is multitudes worse.
It has never happened to one that I own, but I have seen some flakey looking disks at the thrift stores.
Dave
Because the aluminum used in silver discs can corrode, and because gold will not corrode, 24K gold CDs probably won't suffer from as many de-lamination problems over time.As far as I know, SACD's were always made using gold rather than aluminum, befitting one of it's intended functions (the super and super-durable archival medium for the new millennium). Not to mention the fact that gold looks somewhat blingier than silver does.
But, does gold really and consistently sound *better*? It's possible, but I don't know why it might do. And I don't know that anyone has said that gold ALWAYS sounds better than aluminum does. We know that Mofi and a few other audiophile labels preferred gold over aluminum. OTOH, it's rumored that JVC actually rejected the use of gold for use in their XRCD reissue series.
Edits: 04/04/16
SACDs are not actuually sputtered with gold. Being a dual layer disc (virtually all are hybrids and have been for many years), one layer is made with a semi-transparent coating and it is this which gives the disc a gold sheen. If you compare a real 24kt CD with an SACD you will see the difference.
As has already been posted it is difficult to compare the audio performance of gold v. alumnium discs as all of the gold discs are (as far as I am aware) different masterings to the aluminium offering (and usually from another label).
Insofar as durabilty is concerned gold discs will last longer than aluminium ones but we are talking very long periods for both. The US Library of Congress has published a white paper exploring the long term storage characteristics of optical discs and aluminium scores well ( hundreds of years in normal storage conditions). Available online.
Unfortunately many people confuse the tarnishing etc. which mainly occured during the early production years of CD with an inherent problem when it was virtually always caused by manufacturing error. For example the problem that arose at PDO (Blackburn UK plant) when it was discovered that chemicals found in the paper booklets reacted with the aluminium in the discs.
Yeah, I did not know that about SACDs. I had only noticed that the gold CDs (two total!) in my collection sported a darker, richer golden hue than my SACDs did...
Very interesting!
But I am not being paid to educate you.
jm
From the Goldmine article "Audio Fidelity's gold CDs put the label in a class by itself"
Posted in Articles, High Fidelity | Tags: 24-karat gold CD, Audio Fidelity, audiophile record label, gold CDs in October 31, 2011
GM: Beyond the remastering process, what's the biggest difference between Audio Fidelity's 24-karat gold discs and redbook CDs?
MB: It always comes down to how well it was recorded to begin with and the source that we're working with. When we get our hands on the original masters, it's always a joy. But sometimes you don't have the luxury of getting an original master and what you get is a "one-off" from the original master. We have to make sure there's no EQ, there's no Dolby [Noise Reduction] — it's a clear, exact identical copy of what the master would have been like. And that goes back to the talents of Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray, and their ear and knowledge of where the tape came from, who tested it, who used it, how it was stored — all those factors are considered. But we're pretty lucky in that we usually can get a hold of the original master, and we work from that when we can. If not, we make sure that the source quality is something we know will yield a final Audio Fidelity product we can all be proud of. We always want to try and meet a standard so someone can listen to it and know that what they're listening to is different than a traditional CD. It's a better sound; whether it's 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent, in some cases it's 25 or even 50 percent better. It's for those people that hear the difference. That's whom I always wanted to make music for.
Notice that there is no mention of the technical superiority of gold over aluminum in regard to sound quality and Audio Fidelity has produced more gold CDs than anyone in recent memory. The response basically ignores the actual question and falls back to the response that the sound is really all about the mastering!
Comparing the files for gold and conventional CDRs a while back showed both copies were essentially bit perfect and that was enough for me to forego any further evaluation until someone issues a disc in both that shares a common master.
Bling factor?Or maybe, it's a combination of color and price? I've read that 24K gold CD blanks cost $2 more than silver CD blanks do. Could it be that higher retail price contributes to "expectation bias"?
Or maybe, gold CDs really do sound better?
Edits: 04/05/16
I never considered whether the material mattered. I always thought it was used by Mo-fi and DCC, as part of the premium packaging. That the magic was in the remastering from the best possible source.
And I have yet to see any CDs go bad, do to age.
John, I really would like to know what the real story is.
To start with, people have to realize and accept that:
THE COMPACT DISC IS AN ANALOG MEDIUM AND IT IS READ BY ANALOG MEANS.
Period. End of story. The only zeroes and ones are not on the CD; they are in peoples' heads.
The laser that cuts the glass master (BTW, there have been at least 100,000 CDs pressed up in the last 26 years that say "JMR" on them) cuts pits or divots in the glass and those are eventually molded into the polycarbonate.
In order to give the CD player's laser something to "read," the polycarbonate has to be plated with something reflective--usually aluminum.
The difference in reflectivity between the smooth surface of the CD and a pit in the smooth surface creates a difference in the ANALOG output of the photocell that is the origin of the signal that, through processing, is DEEMED to be "digital."
As it turns out, the sharpness of the transition between a shiny reflection (CD surface) and a diffuse reflection (a pit) makes a big difference in the timing of the digital signal train. Remember, the thing that made the S/PDIF protocol economically feasible was that the timing signal was embedded in the music signal. Both a strength and a weakness.
The crystalline structure of gold (an amazing element--you can beat out a one-inch cube of gold so thin it will cover a football field) is more supple and ductile than aluminum. The gold folds over the edge of the pit more neatly, and so the transition time is shorter and the read is more accurate.
Now, feel free to ignore what I say and email John Atkinson and ask him to recall what he heard in my listening room about 5 years ago, when I played for him aluminum and gold JMR CDs made from the same stamper...
He heard a distinct difference. I don't think it made him happy to find out that gold made a difference, but, he heard it. He said that the ambient sound of the church fit in better with the sound of the violin. Or words to that effect.
jm
from a differing mastering or are they just 'gold' CDs?
If I bought a gold one it should sound better based on the 'gold' in the pits, no problem understanding that.
Now what happens when I 'rip' the CD to my hard drive and compare to a ripped silver one?
Would be worth a try if I were sure the TELARC 'gold' CDs from Japan are the same mix with just a differing CD material.
I have several JMR recordings. Most are silver CDs but I do have "Songs My Mother Taught Me" on both gold CD and LP (but not on silver CD). I'd gladly compare all three versions of "Songs" for myself and for the other interested parties here, but I doubt that I'll ever find that particular silver CD at this late stage of the game...
Edits: 04/05/16
THE LEAST HE COULD DO!!!!
... um, ahem.
jm
Very cool-Its great to learn something. Keep posting!
> Gold CDs don't sound better and probably don't last longer either.
They sure look better, though! ;-)
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: