Are CD Player still relevant?

[dheerajin]

Dheeraj, don't you think this is a reason enough to continue discussions and improve our understanding and awareness? why the urgency to close?

Cirrect thx911 ...for understanding and awareness...but hardly anyone discussing digital....whereas eveyone is discussing human peception of science, maths, statistics...etc etc..

 

[thx911]

but hardly anyone discussing digital....whereas eveyone is discussing human peception of science, maths, statistics...etc etc..

What else is DIGITAL? it is all about NyquistShannon sampling theorem - Statistics; measurements & measurement system analysis - Maths, Landed cost of a Sony/Philips transport- economics, human perception and buying - behavioral economics? tell me what else is digital? it is pure applied science. Its a window to understanding fundamentals of science, engineering and economics, in a melodious way!

 

[dheerajin]

To read digital data, the closest thing is computer and CD is one of the artificial way of storage and to read that data CD Transport was employed..now tell me who is discussing this digital stuff...beyond this everyone is discussing...thats why...otherwise i dont have any problem with what being discussed in creative way...only concern was thread being dragged OT...and there seems to be no consensus and conclusion...now i am waiting for the remarks on this post

 

[koushik]

To read digital data, the closest thing is computer and CD is one of the artificial way of storage and to read that data CD Transport was employed..now tell me who is discussing this digital stuff...beyond this everyone is discussing...thats why...otherwise i dont have any problem with what being discussed in creative way...only concern was thread being dragged OT...and there seems to be no consensus and conclusion...now i am waiting for the remarks on this post

If CD is artificial way of storing data, so is a HDD. Everything else other than a processor, a MoBo with BIOS and a RAM is extra thing added to a computer. By computer, originally, it is meant only those 3 things.

 

[crosstalk]

Is it again the battle between people who can hear sub-sonic and super-sonic sounds VS the people who can hear only the sounds in human audible spectrum?

I hear a lot of people saying this these days....there is a feeling of sound (!) you really need to feel it (!) you actually can't hear it (!)...AND this particular feeling is given by

1. Vinyls played on state of the art systems. On cheap systems the feeling won't come.
2. Metal cassettes recorded from vinyls on a NAK and played on a NAK. Other tape decks and dog tail are same.
3. SACDs. CDs have less sound than these. The subsonic and supersonic sounds on SACDs are caught in some super-human's ears.

Sometimes, instruments never used in the recording are heard also. (Ghost instruments).

They mostly appear in the left channel.

What was the discussion about?

 

[ranjeetrain]

What was the discussion about?

Hehehh... well said.. I wonder too


Anyway back to the topic to say something, as the discussion has added some new dimensions here. And because a lot of people who are not computer literate or are not into computers in a big way might be forming wrong notions. I wish to intervene.

A CD is one of the least popular storage medium available today. For the following reasons: (a) It's least reliable - Even as the shelf life of a CD is extremely long, guarantee of retrieval is very very low. (b) It's relatively expensive - A 4TB HDD costs around 10-12k (INR). You can store the contents of over 3000 CDs on it. That's less than INR 4 per CD.

CD reading mechanism designed for early CD players worked very differently from current generation CD-ROMs (and their other variants). It is not really profitable for OEMs to still manufacture CD readers as per original CD specification.

If we put all the reasons together, we will come to the conclusion that the old way of reading Audio CDs is not just technically inferior in comparison to current CD reading mechanisms but also doesn't make commercial sense.

HDD (or equivalent) playback makes so much more sense not only due to economy and convenience but also because it is decidedly superior (technically). Of course, Red book format was designed keeping in mind CD as storage and playback medium. But when the same track is delivered on a HDD from the same master using the same mastering process, the fidelity of the track upon retrieval from it's storage medium is decidedly better (more reliable). Of course, since Red book format was designed to be stored on and played from a CD, there are challenges when the same content is played back from a general-purpose computer. Now here is the last piece of the puzzle.

That, one who can overcome the challenges involved in audio playback from a general-purpose computer (as against a special-purpose computer called CDP), shall reap the benefits.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Bravo to most of that, but you are loosing me here...

Of course, since Red book format was designed to be stored on and played from a CD, there are challenges when the same content is played back from a general-purpose computer.

It is only a few weeks ago that I read a paper explaining just how Music-CD data storage, retrieval and error correction does work, and I admit that I was amazed that is so complex but, if we rip that music to disk, then all of that CD-specific stuff becomes a thing of the past, doesn't it?

 

[asliarun]

If CD is artificial way of storing data, so is a HDD. Everything else other than a processor, a MoBo with BIOS and a RAM is extra thing added to a computer. By computer, originally, it is meant only those 3 things.

The purest implementation of digital audio that we can achieve today is memory playback - where the entire uncompressed audio bitstream is loaded into main memory (RAM). The CPU then runs an audio player that picks up the in-memory audio bistream and streams it to a DAC - which converts the digital bitstream into an analog audio stream.

Consider that CPU accesses the digital bitstream from RAM takes 100 nano-seconds, compared to 100 micro seconds (1000 times slower!) for an SSD, compared to 10 milliseconds for a fast hard drive (1 lakh times slower!!). And a CD operates much much slower than a hard drive. And RAM operations are near-perfect operations. It had better be. Otherwise, all sorts of data in this world would get corrupt. At least we can say that even for obsessive audiophiles, RAM playback can be considered a near perfect solution. I mean, if you are still not satisfied, you can get ECC RAM!

And even leaving that aside, when a audio CD is played (dedicated CD player or computer CD ROM - regardless), the bitstream is loaded through this incredibly slow I/O channel and eventually still loaded into RAM (CPU can only read from RAM anyway).

So I personally don't understand how CD players are even relevant today. Discussing the transport quality of the CD player transport is a bit like fitting a bullock cart with really really good quality wheels. While it is a creditable engineering feat, it is a pointless engineering solution when other people are driving cars.

The good audio quality you hear from a CD player is most likely because of the excellent power supply and DAC implementation. So why not get a good DAC instead? Why pay money for a CD transport? If you really want to use a peripheral I/O device (a CD is a computer too), you might as well use a nice fast high capacity USB3 solid state flash drive.

 

[ranjeetrain]

^^ Good brief post Arun. Very to the point!

Bravo to most of that, but you are loosing me here...

Of course, since Red book format was designed to be stored on and played from a CD, there are challenges when the same content is played back from a general-purpose computer.

It is only a few weeks ago that I read a paper explaining just how Music-CD data storage, retrieval and error correction does work, and I admit that I was amazed that is so complex but, if we rip that music to disk, then all of that CD-specific stuff becomes a thing of the past, doesn't it?

Thad, you nearly forgot about J-I-T-T-E-R

Besides, a Red book CD also contains some additional information which is not present in a computer rip, but this isn't that important.

 

[koushik]

Arun, you are spot on but I unable to understand why did you quote me. Both opinions can coexist, isn't it?

 

[asliarun]

Arun, you are spot on but I unable to understand why did you quote me. Both opinions can coexist, isn't it?

Hi Koushik

Apologies. I actually misunderstood your post and thought you were making the same point. So I quoted you as a continuation of the same thought. Reading the thread later, I realized I made a mistake. Sorry about that. And you are right - there is no need for this to be an argument when it can be a discussion.

The only ironic thing is that the old over engineered CD players could still give modern DACs a solid run for their money based on their robust power supply and DAC design. But so could older high end DACs I guess that can sometimes be had for very reasonable prices.

 

[koushik]

Hi Koushik

Apologies. I actually misunderstood your post and thought you were making the same point. So I quoted you as a continuation of the same thought. Reading the thread later, I realized I made a mistake. Sorry about that. And you are right - there is no need for this to be an argument when it can be a discussion.

No worries .. it happens [emoji4]

...But so could older high end DACs I guess that can sometimes be had for very reasonable prices.

That's very true and one good example is "Theta Pro Gen V"

 

[arj]

That will work as long you level match the volume. However, when you come to DAC, Preamp and Amplifier the mismatched output and input gain causes a pronounced difference. Here it is going to get technical but then I would just buy whichever sounds the best unless you know how to remove the variables.

+ 1

the question of if CD players are relevant is actually about how long CDs are going to be relevant..no use in having a CD player when there are no CDs

The next Gen does not listen to CDs and music is going to be either Online streaming OR downloading music on their mobility devices

Vinyl stayed back because a lot of Music still sounds better on vinyl than on CDs- and not because vinyl is superior but because the Conversion to Digital was very substandard and hence the content on commonly available CDs was inferior. Anyone who has heard an LP of Lata and a CD of the same knows what i am talking of.

I dont suppose the same issue will exist with CDs so it will die..maybe not completely , but just like the tape remain a niche area.

 

[captrajesh]

It is actually the other way round. Audiofools are those who believe they could tell the difference by listening. A simple extra gain in the output can make any system sounds difference. Audiofools refuse to acknowledge this truth, especially after spending x amount of money on their new toy.

Considering that we listen to music to derive pleasure which in itself cannot be objectively defined, IMO it is only an audiofool who would base his opinion on technical information rather than his sense of hearing.

but hardly anyone discussing digital....whereas eveyone is discussing human peception of science, maths, statistics...etc etc..

True that Dheeraj; in addition, there are some who shoot from the mouth. They make some weird statement and don't bother elaborating when asked probably because they would need to eat their words.

 

[Ambio]

Some would rather use their ears to judge sound but when it comes to buying gold or 1kg onion or 1 liter petrol they would rely on measurements rather than their senses. Dr.Bowes described this as a new form of neurosis known as audiophilia. He discovered that long before I was even born!

Audiophilia

A new neurosis has been discovered: audiophilia, or the excessive passion for hi-fi sound and equipment. The discoverer: Dr. Henry Angus Bowes, clinical director in psychiatry at Ste. Anne's Hospital for veterans at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Que., himself an audio fan. Tweet by tweet and woof by woof, at a research meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Psychiatrist Bowes spelled out how audiophiliacs behave.

Most of them are middleaged, male and intelligent, drawn largely from professions requiring highly conscientious performance (the church, accountancy, medicine, especially psychiatry). They are often single (or if married, childless). They rarely play any musical instrument well themselves. The hi-fi devotee, Dr. Bowes found, "is very frequently of compulsive personality, and tends to go through rituals in the playing of his recordings." What distinguishes the psychopathological addict from the enthusiastic followers of this (or any other) hobby? Dr. Bowes answered: "His tendency to become preoccupied with, and dependent upon, the bizarre recorded sounds . . . combined with the urgency of the need and the final insufficiency of all attempts to satisfy it ... The sound is turned up and up until it reaches the physical level of pain . . . One addict told me he would not be satisfied until he could hear the drop of saliva from the French horns."

Those who are not well organized emotionally, said Dr. Bowes, "will treat their hi-fi set as the emotionally immature treat a caras an expression of aggression, as a power symbol." To many it has a sexual connotation: addicts may be seeking a "sterile reproduction without biological bother," and in extreme cases, a record collection becomes a "symbolic harem." Significantly, says Psychiatrist Bowes (married, no children), an addict's wife almost always demands that the volume be turned down: "Perhaps in the male's interest in hi-fi she senses a rival, as shrill and discordant as herself."

An unconscious motive for buying expensive equipment is often a desire for revenge, said Dr. Bowes. "One very compulsive patient, who found the sexual side of matrimony completely nauseating," he recalled, "was financially ruining his fairly wealthy wife by his extravagant purchases . . . while she obtained instinctual gratification elsewhere. As he somewhat ruefully remarked: 'She's interested in low fidelity and high frequency.' "

It is an old well known problem.

 

[coaltrain]

^^awesome post, ambio!

I think this thread is a strong contender for the Cotton Candy Award, for maximum flavour and zero nutrition.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

The purest implementation of digital audio that we can achieve today is memory playback - where the entire uncompressed audio bitstream is loaded into main memory (RAM). The CPU then runs an audio player that picks up the in-memory audio bistream and streams it to a DAC - which converts the digital bitstream into an analog audio stream.

Consider that CPU accesses the digital bitstream from RAM takes 100 nano-seconds, compared to 100 micro seconds (1000 times slower!) for an SSD, compared to 10 milliseconds for a fast hard drive (1 lakh times slower!!). And a CD operates much much slower than a hard drive. And RAM operations are near-perfect operations. It had better be. Otherwise, all sorts of data in this world would get corrupt. At least we can say that even for obsessive audiophiles, RAM playback can be considered a near perfect solution. I mean, if you are still not satisfied, you can get ECC RAM!

And even leaving that aside, when a audio CD is played (dedicated CD player or computer CD ROM - regardless), the bitstream is loaded through this incredibly slow I/O channel and eventually still loaded into RAM (CPU can only read from RAM anyway).

So I personally don't understand how CD players are even relevant today. Discussing the transport quality of the CD player transport is a bit like fitting a bullock cart with really really good quality wheels. While it is a creditable engineering feat, it is a pointless engineering solution when other people are driving cars.

The good audio quality you hear from a CD player is most likely because of the excellent power supply and DAC implementation. So why not get a good DAC instead? Why pay money for a CD transport? If you really want to use a peripheral I/O device (a CD is a computer too), you might as well use a nice fast high capacity USB3 solid state flash drive.

What is necessarily "pure" about playback from RAM? Because of the necessary buffering in the chain, all audio is actually played back from RAM, isn't it? What is the difference in doing this in large chunks rather than tiny chunks? And, surely, the RAM-buffered complete track is still going to be subject to further buffering as it is broken into chunks of the right size for transmission to the interface or DAC. If I can get perfectly good playback from the very, very slow CD drive, why should I be concerned between the difference in speed between RAM access and HDD access?

I really appreciate the technical content of your posts: I'm open to being persuaded to move this one out of my "audiophad" file!

Thad, you nearly forgot about J-I-T-T-E-R

How could I forget about Jitter when audiophiles love it so much? :lol:

OK, it is a potential problem in the transmission of digital data. If it can be dealt with in CDP playback, then it can be dealt with in PC playback surely?

@Thx911,

I think I understand the DBT concept...having fought many battles over this on audio asylum when such arguments was the rage a decade ago

... ... ...

If it cannot be used for making practical decisions for choosing audio equipment, it pretty much has only academic use. Hence the question.

How about expecting the industry to use it before they try to sell us something? "High-resolution" music would have been dead on the R&D lab floor. Sadly, there was nothing to stop it reaching the marketing department.

It's use in the industry is not, actually, such an alien concept. I'm sure you know about Sean Olive's work.

Considering that we listen to music to derive pleasure which in itself cannot be objectively defined, IMO it is only an audiofool who would base his opinion on technical information rather than his sense of hearing.

If technical information is not true, then it is not technical information. As a DIYer and an enthusiastic experimenter, I'm sure you use a lot of technical information prior to the listening stage?

 

[prem]

I dont think cd players are relevant. CD sales share will soon go into one digit. Vinyl today has less than 5%. That according to me is an irrelevant number. The format which has the highest share automatically becomes the most relevant. Sound quality does not come into picture when one is discussing relevance of a format.

If you are concerned about what format sounds closest to the master tape you might find this link interesting

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...-vinyl-sacd-or-an-open-reel-tape-copy.133328/

Steve Hoffman is considered one of the best mastering engineers

 

[Ambio]

Steve has now changed his mind. He thinks DSD sounds exactly like the source. Not only him but other like Chesky's and HD mastering engineer's also agree DSD is closest to real. His interview here.

 

[prem]

Steve has never gone on record saying DSD is better.