Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[restorer-john]

From the consumer side, I remember DAC oversampling as a trend that emerged pretty quickly (1984-1985?)

The Philips CD chipset from day one used the TDA-1540D (2 usually, 1 per channel) which was a 14 bit unit, oversampling filter (SAA-7030) as their TDA-1541 (16bit dual) didn't exist. Several Japanese manufacturers went with the Philips 14bit OS chipset, most notable being Kyocera/Cybernet which OEMd for Phase Linear, Akai, Micro Seiki, Tensai, Kyocera themselves and even Rotel for their first CD players.

This machine (below) was actually in production prior to the release of the Sony CDP-101 in October 1982 in Japan and being actively peddled to other OEMs. It uses the Philips 14bit TDA-1540-D chipset (4 ICs). I have a few of the Akai CD-D1 players in my collection. (I also have a full suite of tests done on all the major 1st generation machines by Louis Challis of ETI if anyone is interested)

After the Japanese companies realized oversampling/digital filtering could save them an absolute fortune in expensive (to buy and align) Murata active LPFs/or bespoke ones, the OS race was on.

 

[Wombat]

The Philips CD chipset from day one used the TDA-1540D (2 usually, 1 per channel) which was a 14 bit unit, oversampling filter (SAA-7030) as their TDA-1541 (16bit dual) didn't exist. Several Japanese manufacturers went with the Philips 14bit OS chipset, most notable being Kyocera/Cybernet which OEMd for Phase Linear, Akai, Micro Seiki, Tensai, Kyocera themselves and even Rotel for their first CD players.

This machine (below) was actually in production prior to the release of the Sony CDP-101 in October 1982 in Japan and being actively peddled to other OEMs. It uses the Philips 14bit TDA-1540-D chipset (4 ICs). I have a few of the Akai CD-D1 players in my collection. (I also have a full suite of tests done on all the major 1st generation machines by Louis Challis of ETI if anyone is interested)

View attachment 122359

After the Japanese companies realized oversampling/digital filtering could save them an absolute fortune in expensive (to buy and align) Murata active LPFs/or bespoke ones, the OS race was on.

The marketeers sold the BS that the 16bit Sony players were superior to the 14bit Philips/Marantz/
Mission players.

 

[Wombat]

I gave my son my Marantz CD34(Philips CD104) - circa 1984.

It is lonely in his garden shed so I will get it back.

Mission had a tweaked version, the DAD 7000.

The CD34 ended my LP buying.

 

[simbloke]

The Philips CD chipset from day one used the TDA-1540D (2 usually, 1 per channel) which was a 14 bit unit, oversampling filter (SAA-7030) as their TDA-1541 (16bit dual) didn't exist. Several Japanese manufacturers went with the Philips 14bit OS chipset, most notable being Kyocera/Cybernet which OEMd for Phase Linear, Akai, Micro Seiki, Tensai, Kyocera themselves and even Rotel for their first CD players.

You should open a museum, it would be worth the trip. I think I might not be joking.

 

[restorer-john]

The marketeers sold the BS that the 16bit Sony players were superior to the 14bit Philips/Marantz/
mission players.

In some parameters the Sony (and other Toshiba based) 16bit players were better, in other parameters the Philips chipset was better. Swings and roundabouts.

When the the TDA-1541 hit the market, even Sony had to use it for a while while Burr Brown got their act into order and came up with the PCM-58P (18bit). After that, the game was over for Philips. They invented "bitstream" as a low cost solution, and things went downhill for a few years.

Get the CD-104/34 back. I have 1 (one) only in my parts donors if you need anything to resurrect it. The CDM-1 in it, is now a collectors' item.

 

[Wombat]

In some parameters the Sony (and other Toshiba based) 16bit players were better, in other parameters the Philips chipset was better. Swings and roundabouts.

When the the TDA-1541 hit the market, even Sony had to use it for a while while Burr Brown got their act into order and came up with the PCM-58P (18bit). After that, the game was over for Philips. They invented "bitstream" as a low cost solution, and things went downhill for a few years.

Get the CD-104/34 back. I have 1 (one) only in my parts donors if you need anything to resurrect it. The CDM-1 in it, is now a collectors' item.

Do you have an operating one? Mine only had an occasional sticky CD drawer.

 

[restorer-john]

Do you have an operating one? Mine only had an occasional sticky CD drawer.

Yes, deep in the storeroom. I'll look it out in due course and let you know.

The biggest issue with them is the axial Philips electrolytic capacitors on the CDM-1 RF board and basically any of the Philips manufactured electros on the main board. Actually, all of them, bar the PSU caps where for some reason they used Japanese caps (mostly but not always).

Oh, and the fact that Philips used horrible Torx screws into plastic spigots (that crack) and nylon gears that turn to jelly. Other than that, all good.

Regardless of what people will say, the 104 is a fantastic sounding player. Sure, it's ugly and the ergonomics are non existant, but it's an honest machine, built like a European tank.

 

[DSJR]

I remember the first Philips/Marantz machines used to give me a headache after an hour or so. Recording the disc onto a properly calibrated Nak cassette deck removed the fatigue* (that'll give you summat to laugh about ). The reviewer pal of mine had a good few machines through his hands and I visited him regularly too, so was able to try things we didn't sell in the store.

* Maybe the added noise-floor helped mask the distortions.

I had the first Micro-Mega machine to try at home - heavy perspex lid and brass weight to place on the disc with a really 'odd' sound I remember. What convinced me of the future of CD as a format was the B&O CDX (straight Philips with style aplenty and then the Mission DAD7000 (CD 104 in drag - the 104 came in two production runs, the later one with stripped out supplies and so on I remember). These two needed half an hour to 'warm up' (subjective memories) but were very neat and tidy in sound.

Next was the Meridian MCD, their take on an original Philips top loading chassis and finished in nextel. I found it a bit 'relentless' I remember but the 'MCD Pro' version with underslung added box did it superbly for me as the 'edge' had gone and this became my first CD player, which I kept until the 207 two-box player came along.

My reviewer pal had the Sony 502. 505 and add-on dac (701?) for review and it was fascinating to hear the gentle progress these machines appeared to make in terms of bass clarity and 'authority.' Maybe now I'd see this as expectation bias but at the time, the quality of sound at the top did seem to become more expansive. Around this time we had a 1610 pro A-D-A process or to play with and set like this and inserted into a tape loop, the sound wasn't changed at all. A pal had become a mastering engineer at this time and apparently, the editing stations were the huge culprits in early digital. Decca in London made their own which were better until Sony and others got their poo together in the early 90's and sorted it all out.

Coming up to date, I was given a mid to late 80's Philips 371 machine, with tacky plastic case and a couple of fancy caps on the audio output. This is where I realised that in a modern playback system, the 'sound' of cheaper early machines may not have been as 'bad' as I remembered.

Apologies if the above bores you lot to death.

 

[Wombat]

Compared to vinyl the accurate treble on CDs must have been confronting for some. Overly bright and harsh(exaggeration) compared to the previous 'norm'.

 

[Pluto]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "Garbage". The Sony ES 501 ADC certainly qualified:

View attachment 122036

I bought a couple of these when they became available in PAL format. Within six months two of my three Revox machines were out the door. The third had to be retained as a way of performing precision edits but I was constantly paranoid that it was possible to spot those sections that had to be laid off to analogue tape for editing.

 

[restorer-john]

Compared to vinyl the accurate treble on CDs must have been confronting for some. Overly bright and harsh(exaggeration) compared to the previous 'norm'.

Absolutely true. Rolled off top end on every tape format, broadcast format and vinyl recording other than a test record. CD was ruler flat to 20kHz. No wonder so many audiophiles blew tweeters in the early days of digital...

 

[restorer-john]

I'm sure the early Sony DATs will get equally hammered for being "garbage" too, when they were nothing of the sort.

 

[Wombat]

Vinyl is the 'normal' is creeping into this forum.

 

[restorer-john]

Vinyl is the 'normal' is creeping into this forum.

Shall we go back to acetates? Or Shellacs? I will not ever call it wax. That is going too far.

 

[rdenney]

Vinyl is the 'normal' is creeping into this forum.

I don’t see that happening. Vinyl as viable when carefully done, despite acknowledged flaws, maybe. But the supporters I see here are mostly like me: retaining the ability to play back old libraries.

Rick “why would this be a threat?” Denney

 

[Burning Sounds]

Mostly agree, but the real problem is small children, sometimes toddlers using/having one turntables. The damage to their ability to focus and exert patience is immense and probably irreversible.

Funny, nobody has mentioned this regarding the downside of vinyl. I still have a nice right-angle cantilevered Garrott P77 that I've been meaning to get fixed for more than 20 years.

 

[DSJR]

Absolutely true. Rolled off top end on every tape format, broadcast format and vinyl recording other than a test record. CD was ruler flat to 20kHz. No wonder so many audiophiles blew tweeters in the early days of digital...

I think I said earlier, those in the UK with Shure V15 III cartridges (nominally flat response to 10kHz at least and usually higher even with marginal capacitance loading), safe as houses Quad amps and speakers with bass, or maybe 'porty warmth' as was the trend in many early 70's mid to larger boxes, took to CD like ducks to water. We younger bods were the ones with hugely compromised stereo's (expensive ones as well) which didn't take to digital at all at first. By the time I'd bought my first CD player, I was using a Linn pre and power amp, the preamp at least being somewhat curtailed below 50Hz and above 10kHz (not sure why, but the early power amp was fragile to say the least and the preamp may well have been protecting it to a degree. Once again, s'cuse the rambles.

 

[norcalscott]

Funny, nobody has mentioned this regarding the downside of vinyl. I still have a nice right-angle cantilevered Garrott P77 that I've been meaning to get fixed for more than 20 years.

I live in constant fear of this with the grandchildren around. There is very little they can do to damage my DACs and Amps, but just about everything to do with my vinyl collection, turntable, brushes, cleaning solutions, etc. can be destroyed in seconds by a juicebox wielding toddler. I just took delivery of a new set of Wharfdale Lintons and I am working on a special box to go around them to keep out poking little people fingers

 

[mhardy6647]

I have the first separate DAC Sony sold, the DAS 702-ES which still worked when I lat checked a couple of years ago.
I keep thinking I should do a level matched comparison with one of my modern DACs but it would require quite an upheaval given that I have gone Devialet since my last DAC comparison convinced me any differences were insignificant to zero.

Minor update -- I've randomly* selected one of the old Sonys (Sonae? ) to bring upstairs. It is warming up (literally) in the hifi/junk room even now.
Further details as events warrant -- I shall start a new thread.

_______________
* actually only pseudo-randomly -- I got out the one that was on top; i.e., easier to get to! If it doesn't work/doesn't work right, I'll have to go spelunking again downstairs. Stay tuned...

 

[ahofer]

For all the talk about high sample rates not being worth it. I can say that when you are are trying to capture a single instrument, or voice, there is a significant difference between 16/44.1 and "hi-rez" - which at the time was SACD or equivalent of 24/88.2.

There's not a ton of evidence people can do this unsighted. There was a recent online trial - http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-ii.html

This paper gives a summary of other tests, some with weak positive findings, others with none. The first one is Meyer and Moran (2007).

I've heard in these pages that trained listeners, listening for very specific artifacts, in specific types of material, can do reasonably well distinguishing between hi-res and redbook unsighted. I just don't think it can be called a "significant" difference.