Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mtx5b.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!ariel!mtx5b!mat From: mat@mtx5b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: CD's: The heresy unfolds Message-ID: <1402@mtx5b.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-May-85 21:53:00 EDT Article-I.D.: mtx5b.1402 Posted: Wed May 8 21:53:00 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 04:06:02 EDT References: <285@moncol.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 109 This reply borders on a flame. It even crosses that border. '>>' My article '>' The reply to which I reply. >>Well, I got my first chance to hear the much-spoken-of inadaqucy of CDs. ... >>Anyone care to comment, or know of any particular problems with that disc that >>would reduce the validity of these conclusions? Why did you put the whole original article in your reply? For your sins, listen 65 times to all of Frank Sinatra's recordings, on Radio Shack's $1.98 tape, on a JC Whitney Krako $19.95 car stereo player, on $11.95 speakers. >have discounted a previous review because the 901 is a gimmick >speaker. Well, the Carver sonic holography circuit is an even bigger >gimmick!! It adds stereo difference information (l-r, r-l) to each >channel, ruining the CD players virtually perfect channel separation. >Many people find this effect pleasing, but it is far from accurate, >and certainly not valid for judging the imaging qualities of a source. Well, I have listened to the recordings without the Hologram, too. The results were the same, if less drastic. I don't believe Carver's box is a ``gimmick'' in the sense that you describe, and I wonder if you have heard it yourself. If you have, and you still feel it is a gimmick, fine. As to ``perfect channel seperation'', and judging the imaging qualities of a source, I agree with Carver that some of the cues that we use for imaging are lost in the two-speaker reproduction system, and for the reasons he describes. You've probably read the descriptions of the system, and you probably still disagree. Fine. If you haven't read how and why it works, I'll be happy to discuss it in private mail. Briefly, it attempts to unmask some cues that allow us to perceive the stereo effect. These cues are smeared by the two-speaker setup. If other cues are present, we can still perceive the image, but the presence of the whole set, if consistant, makes it somewhat better. Sometimes spectacularly better. Does your system allow you to hear the walls of the space within which a concert was recorded? >Also, if Bob Carver really said that CD's have a upper midrange >frequency response problem, then he is totally off-base. ... [those] >problems are not caused by the Compact disk's nearly perfect frequency >response. I don't think there are many (if any) phono cartidges on >the market that are as flat between 20hz-20khz. The CD it is the most perfect system to date, and by far. But we are used to hearing vinyl, and the people who cut masters are acustomed to equalizing for vinyl. I did not criticize the medium itself, I said that I had heard what other people were blaming on the medium, and understood their reasons. As far as discrepancies in cartridges, Carver claims to have measured the same effects with over twenty turntable/tonearm/cartridge setups, all well matched. All produced consistant results with a wide range of recordings. >... the Mobile Fidelity record sounds better than the CD. But not for the >reasons that you and Bob Carver suggest. Perhaps ... Lots of perhaps. Maybe you're right. On the other hand, if the masters have faded, then why do I get CLEARER speech coming through the other sound on CD? The reason must be that the other sound is SELECTIVELY weaker. But the other sounds are mostly at LOWER freqencies, which are LESS affected by age when recorded on tape. In any case, the masking is not by background noise, but the music and sound effects deliberately recorded, and they mask the voice LESS on CD. The only likely difference, apart from bad vinyl on the MF release, (MOST unlikely) is the differing frequency responses. Two things suggest that the vinyl reflects the original intent of the artist: 1) I have two vinyl recordings, one MF and one the pressing sold in your average record store (probably J&R in NYC, but I don't know for sure) They resemble each other more closely than the CD in the balance of recorded sound. The MF and the CD resemble each other more in the LOW background noise level. 2) The close match between the level of the voices and the level of intelligibility on this disc seems to be a deliberate artistic effect, and one used with great results. The CD is less pleasurable and less interesting to listen to. Anyhow, I think you are off base when you approach a problem ruling out a solution because it conflicts with your idea that the simple two-channel setup is the essence of perfection and can do no wrong. True, if perfection in both acoustics and electronics is pursued with tremendous vigor at tremendous expense, you will have a better system to listen to than mine. If I ever have my own house built to my standards, I'll take listening room characteristics into account everywhere. Until then, I will attempt to get the best results with my resources, and the Carver preamp produces an effect that I think is very realistic AT MY EARS -- not just on scopes at the end of the speaker leads. >If you want to perform a more valid test, compare a current digital recording, >like Donald Fagen's 'The Nightfly' to the regular vinyl version. ... But I have no interest in that recording. I don't like it. If that CD was mastered in such a way that it sounds more like the vinyl, and both reflect the intent of the artist, then I am happy for you, since you do like it. >But leave the sonic holography, ... and other Carver wizardry turned OFF. I appreciate you telling me what I should like to hear. Carver's stuff, while unorthodox, works quite well for me. You CAN do better with more conventional gear, but at a much heftier price. from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.