On 03 Feb 2004 16:32:49 GMT, (LASERandDVDfan)
wrote:

Well said. Most youngsters don't realize that in day gone by we had
just as much quality in our entertainment technology as we do today.

I some areas yes. I other areas, I beg to differ.

Yes digital does do better in many respects, exceptionally in visual
media. But it falls short in the audio department with 16 bit
technology just not living up to the quality of the better anaog hifi
gear, which can be gotten in thrift shops and second hand stores for
next to nothing.

Do you understand how digital audio works at all?

Yes I do, Durin my days in professional audio I owned a slipstream
24bit digital recording setup.(It was one of the first 24bit systems,
even before sony's)


In CD, 16-bit quantization allows up to 65,536 possible values of voltage for a
given sample. This translates roughly into 96 decibels of dyanmic range with
approximately the same level in signal-noise ratio. Mind you, this is on the
average for a CD player, which is far superior to even the best $5000+ LP rigs.

Actually panasonic made a digital recorder that used vhs tapes. The
first models were all 16bit and later they came out with a 24bit
model.
BAse cosr of these units were 1,999.
Plus with CD you have superior channel separation, better noise floor, wider
and more even frequency response, lower THD+N, and wow and flutter below
measurable thresholds.
The same can be said for any industrial quality vhs hifi deck. The w&f
on my commercial vhs editors is below .003%.
And anyone can tell you that fm stereo modulation gives very smooth
frequency response.
With fm modulation there is NO crosstalk.

In terms of frequency response, CDs are sampled at a rate of 44,100 times a
second. This translates directly into a maximum frequency response of 22,050
cycles. With LPs, the master recording is rolled off at about 15-16 KHz for
the record lathe. This is done because any attempts to run the lathe at
frequencies exceeding the cutoff will overheat the cutter head.

Your using vinyl lp's as the benchmark against cd's. OK
But your forgetting DBX vinyl discs.
I was at the CES show way back when a linn itok, a dbx unit abd a
vavled amp beat the socks off sony's best digital entry both to the
ear and the scope.
Also, CDs are more accurate than LPs because records have inherent even-ordered
harmonic distortion. This means you have distortion that actually sounds
pleasant, and this is what gives LPs their airiness and "muscality." But,
regardless, LPs are not an accurate representation of the master tape purely
because of this distortion.

True most of the standard vinyl offered to the public was atrocious in
quality. Even the 1/2 speed masters were marginal.
I had family that worked in the recording industry and that gsve me a
source for the hard vinyl masters distributed to radio stations.
it was a ceramic/vinyl composite mastered of the mother discs one to
one. In that sense I was a bit spoiled.
However most of what I listened to was cut off the original 3/4 inch
studio mix down tapes or stuff that I recorded on reel ot reel from
live sessions.

If you want to wonder why you may have a bad sounding CD, it can mean a few
possibilities:

1. The CD was not made optimally in respect for CD. Digital audio is most
unforgiving to any deficiencies in a session recording. Whatever the limits
are that could be concealed with various analogue formats will be reproduced in
a digital audio system.

2. The session recording was made with equipment not properly dithered, which
means you get zero-bit noise. But improper dithering is still a problem with
the recording and not the technology.

3. CD sound may be limited by the playback equipment. Most CD players use
rather cheap components, especially in the analogue section. For instance, any
CD player that uses JRC 4560 or 4558 operational amps in their analogue
sections is simply not a hi-fi piece of equipment. I have an Onkyo six-disc
that I modified by beefing up the power supply somewhat and replacing the four
JRC 4560 opamps with a set of Burr-Brown OPA2604 opamps. Result: improvement
in sound which not only sounds cleaner and easier with good accuracy but
eliminated listener's fatigue.

You missed the point that 16bit encoding schemes just don't have what
it takes to capture all the ambients in most recordings.
Sony and the other pioneers of 16bit realized this limitation.
Comb filters indiscriminately filter out some of the sounds as noise
resulting in that "thin" or "shallow" sound you get from 16bit.
I carefully checked every digital unit available when they first came
out, since I felt that was the way studio recording was definitely
going to go. Sony's offering fell woefully short. I AB'ed it against
my best 24 track units and actually could see on the graph scopes
where the digital system actually dropped sound bits.
That's why I went with Slipstreams recorder. 24bit open ended
recording required a more savy engineer(my guys all had to retrain on
digital engineering concepts) but sacrificed none of the music.
This was important since we did full orchestral scores exclusively.
16bits couldn't cut the mustard.
And yes I do have a bay full of 16bit commercial hardware, use it for
remastering outside material.

(If you ever listen to a stereo system that uses
valved amps you'll never pass a signal through a transistor again.)

Depends on the quality of the solid state equipment.

Yes there is equiment out there that mimics the sound quality of tube
amps. For a small fortune.
A well designed solid state amplifier can yield extraordinary results with
better reliability, efficiency, and accuracy than tube equipment.

Yes I have some "snob" level solid state amps that do stunning work,
once again the average consumer can't pay 10,000 or more per channel
for quality sound.
Of course, this also depends on other factors, such as the quality of the
speakers and source equipment.

I normally use klipsh for my home theatre and have been a firm
believer that JBL make's some of the best quality drivers you can buy.
Yes there are bleeding edge "low mass" woofers and god knows what else
coming out these days. But the veverage consumer can't spend in the
order of 50 to 100 thousand for a home system. And if they did in my
opinion they'd be nut's.
When I was much younger and foolish I spent far too much on my sound
equipment.
Also, older tube equipment has a tendency to create even-ordered harmonic
distortion.

Yes you can get some, hence the need to tweak the tubes.
Maybe 24bit digital audio will correct that if it ever catches on.
Flat screen HDTV would be nice to have, but it's got come way down in
price.

Be more specific when you describe a flat screen HDTV. I assume you mean
plasma HDTV sets. You also have rear projection HDTV sets that have a flat
screen and CRT HDTV sets that also have a flat screen. HDTV is coming down in
price for rear projection and CRT models, and apparently faster than you
realize.

I looked at Panasonics latest offering a couple of months ago, A flat
screen plasma going for just under 3,000, still too costly for the
average consumer. It was a bit small as well.
What the home viewer want's in a flat screen is to recreate the
theatre experience in their own home.
Taking into consideration the distance to size ratio of the average
cinescope screen that we all grew up watching in the movie houses and
the average size of the home den this would require a 60" minimum size
for the home sceen.
This size unit is still priced at a premium.
True the price will drop. It's a stand off between consumers and the
industry, we learned the hard way during the 80's with over priced
vcr's.
As long as consumers stand firm and don't buy they'll have to bring
down the price to an "honest" level.

Todays intelligent consumerhas gotten to wise to the tricks of the
retail industry. We all got burned with the outrageous overpricing of
vcr technology when it came out and most vowed never again.

When VCRs first came out, it was a new technology. No technology has ever been
released cheap when it first came out.
How much did you think radios cost when they first came out? How much do you
think the first TVs cost when they came out? How about the first color TVs?
The first personal computer? The first CD player? The first DVD player? The
first tangential tracking turntable? The first Hi-Fi VCR?

If you had any inside knowledge of the design and manufacturing
industry you'd know that even taking in R&D costs initial technology
sales have always been boosted to high.
The vhs deck wasn't new technology when it was released, just
implementation of tech that had exsisted for nearly a decade.
The revovling drum had been around since the early 60's.
Magnetic tape technology even longer.
1/2 inch video tape was invented by JVC under contract from Panasonic.
JVC developed the recording signal back in the mid 70's, panasonic
develpoed the vhs cassette to hold it and kept it all a secret untill
sony came out with their beta systems.(It's always been the marketing
strategy of Panasonic to allow Sony to rush out their half formed
hardware designs then trumpimg them with something better at a lower
cost.)
As for the first color tv's. Their high cost was due to the method of
manufacturing. They were made in the US, practically hand built.
That's what drove their cost up.
The first CD players were crap. A friend ran out and bought the first
Sony offering. The motors and laser crapped out in the first year.
Ultra cheap materials and manufacturing. Hardly worth the 1,300 he
paid for it.
Years later I bought a Tandberg unit for use in the studio for 1,800.
Swiss made and still running strong, but then it was made to squeeze
the most out of the cd's played in it.
You have to take into consideration not just the tech side of the
issue but the people side as well.
Corporations are run by greedy no talent *******s that want to get
rich yesterday. They're the ones who ultimately decide what the
release price of a product will be. And what corners will be cut in
manufaturing and design.


Most of the technology I do enjoy I got from using common sense and
frugality not just running out and buying it just because everyone
said so.

Hey, that's how I built my system. While some components had to be new, like
my audio receiver (Technics SA-DA10) and DVD player (Sony DVP-S360), a lot of
my other components, such as my LaserDisc player (Pioneer DVL-700), VHS hi-fi
(Sony SVO-160), Beta hi-fi (Sony SL-HF400), CED (RCA SJT-200), CD player (Onkyo
DX-C106), tape deck (JVC TD-V711), turntable (Technics SL-7), stereo mains
(Optimus Mach Three), and television (Sony KV-27S66) I got from looking around
and buying cheap. Most of the stuff wasn't even working, so I repaired them to
get them working.

As for my computer, I bought many new components and I built the whole thing
myself. For computers, you really ought to get what's up to date (doesn't mean
highest end). Hell, I needed a computer that was powerful enough to run
WindowsXP reliably. I would've went with Win98SE, but that OS runs unstable on
my computer, so necessity dictates that I run WinXP.

What's wrong with win2kpro?
XP is the bane of my business with all it's short comings.

I've been a staunch supporter of the philosophy behind the Mother
Jones publications all my life.
people should realize that you can have a good quality of life and not
be a slave to this consumeristic society we live in.

Good for you! But, other people may feel differently. There are people that
buy things not because others tell them to, but because they really want
something and are willing to spend what they earned to get it.

People oft confuse need and want and tend to go for the latter.
I always ask myself if I really need something.
That's the only reason I have much of the electronics I do have.
For business reasons(I do video/film work).
While you went with a Sony dvd I purchased a Daewoo that offered more
in features and performance.(It's a clone of a commercial unit made by
panasonic.) at less than half the price.
From the day we open our eyes the programming starts.
We are trained to be consumers and always buy whatever is new when it
comes out. It's been made the cornerstone of our economy.
We're conditioned to feel "good" when we buy something new.
Why do you think there's a car dealership on every block and a 7/11 on
every corner.

As for my stuff, I've no regrets. I bought what I felt I wanted and I got it,
not because some other schmuck told me to get it. For instance, I swear by
Sony TVs. Not because other people say they're good, but because my own
experience dictates this choice. I've found them to be very reliable and high
resolution TV sets, especially in the professional scene. - Reinhart

Can you really say that Sony is superior quality?
I don't even service Sony anymore it's such a pain to get parts.
I have a back storage room full of new broken down Sony.
That old sales slogan "It's a Sony" is about as lame as Nikon's old
bit, "It's not a camera it a Nikon".
Neither have turned out the quality products that made their name
famous in quite some time.