4 ms·

CDs sounded cold because converters were bad and engineers didn't have much experience mastering for it, not because they sounded too perfect. Early CDs still

CDs sounded cold because converters were bad and engineers didn't have much experience mastering for it, not because they sounded too perfect. Early CDs still sound bad, and I would take the respective vinyl over the CD any day still. Modern CDs sound amazing, if we leave the loudness wars aside for a moment. I suppose there are two reasons why people use Instagram filters. Firstly, because most phone cameras aren't very good and the filters distract from the bad picture quality. Secondly, because it's in fashion, and people just do it because the cool people do. I don't even understand where you were trying to go with the Facebook/Twitter/Youtube thing. It's a trivial statement and provides no illumination. 24 frames per second with a 180° shutter will always be more engaging than 48 frames per second with a 240° shutter or whatever they use, unless they manage to make the last one look more like the first one and add to it in some way. Like with modern CDs and vinyl.

stan_rogers 14y ago
It wasn't so much that engineers didn't know how to master, but that the analog-to-digital sampling was done at the CD bit rate (44.1Khz). That meant that the analogue signal needed to be brick-wall filtered to remove any information above 20KHz, and analogue brick-wall (hi-Q) filtering does really, really bad things to time and phase. Since the late '80s, the sampling rate on conversion has been much higher and the removal of high-frequency information (possible aliasing) is done in the digital domain. (And it really didn't help that early players did no dithering on playback either. Early CDs still sound horrible, but you really need to play them on early players to get the full dentistry-without-anaesthetics effect.)
- raverbashing 14y ago
  Yes If I'm not mistaken, when sampling @ 44.1k your analog filter has to go from 0db @ 20kHz to "nothing" (-20dB or even less) @ 22.05k. Of course it doesn't (or at least, not nicely) Now, if you record at 96k your analog filter has to do that from 20kHz to 48kHz (and that's not really needed most of the time as there's almost nothing there to begin with) Downsampling digitally from 96k to 44.1k is easier and with much more control over the process.
- michaelgrafl 14y ago
  Yes. That's the reason why I put converters first, engineers second. I shouldn't have said engineers though. What I really meant was the peripheral equipment they didn't have at hand to provide a proper transfer to the digital domain. Steve Albini explains it succinctly here: http://www.electricalaudio.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=61231&start=0#p1594266 http://www.electricalaudio.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&...
zmonkeyz 14y ago
This. I still have an old Sade CD from the early 80's and the sound on that CD is very flat.
- twerquie 14y ago
  I suppose that's why all those "Remasters" came out in the late 90s. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Best-Sade/dp/B00005AWMF http://www.amazon.com/The-Best-Sade/dp/B00005AWMF)

stan_rogers 14y ago

It wasn't so much that engineers didn't know how to master, but that the analog-to-digital sampling was done at the CD bit rate (44.1Khz). That meant that the analogue signal needed to be brick-wall filtered to remove any information above 20KHz, and analogue brick-wall (hi-Q) filtering does really, really bad things to time and phase. Since the late '80s, the sampling rate on conversion has been much higher and the removal of high-frequency information (possible aliasing) is done in the digital domain. (And it really didn't help that early players did no dithering on playback either. Early CDs still sound horrible, but you really need to play them on early players to get the full dentistry-without-anaesthetics effect.)

raverbashing 14y ago
Yes If I'm not mistaken, when sampling @ 44.1k your analog filter has to go from 0db @ 20kHz to "nothing" (-20dB or even less) @ 22.05k. Of course it doesn't (or at least, not nicely) Now, if you record at 96k your analog filter has to do that from 20kHz to 48kHz (and that's not really needed most of the time as there's almost nothing there to begin with) Downsampling digitally from 96k to 44.1k is easier and with much more control over the process.
michaelgrafl 14y ago
Yes. That's the reason why I put converters first, engineers second. I shouldn't have said engineers though. What I really meant was the peripheral equipment they didn't have at hand to provide a proper transfer to the digital domain. Steve Albini explains it succinctly here: http://www.electricalaudio.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=61231&start=0#p1594266 http://www.electricalaudio.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&...

zmonkeyz 14y ago

This. I still have an old Sade CD from the early 80's and the sound on that CD is very flat.

twerquie 14y ago
I suppose that's why all those "Remasters" came out in the late 90s. (http://www.amazon.com/The-Best-Sade/dp/B00005AWMF http://www.amazon.com/The-Best-Sade/dp/B00005AWMF)