On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 02:24:16 -0400, las <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am a little confused and disappointed by some of the things that I
>have read recently here on the list.
>
>I have always felt that the quality of an MD copied from a CD
>(digitally) is almost indistinguishable on equipment manufactured
>within the last year or 2.
>
>Now I am finding multiple comments from long time list members
>stating that there is on obvious difference in the quality between
>the original CD and the MD copy.
[snip]
>I am interested in all opinions regarding lower end decks and
>portables. Also, the difference that people have noticed between CD
>and it's MD copy.
OK, Larry, I'm game <grin>
It all depends on your equipment. For the majority of people who use
MiniDiscs, there is no audible difference. Most equipment that you buy at
Circuit City or Best Buy just doesn't produce the differences. This is
not intended to be "elitest" nor am I saying that you can't get good,
satisfying sound from Circuit City or Best Buy. Millions of people are
ecstatically happy with their Circuit City stereos, and I have absolutely
no problem with that. I am simply stating an objective fact: you can only
produce a certain level of audio quality within the constraints of
mass-market audio components. And MD is good enough that within that
market, it's difficult to tell the difference. However, on higher-end
systems (or even with very good headphones) the difference in sound
quality between CD and MD is often immediately audible.
Let's put this discussion in perspective. My friends and I often debate
whether or not MP3 is "CD-quality." They'll argue for hours that it is --
then I go to their place and see that they're listening to CDs and MP3s
on their computer with $30 Labtec speakers. Of course they sound the
same! <grin> There exists a level of "system quality" below which they
sound the same, and above which there is an audible difference in
quality. Our discussion here is simply raising everything up to a higher
level: even on a decent system, CD and MD may sound the same. However,
there is still a threshold of system quality above which you will be able
to hear the difference.
Our system at home consists of NAD separates and NHT and PSB speakers.
I'm not even close to being wealthy, but audio quality is very important
to me. I'm willing to spend a lot of time shopping so that I can get the
best possible sound for my money. I'll make due with fewer features if it
means better sound. So I spend quite a bit of time shopping for my system
(and saving for it!), listening in audio shops, reading reviews,
newsgroups, etc. In my opinion, I have the best system I could get for
the money I spent (interestingly enough, my system actually cost less
than some of the "super-systems" I see at Good Guys or Circuit City, but
that's another discussion <g>). On *this* system, there is an audible
difference between MDs and CDs.
>I don't have the time to properly try and conduct A/B tests and since
>they would not be blind, let alone double blind, psychoacoustics
>becomes a problem.
I know you're a stickler for proper test methodology, Larry; as a
researcher, I am, too. But here's an example that's better than most
non-scientific comparisons. My girlfriend and I make MD copies of CDs
that we listen to frequently so that we can take them with us. Our home
system has both CD and MD. If we're at home and she wants to listen to an
album we've recorded to MD, sometimes she uses the CD, sometimes she uses
the MD. If I walk into the room, I can tell which one she is playing
without knowing which one she inserted, without looking at the stereo,
etc. In other words, I can tell by the way it sounds. It doesn't get much
more "blind" than that. The only time I'm not sure is if I have never
heard the original CD (which makes sense -- you need to have heard the
original to tell if the copy is inferior). However, even then there are
times when the music just "doesn't sound right" -- meaning the sound
isn't as good as I would expect. There have been a number of times that
I've pegged an MD even though I'd never heard the original CD. MD has a
certain sound that I can often pick out on our home system.
All that said, I think we're making a big deal out of nothing here. The
fact is that MD is a very good compressed copy of an original. It's good
enough that most people won't be able to hear the difference. But as long
as there *is* a difference, some people, because of better playback
systems, better ears, whatever, will objectively be able to discern that
difference. This phenomenon is not constrained to audio. People who test
drive cars for a living can detect the sublest differences in the way two
cars handle, while I can't feel much difference between a Civic and a
Jeep <g>. I marvel at how much better the picture is when playing a DVD
vs. an older VHS tape, but I have friends who claim they look exactly the
same. In every industry there are products for people who can't tell the
difference, or can't afford to tell the difference, and products for
those who can. Rat was right-on in his earlier message: in the end, who
cares? MD is very high-quality, portable, recordable audio. In my
opinion, it's simply the best solution for those purposes, and if I can
hear the difference on my home system, or with my Grado headphones, so
what. Most of the time when I'm listening to my MD portable, other
factors such as external noise are going to negate any sonic differences,
so I'm completely satisfied.
[As a side note, while external noise often negates the differences in
sound between CD and MD, in my experience it *doesn't* negate the
differences between CD and MP3. Even on the commuter trains here in S.F.
I am bothered by the poor sound quality of MP3s. For a while I tried to
save commuting bulk by listening to MP3s off of my laptop via headphones,
but I gave up and now I bring my MD, too.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
