|
Anonymous | All things being equal, it seems that most Sony CD players/changers sound better than a comparable priced player from another manufacturer. I'm talking mainly low to mid priced units. Anyone else pick up on this? |
|
Anonymous | Probably because Sony has co-invented the CD 20 years ago with Philips. So, what the other manufacturers know about the format, they have learned from Sony and Philips. Although it's a pity that most Philips optical products as cd players and audio cd recorders has some factory faults and they costumer service is very poor as it seems that I know more about their products that their costumer service employers (I own a Philips audio cd recorder and altough now it worked better than when I purchased it, it still refuses TDK discs. However it works quite well with Philips, Sony, Fuji and Emtec (Ex- BASF)discs). Sony CD players are generally better than the competitors at the same price range, and are generally factory faults free. Anyhow some Sony CD players (mine a mid priced Sony CD player, included) are not well built and after one year or two they don't play properly most cd's anymore. And their costumer service usually says that «Well, the product has not warranty anymore so or you pay the fix or you buy another cd player!». This has happened to me not only with a Sony CD player, but also with a Pioneer (also a mid priced CD player) only five months after the warranty has expired. The Pioneer costumer service has said the same that Sony did. Referring to the sound quality I think that my Philips audio cd recorder (one of their best models, the CDR-820), the Sony cd player and the Pioneer one sound the three equal. My amplifier is Sony ES range with seven years old and my speakers are B & W (five years old) About the other manufacturers I have listenned a mid-priced Kenwood CD player owned by a cousin with a Pioneer high-priced amplifier and also B &W speakers. It seems to sound a bit worse that any of my cd players or recorder. I also have listenned a Technics in the same range price with Technics amplifier and speakers, and it seems to me to also sound worse that mine models. However, I think that also it depends upon who is listenning and the matching amplifier and speakers. Maybe that what sounds good to mine ears doesn't sound to yours. |
|
Anonymous | To complement my other post (the second of this thread) I must add that all the cd players manufacturers have their strong and weak points. And as now my cash is limited to mid class products I have to say that anyhow if I have to buy another optical device like another CD player or recorder it will be PHILIPS, SONY or PIONEER. Yes, they have some faults but the sound quality of their products seems to me to be better than the competition. And as you know, nobody (God exception) is perfect. |
|
mr. mephistophelies6 Unregistered guest | I don't play any favorites to any manufacturer, but I have to say that the company with the overall worst track record for producing sub standard products is Sony. I hate Sony with a passion. From CD players, Speakers (of any kind), Amplifiers, DVD players, Receivers (home and car audio), Laptop Computers, VCR's, Monitors, Virtually every type of product that I have encountered that was a Sony has been just low quality and doesn't work for more than a year. I have come to find out that they use generic parts in most of their electronics. They focus on making an impact superficially and then let you down with the actual guts of any of their products. Furthermore, Sony's customer service department has the most underskilled, penny-pinching staff ever! Good luck trying to get anything accomplished working with Sony. I have sent them numerous emails about their terrible products and that I was going to boycott them. If there is anyone else out there who feels the same that I do, and I know there is, I urge you to join the boycott wagon and maybe just maybe Sony will put out some quality products. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1585 Registered: Dec-03 | Mr M. My experience of Sony in recent years is much the same. Anonymous, I disagree about Sony sounding better; especially at the low-to-mid price range. The other think to consider is that sony and philips have an investment in SACD, primarily for reasons of copy protection, and are using all their market control to try to blow DVD-Audio (the real "pioneer" format) off the face of the Earth. Remember those guys are record companies and sell discs, too, and own the license for SACD. Of the three makes you mention, Pioneer is big enough and independent enough to make its own decisions, without bowing Sony, and has no vested interest in which discs it wants you to buy. Pioneer also sounds good, from what I read here. |
|
Bronze Member Username: SamijubalPost Number: 32 Registered: Jul-04 | Sony products are highly overrated for sure but I have a 5 disc made in 92 or 93 which still works today, I did have to replace the spindle motor a few years back but that was after many many hours of use. If you look at the breakdowns on their products in Consumer Reports they are pretty high, especially when you take into account the price of their products. Philips actually invented CD technology almost a decade before they got together with Sony to set a standard. I have a Magnovox, which is made by Philips, and a Sony, they both sound about the same to me. Way back when I bought the Sony I took a badly scratched disc in to an electronics store and tried playing it in a Pioneer and a Sony, it played better in the Sony. |
|
Unregistered guest | I have a Sony CD WALKMAN D-EJ360 CD player, this is my second one, i really like this CD player but mine broke, and i really don't want to spend $50 on a new one, is there a way i can send it back to sony to either have them fix it or replace it? |
|
Silver Member Username: EdisonGlendale, CA US Post Number: 504 Registered: Dec-03 | Chatterbox - if you end up getting another one, try sony upper end models - they cost more, but sound even better. Or you might get a huge mp3 player like samsung 20 gb one - small and convenient since you don't have to carry cd's around. |
|
Unregistered guest | I bought a Sony mini music centre CMT-EP40 2 years ago and have hardly used it, Now when I try a message comes up "No Disc" I have contacted Sony twice asking what could be wrong but they reply that I must take it to a dealer. It hardly seems worth it and I would probably be charged as much as I paid for it. I was hoping there would be a simple answer to save me disconnecting etc. Any suggestions out there? |
|
Unregistered guest | I have a Sony Walkman D-EJ360 cd player. When I put a cd in it the word 'DISC' flashes for about 2 seconds, in the display window, and then stops. I changed the batteries and still get the same thing. Can someone please ne ? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 2739 Registered: Dec-03 | My Sony CD Walkman did the same, then stopped even flashing "DISC". it is a waste of time going to a Sony dealer, he will tell you to buy a new one. I recommend an iPod. The original. |
|
mauimusicman Unregistered guest | Sony sucks. I wouldn't buy Sony if they were the only brand available. Nothing but invisable customer service from Sony. Ordered a digital mixing console for my studio from them a few years back. Big bucks. They dicked me around for months. Said it was shipped. It wasn't. Over and over again. Also, a musician friend, long since passed, Jimmie Spheeris' music is all under Sony's pitifull watch. They steadfastly refuse to release any of it, preferring rather to let the master tapes further degrade day by day. Screw Sony. Sony is a disgrace to the art of Music. |
|
Bobby v. Unregistered guest | Sony rules..................!!!! No one else had the balls to start up cd sales. Now we all have neat little disks of our favorite artists. Not to mention some very good and highly regarded players. Sure they make some cheap inexpensive players also. But so do many other companies. And now the introduction of high rez sacd. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Ca_convertCardiffUK Post Number: 74 Registered: Jan-05 | Unless I've been living on a different planet it was in fact Phillips that "invented" CD as we know it: 16 bit PCM 44.1Khz, and not Sony, though they have had a significant influence in the succesful marketing of this technology. Sony do make a large number of CD transport mechanisms, used on a number of hi end systems. |
|
Bobby v. Unregistered guest | No one else had the balls to start up cd "sales". The selling of the disks themselves with music on them! |
|
Anonymous | u guys are crazy. I own a ps2 for 4yrs. its just now giving me problems. i also own a cd changer for 7yrs still going.(CDP525). i own a 27 inch flat screen with no problems. i owned 4 cd changers for cars and they all work. vaios are horror stories. stay away from them. |
|
Anonymous | Need info on my SONY CD walkman D-EJ620, but it's so old the web has nothing. Any1 Who can help? I'm after pretty much any info- I have 2 do a 'product analysis'. |
|
New member Username: LosercoolRichmond , Texas North America Post Number: 1 Registered: Mar-05 | I think has the best qualitiy then the other companies. |
|
Unregistered guest | Yes Philips and Sony both collaborated with CD but none of it would have been possible had it not been for 1932 patents on PCM courtesy of Alec Reeves and Samuel Nyquists sampling theory about the same time ( approx 1936). Similar story with FM radio and Major Edwin Howard Armstrong who perfected FM between 1923 and 1932 try and read: Man of High Fidelity written by Lawrence Lessing and another book: Armstrongs fight for FM broadcasting by Don Erikson for a fascinating read. Corporate giants appear good at not recognising inventors. Hope this helps Cheers / Chris |
|
Bronze Member Username: NatishIndia Post Number: 18 Registered: Feb-05 | Thnx Chris for your valuable information.I knew Sampling Rate theorem by Nyquist.but i never came across Alec Reeves name. |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 334 Registered: Nov-04 | mike, what are you comparing sony to? radioshack brand? samsung makes better tvs than sony, there are tons of speaker and home audio electronics companies that easily are better than sony at the same price point. the only thing they have made well is playstation and the walkman, and thats it. |
|
New member Username: OrganmanFreehold, NJ USA Post Number: 3 Registered: May-05 | I consider Sony basic consumer stuff. I just ordered a Marantz receiver, wouldn't have considered Sony for a receiver. I do have a Sony CD player. I got it at a yard sale for $5.00. Ha! It's not that old and it works and sounds pretty good. However, if I were to upgrade, what would you recommend I but in the 200 - $350 range that would have a noticeable difference in sound? I'm primarily interested in playing conventional CD's. Not the other formats. |
|
Silver Member Username: Black_mathPost Number: 236 Registered: Dec-03 | The Sony ES line has been, for the most part, terribly underrated. Unfortunately they don't make too mant ES products anymore. Pro Walkmans used to be excellent, as well. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3108 Registered: Dec-03 | I agree with that, Ben. I have an 55ES power amp and also a Walkman Pro. The amp is really solid and well made, sounds good to me, and has given years of faultless service. |
|
New member Username: OrganmanFreehold, NJ USA Post Number: 4 Registered: May-05 | Posted by Christopher Lee on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 12:02 am: >>thanks alan. i think i may get that. how is it compared to other design software like bassbox? anyone think getting that software from dayton for testing speaker specs is unnecessary?<< First question: I'm not really sure. The only other speaker design software I have used is Softhorn, a horn program that is Dos based and basically all it does is print out the throat diameter for every centimeter down the path. And a shareware program I can't remember the name of that was very similar to Boxplot. For $25 you can't get hurt. Second question: I guess you are referring to Woofertester. If you buy the woofers from parts express then it (or at least that model) has been tested. From what I understand modern manufacturing methods have gotten parameters pretty consistent so variation from one woofer to another of the same model shouldn't be that great. But who can tell? I don't have it and the results I have gotten have been very consistent. You can do it the old fashioned way with a meter, signal generator and microphone too. I talked to one of the engineers at Eminence and they still do it that way. He also expressed doubts about the Woofetester. It's nice to be able to test. I have a lot of the stuff to do it except for a good signal generator and counter. I should invest in it as I have a few woofers laying around that I "stumbled upon" and it would nice to know the numbers for them so I can conceivably do something with them. Alan B |
|
srisha Unregistered guest | even i have the same opinion nataraj |
|
srisha Unregistered guest | even i have the same opinion nataraj |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 356 Registered: Nov-04 | haha alan, wrong thread but appreciate the reply. |
|
New member Username: OrganmanFreehold, NJ USA Post Number: 5 Registered: May-05 | >>haha alan, wrong thread but appreciate the reply.<< Still getting used to navigating this thing.,, Ooops! Stumble, bump! crash, tinkletinkle... |
|
Anonymous | China sucks. Don't buy anything made in China. If you notice, most HIGH END Sony products are MADE IN JAPAN! This is a big difference in component and manufactoring quality! I have a orginal Sony CD player (Single Disc) built like a tank in the 80's and an early 5 disc unit. Both have logged in some serious usage and they don't skip a beat, ever. Both were Made in Japan and both cost $400.00 dollar range. I recently purchased a Sony Network Walkman NW-HD3, again this is an item Made in Japan and cost $350.00. The unit is sealed in a metal box vs the cheap China made iPod in its plastic case and the Sony gives you the top notch sound vs the flat sounding iPod. All in all, from Audio to Video such as the Sony Trinitron line, Sony offers top notch items for top dollar. It's up to you... do you want to buy a cheap DVD or CD player then you should expect to replace it every year (What the Commie Chinaman wants) or you can dish out some real money and buy a product that you will have for life. |
|
Anonymous | I enjoyed reading this entire thread and have learned a little on the origin of CD technology and those responsible. I must admit to agree with the opinion that SONY over all is only making money from a name. In the late 80's and early 90's the best walk man units I have ever used were Sony. In the late 90's the best VHS decks I have used were Sony's. What I have searched for that lead me to this was "Car audio NOT made in China". Car audio is something that has deminished quality ten fold in recent years. However, I have yet to own a deck in my car for over 16 month period w/out it being stolen or the product failing. |
|
GNMafia Unregistered guest | total crap stuff ]man sony is just brands name that seems to be pretty famous all over the world being a sony dealer we get products from many companies and put are logo on it only thing is that we have a famous brand name you want to buy stuff then buy it from Japan the best in tech. Later idiots |
|
Anonimo Unregistered guest | GNMafia, What did you just try to say ? Learn some writing skills man ....lol |
|
New member Username: OrganmanFreehold, NJ USA Post Number: 8 Registered: May-05 | The Internet has become a major factor in the evolution of language. Personally I believe it is de-evolution. Anyone who can scrape together the funds for a computer and manage to figure out how how to use it can get on line. Thus ignorant cretins like the aforementioned are common. Manners, intelligence and morals are not at all necessary to enter into Internet discussions. It is no surprise that flame wars and disinformation abound. Cheers: OM |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3466 Registered: Dec-03 | You make a good point, Alan. However, one can decide on an opinion partly on the basis of the way in which it is expressed. We can draw our own conclusions from that previous post. Personally, I am more optimistic. Language evolves, certainly, but the selection is based on whether the user is understood. Cheers. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 1273 Registered: Feb-05 | Sony Hmmm....My personal experience has been that Sony still produces better than average televisions and are still a leader in the development of new technologies. However their audio components are far below average in most price ranges. A notable exception being that their low priced SACD players have until recently sounded better than players at 3-5 their cost. The SACD players still had dismal redbook performance but provided folks an inexpensive peek into the world of hi res audio. |
|
Unregistered guest | First off, the biggest example of corporate giants not recognizing inventors is RCA versus Philo T. Farnsworth concering television. Secondly, Sony made very important contributions to Compact Disc. So much so that without those contributions, the audio CD would not have been practical in 1982-1983. Sony introduced CIRC error correction and they, indeed, were the ones who went for 16 bit quantization while Philips' previous prototypes used 14 bit quantization at 44 KHz sampling (originally, the very first Philips audio CD prototypes were analogue FM, similar to LaserDisc but without the video!) To top it off, there was a little disagreement between Sony and Philips for sampling rate. Sony wanted 50 KHz while Philips wanted 44 KHz. Both would compromise for 44.1 KHz, which yields a 22,050 Hz maximum response according to the Nyquist theorem. And, finally, the minimum max playtime of 74 minutes (which has been eclipsed now) was something that Sony established. Philips had expertise in reflective optical physics having developed LaserDisc alongside MCA while Sony had expertise in digital modulation. Anyways, no manufacturer is ever perfect. For me, I've had the best luck with Sony. Almost every single Sony product I've owned and used has never failed. I will not buy anything but Sony televisions and monitors given my past experience with them both in use (home and professional rigs) and in repair. Some of the best picture quality I've seen in a VHS VCR has been from my Sony SVO-160. For Betamax, you're better off with a Sony. My Hi-8 camcorder is a Sony, and it still works great. There have been just a mere handful of Sony products that I had returned due to disappointing performance. One in particular is the VERY low end STR-DE445 receiver. It sounded okay but whenever any digital processing was used, be it sound field processing or digital surround decoding, you had this high level of hiss. Being annoyed, I returned the receiver and went with a Technics SA-DA10. After about three years, I got rid of the Technics and got myself a Sony STR-DA4ES (which is a GREAT receiver, at least to me, no matter what anyone else says about it). Now, I did have one problem with my STR-DA4ES which caused a total loss of amplification. But, Sony came through with their 5 year ES warranty and fixed the problem in a good amount of time absolutely free of any charges and it has been working perfectly since. Now, the rest of my audio gear, with exception of my loudspeakers and LD AC-3 RF demodulator, are Sony. My CD player is a Sony CDP-X229ES, my tape deck is a Sony TC-K707ES, and my turntable is a Sony PS-X600 Biotracer with an Ortofon WMS 20 EO pickup. All have superb quality and deliver enjoyable sound. Anyways, there were some things that Sony wasn't so great with. They didn't exactly make the best laserdisc player. Also, Sony's DADC USA facility had serious quality control problems with their LaserDiscs (although the DADC Japan and Austria facilities turned out high quality LDs). But, overall, I like Sony as I've had the least trouble with most of their products. However, if you were to ever buy Sony audio, only buy ES. If you must buy a lower end receiver, then consider their DB line and nothing else. Don't bother with their lower end stuff in the audio department. It is very much like night and day between high end Sony and low end Sony. For receivers, if Sony ES weren't an option: Denon and nothing else. I'd seriously consider Outlaw Audio. Yamaha and Onkyo are "maybes." Not very sure about Pioneer ELITE. Do not care too terribly for Harman/Kardon. NAD is totally overrated and not what I'd equate with quality if my experience with some of their stuff in the past has anything to do with it (and the same goes for Sunfire). If I had the money: Lexicon preamp/processor running on Krell or Bryston monoblocks with Martin-Logans. (Of course, these are MY opinions based on MY experiences and preferences. YOUR MILAGE MAY VARY depending on YOUR experiences and preferences so what I've said IS NOT the gospel!) I am entertained by the following: Sony STR-DA4ES receiver Sony TC-K707ES 3-head cassette deck Sony CDP-X229ES single disc CD player Sony PS-X600 Biotracer turntable Sony KV-27S66 27 inch Trinitron television Sony SVO-160 VHS hi-fi VCR Sony SL-HF400 SuperBeta hi-fi VCR Sony DVP-S360 DVD player Sony SCPH-1001 PlayStation Sony SCPH-30001 R PlayStation 2 Sony MDR-V600 stereo headphones Yamaha AFD-1 AC-3 RF demodulator Pioneer DVL-700 DVD/LD/CD player RCA SGT-250 Stereo CED videodisc player Akai VS-525U VHS hi-fi VCR Mitsubishi CS-2021 20 inch television Microsoft Xbox Sega Dreamcast Sega Genesis with Sega CD Sega Saturn Nintendo 64 Nintendo Entertainment System Nintendo Gamecube Super Nintendo Panasonic FZ-1 3DO Magnavox CDI-200 CD-i player Stereo mains: Optimus Mach Three Center: RCA PRO-CSS55 Surrounds: KLH 900B Sub: Velodyne V-1210-B I know that my speakers are on the "low cost" side, but the Mach Threes that I have are pretty darned good and efficient. The same goes for what appears to be a Linaeum OEMed center channel speaker, despite the fact that it is an RCA brand that was sold only in RadioShack. The surrounds, (surround left and right and surround back left and right) are KLH, but the 900B is a very good three-way bookshelf model that works great as surrounds. The sub is a Velodyne, so that needs no introduction. And those speakers, along with the other equipment listed, are what make up my 7.1 setup in my small media room that was previously my bedroom. Of course, it's nice having a system I built myself that blows out some of my friend's Aiwa shelf systems out of the water! (College kid whose hobby is HT and hi-fi while others are making their cars into riced up boomboxes.) I'd rather swig an AmberBock or Coca-Cola while eating popcorn and watching flicks in SENSURROUND ;-p while my friends waste time going to compromised presentations in what is supposed to be a movie theater. - Reinhart (I turned 24 today!) |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3471 Registered: Dec-03 | Reinhart, Wonderful. Thank you. That is a really useful contribution. I have a question: if we credit Sony with 44.1 kHz/16 bit PCM CD, how do we now respond to their claim that it was flawed, they can do better (DSD/SACD), and they can sell us, again, original ANALOGUE recordings in SACD format? Remember they claimed, in 1982, that analogue was obsolete. They now use SACD to illustrate how obsolete it was...?! Remember, also, that they now own many analogue record catalogues. In 1982 they were just consumer electronics; nothing to do with the recording industry. You really trust these guys...? Ok , I just calculate that you were about three in 1982. Never mind: take it from me ( and others...). And happy birthday! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3472 Registered: Dec-03 | No, about one. That is a stronger excuse for not remembering. Cheers! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3523 Registered: Dec-03 | Alan, if you are reading, I think you might enjoy recent points made on the thread ..Reason's Why Sony Sucks... Note also the apostrophe! |
|
New member Username: OrganmanFreehold, NJ USA Post Number: 9 Registered: May-05 | John: Thanks so much for pointing that out. I think it proves my point nicely. Cheers: Alan |
|
Reinhart Unregistered guest | Reply to John A. "Wonderful. Thank you. That is a really useful contribution." You're welcome. "I have a question: if we credit Sony with 44.1 kHz/16 bit PCM CD, how do we now respond to their claim that it was flawed, they can do better (DSD/SACD), and they can sell us, again, original ANALOGUE recordings in SACD format? Remember they claimed, in 1982, that analogue was obsolete." I would simply reply that the benefits of SACD and DVD-Audio are, technically, overkill. They acheive a dynamic range and frequency response that's well beyond the capability of human reception. As for analogue being obsolete, well that's marketing for you! And, while it's modulation is numerical, in the end it comes out as analogue (and it has to if we are to be able to listen to it). And, IMO, digital audio is just merely another form of modulating information for transmission or storage and then reproduction. "They now use SACD to illustrate how obsolete it was...?!" Of course they would. Would you do any different if you were in their shoes? "Remember, also, that they now own many analogue record catalogues. In 1982 they were just consumer electronics; nothing to do with the recording industry." I wouldn't exactly say that as they did deal with the recording industry under a partnership with CBS. However, their operations some time ago were limited in Asia, particularly Japan. "You really trust these guys...?" For various kinds of electronics, yes. Although, my Sony DVP-S360 DVD player has been replaced by a Pioneer DV-578A. I liked how the new Sony DVD players looked, but didn't like the fact that none of them have seamless layer changes. However, I would have preferred a Denon DVD-2200. For entertainment, I don't know. But, in the entertainment business aspect, it's hard to be positive about any of the companies in the business. "Ok , I just calculate that you were about three in 1982. Never mind: take it from me ( and others...). " I was about 1 year old in 1982, actually. "And happy birthday!" Thanks. - Reinhart |
|
Reinhart Unregistered guest | David Massey had written: "Philips actually invented CD technology almost a decade before they got together with Sony to set a standard." If you mean the concept of the reflective optical disc, then the actual inventor was Gauss Electrophysics. Gauss, and all of their patents, would be purchased by MCA in the late 1960s/early 1970s (owner of Universal City Studios back then) for the goal of developing an optical videodisc player. Before this, Philips was offered the idea by Gauss but was turned down. MCA creates their Disco-Vision division to develop the format. A few years later, a press demonstration took place, which Philips attended and became impressed enough with the demonstration to ask MCA if they could join them in developing the format as Philips was also developing a similar format (taking Gauss' idea afterall) but with MCA being farther ahead. Then, Pioneer would get involved, mostly with MCA, to sell laserdisc in Japan. Long story short, LD comes out in 1978, MCA makes flawed discs while Philips makes flawed players while Pioneer ends up learning things and ultimately making players and discs that work right (better than MCA and Philips). Later on, IBM is brought in to try and fix things, but they don't succeed. In 1981, Pioneer ends up assuming control of LaserDisc. The patents for reflective optical discs are currently held by DiscoVision Associates, which spun completely away from MCA and IBM, becoming an independent company until it was totally acquired by Pioneer. This means that, while Philips and MCA invented LaserDisc, Philips and Sony invented the CD, and Philips/Sony/Toshiba/Time Warner invented DVD, the basic idea that all of these formats rely on to work is wholly owned by Pioneer through its DiscoVision Associates subsidiary. - Reinhart http://www.discovision.com/ |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3570 Registered: Dec-03 | Yes, 1. I recalculated. You are too young to remember their slogan, and its huge impact. "The Compact Disc. Perfect Sound that Lasts Forever". Someone once said that if you tell a lie, make such a big one that no-one will recognise it for what it is. "Would you do any different if you were in their shoes? " Yes. |
|
Reinhart Unregistered guest | "Yes, 1. I recalculated. You are too young to remember their slogan, and its huge impact. 'The Compact Disc. Perfect Sound that Lasts Forever.'" I may be too young, but I can certainly understand how anyone could fall for it. I may be young for you, but I've used vinyl and Compact Disc extensively enough to know the differences. Upon initial demonstration, the Compact Disc would exhibit fidelity with no immediately discernable distortions or noise (assuming that the disc was produced with utmost care) that sometimes do occur with vinyl, such as moderate wow (particularly with an off-center disc), surface noise (especially with less-than-perfect records), rumble, and the occasional snap and pop. This would definitely provide a highly dramatic contrast in a very immediate and obvious way, which is always key to an effective sales demonstration. You want people to rid themselves of any inhibition by dazzling them to buy, buy, BUY! However, there were other things about CD that do make it technically superior to LP, including phase accuracy, frequency ranges, frequency response, dynamic range, noise floor, wow and flutter, pitch, the absence of compression artifacts that are present in LP with the RIAA frequency response curve and high frequency roll-off characteristic (which may actually be part of the pleasant characteristics of vinyl), and etc. There are discussions about the effects of jitter in CD players, but 8-14 demodulation and error correction of the disc read provides a rudimentary form of time-base correction, which helps in its reduction. Plus, modern CD player designs use a unified clock where the 8-14 demodulation, error correction, upsampling, and conversion are all linked to the same oscillator clock, which reduces timing errors (a cause of jitter) between all of these elements considerably enough on competently designed players where jitter isn't really an issue. If anything, it's highly overblown as a problem, IMO. A CD could still be playable without loss of quality even if the disc itself has some moderate scratches on the irridescent side which would normally ruin an LP (and possibly the stylus if the damaged LP were played) if those same scratches where on the grooves. But, of course, there are limits before you reach the threshold of the CIRC or the defect tracking capabilities of the transport. Although, the slogan does still hold some truth. If properly cared for (a.k.a. handled in the same manner as you would an LP), a Compact Disc can theoretically have a shelf-life that is beyond the life of the owner. It's non-contact, so there is no wearout factor. And, obviously, no one can live forever. The only real limiting factor that goes against the slogan, however, is whether or not there would be any functioning playback equipment still available in the far future. Of course, mistreat a CD badly enough, then you make things difficult for the playback equipment. If the mistreatment breaches the lacquer seal (label side), you expose the reflective substrate to the outside air which will eventually ruin the disc as the aluminum will oxidize at that spot and could spread, altering the reflective characteristics of the metal to a point where it can no longer reflect laser light consistently (laser rot). Mind you, this applies to any reflective optical disc product, not just CD. Although, on LaserDisc, deterioration of the aluminum reflective substrate was caused by a manufacturing defect including the use of adhesive with impurities in bonding the two disc halves together, bonding the two halves in a way that allows the formation of air bubbles in between in the adhesive, foreign matter, and imprecise manufacturing and assembly at almost any point in the production run. "'Would you do any different if you were in their shoes?' Yes." Then please do elaborate. - Reinhart |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3603 Registered: Dec-03 | "Although, the slogan does still hold some truth." No, it is false. Sony agrees, since SACD offers superior sound, so it says. And to demonstrate the superiority of SACD compared with CD, it uses analogue master tapes. Many people discarded valuable record and tape collections, believing what they were told; that CD gave perfect sound. So, far from being "perfect", CD always was worse than analogue tape, and is now worse than SACD, too - all by Sony's own argument. A deliberate falsehood is a lie. It is that simple. "Then please do elaborate." I would try to make a better product, to offer a real service that people would be pleased with, and willing to pay for. I would remember how I became successful in the first place. |
|
Silver Member Username: Black_mathPost Number: 275 Registered: Dec-03 | The one thing that you have to consider is that LP's are high maintenance. Without good equipment and care, the LP will sound inferior to a CD. The majority of music listeners played their albums through cheap turntables with worn out needles and cheap receivers (and speakers). They also didn't care for their LP's, it was a disposible medium. The quality of major label pressings was not that great either, flimsy see through vinyl. The majority of hi-fi systems were all-in-one units or rack systems (i am old enough, so I do remember). I also remember the LP changer craze (boy those were good for vinyl). The CD was a monumental improvement to these systems. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3610 Registered: Dec-03 | That is all correct, Ben, and a good point. CD won for its sheer convenience. But it was not "perfect sound". It was not even "better sound". It had some of the advantages that Reinhart listed, and some serious disadvantages, too. |
|
Silver Member Username: Black_mathPost Number: 276 Registered: Dec-03 | Convenience is part of it. The other part was that compact discs sounded better on the majority of the music buying public's lo-fi setups. |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 107 Registered: Apr-05 | Reinhart said "Sony introduced CIRC error correction and they, indeed, were the ones who went for 16 bit quantization while Philips' previous prototypes used 14 bit quantization at 44 KHz sampling" Thats true. Then Sony dropped off the two least significant bits and were left with the same 14 bit product Philips was manufacturing. And those 14 bit Philips/Magnavox units sounded SWEET indeed. Even today unless you purchase a HDCD player, your still only getting 16 bit resolution. Sony makes nice televisions............ |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 108 Registered: Apr-05 | Reinhard makes a statement I have issues with. He says "They acheive a dynamic range and frequency response that's well beyond the capability of human reception" Ummmm....Reinhard, they are not doing it for dogs. The anti-aliasing filters used in the original 44.1k cdp's were amazingly nasty brick wall filters at 22.05khz that added so much phase shift it left the product virtually unlistenable. I used to sell them. Didn't sell many cause they sounded HORRIBLE! To this day, I have yet to hear a cdp.....ANY cdp that comes anywhere close to my turntable in sonic enjoyment. Let me add that I have never once had ONE person chose the digital format as the best sounding one when comparing analog vs. digital. It ain't even close man. And that includes HDCD, SACD, etc. Someday perhaps....but not today. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3676 Registered: Dec-03 | I agree, Paul. "CD: perfect. Digital. Better than analogue". "SACD: better than CD because it is more like analogue". (Having forgotten that CD is perfect). And these are from the same company. If SACD is clearly and demonstrably superior in resolution, and so in sound quality, to CD, then Sony would strive to allow customers make a fair comparison. They don't. They do the opposite. They re-mix the recordings, and forget to tell us. Why is this? Yes, nice televisions. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1264 Registered: Feb-04 | Except that Paul makes a nice argument why digital hi-res formats should sound a lot better than Redbook. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 703 Registered: Dec-03 | Sony, like most large consumer electronics firms, has some excellent products and some "me too" and a lot of mediocre products. Their top of the line 34" CRT HDTV is the best in that category. Some items in the ES line are also quite good. And certainly a number of products in their Qualia line are also top drawer. Like a Lexus comparison to Toyota, Qualia is also quite expensive. You pay more for both in having the latest technology and more cutting edge industrial design. That said, neither is marketted for the majority of people's disposable incomes. As far as Sony's marketting hyperbole, it isn't much different than other companies. As always--buyer beware. Sony has floundered in recent years in both quality and innovation issues. Probably why they are playing hard ball with BLU-RAY, because they are reminded of BetaMax, MiniDisc, MP3, and other dropped balls. Of course, the hard ball strategy on BLU-RAY (while it does appear to have an edge in technology over HD DVD), could well become the next BetaMax if not handled with extreme care--to not alienate consumers, retailers, or movie software providers. So far, they the edge with studio licenses over Toshiba's HD DVD. But it is always possible that it could end up as a business failure or marginalized to a small market, like SACD or minidiscs. |
|
Reinhart Unregistered guest | "'Although, the slogan does still hold some truth.' No, it is false. Sony agrees, since SACD offers superior sound, so it says. And to demonstrate the superiority of SACD compared with CD, it uses analogue master tapes. Many people discarded valuable record and tape collections, believing what they were told; that CD gave perfect sound. So, far from being "perfect", CD always was worse than analogue tape, and is now worse than SACD, too - all by Sony's own argument. A deliberate falsehood is a lie. It is that simple." Even though the fact that "perfect sound forever" is supposed to imply ***DURABILITY*** moreso than fidelity, and that was what I was talking about. I wasn't even thinking about fidelity differences when I said "Although, the slogan sitll holds *****SOME***** truth (SOME as in "some, but not all"). As for using analogue master tapes, cite sources, please. Do you deal with creating SACD software? Do you know someone who does and he has actually given you information? "I would try to make a better product, to offer a real service that people would be pleased with, and willing to pay for. I would remember how I became successful in the first place." But, that doesn't answer how you would market SACD to try and get marketshare from CD. It sounds more like a Sony-hate rant. As for electronics companies like Sony dropping off in quality, we have the average consumer to thank for that. The mass market is more willing to save a few bucks on an Apex at Wal-Mart than to purchase anything of true quality. How are the bigger companies supposed to compete with such undercutting? The only way that any of the big names can TRULY regain the quality they enjoyed before is to abandon a sizeable marketshare that the cheapies are currently dominating, and that's NEVER going to happen. Sony, JVC, Pioneer, Denon, Samsung, Toshiba, Matsushita, LG, Loewe, Philips, even Thomson as well as any other reputable big and small name mass market manufacturer will most likely end up like RCA in the near or far future: a company that ultimately failed due to competitive pressure and internal problems and ends up under the ownership of a company that cares even more about the bottom line (and even less of the customer) than the company they bought out did. Companies like McIntosh, Meridian, Theta, and so on will likely survive since they cater less to the masses and more to those who can afford their products. Although, in the case of Sony, they may abandon electronics and deal purely with media. The electronics market is being dominated by the likes of Apex, Funai, Celera, Norcent, Wal-Mart (through their Durabrand and Ilo brands), and etc. Hi-fi may become either a highly expensive luxury that only the rich can afford or something that is remembered only in history. SACD and DVD-Audio will likely die out since the masses simply do not care about these formats purely due to expense, and most of the blame is not only due to the popularity of CD, but because brands like Apex and so on don't really support the high-res audio formats. And, if they did, their support would be too terrible to justify the expense of obtaining a library of these discs over CDs. How's THAT for bleak, Mr. John? >:-( - Reinhart |
|
Reinhart Unregistered guest | "Reinhart said 'Sony introduced CIRC error correction and they, indeed, were the ones who went for 16 bit quantization while Philips' previous prototypes used 14 bit quantization at 44 KHz sampling' Thats true. Then Sony dropped off the two least significant bits and were left with the same 14 bit product Philips was manufacturing. And those 14 bit Philips/Magnavox units sounded SWEET indeed." If you mean the 14-bit DACs that early Philips CD players used, then I have to say that you need to check up on your facts. YOU ARE CONFUSING MODULATION WITH DEMODULATION. The 14-bit scheme that Philips was using in their prototypes dealt with MODULATION. The 14-bit DAC that Philips made for their production CD players dealt with DEMODULATION. This is no different in practice on using a 1-bit DAC FOR DEMODULATION OF SOMETHING THAT'S 16-BIT. But, of course, YOU CANNOT MODULATE A "LEGAL" CD AS 1-BIT. MODULATION AND DEMODULATION ARE TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES, SO DON'T CONFUSE THE TWO AS THE SAME THING! As for 14-bit on current CDs, I believe that's called EIGHT-FOURTEEN MODULATION for writing on the disc. When you demodulate the read from its 8-14 form, guess what? THE RESULT OF THE 8-14 DEMODULATION AND ERROR CORRECTION IS THE 16 BIT/44.1 kHz SIGNAL BEFORE IT GOES TO THE OVERSAMPLING FILTERS AND THE DACS! - Reinhart |
|
New member Username: N_wilsonAustralia Post Number: 2 Registered: Aug-05 | My dad has a Sony CDP-312 (1993 Model)which he got in 1994. This CD Player has never had any faults and surprisingly can play CDR/CDRWs and MP3 CDs. |