Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: I guess there is CD / "DDD" audiophoolia out there after all (Read 2948 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I guess there is CD / "DDD" audiophoolia out there after all

I know, I know. First rule of Youtube comments is, you do not read Youtube comments. But I found this guy's comments amusing cause it's like the opposite of the usual audiophool screed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqpIdnL_dz4&lc=z134cd0iwyzjwxt1422gyduzrvytt54fi

Quote
Because "DDD" was a CD thing, so if you can't find this track on CD in DDD form, then you're gonna be missing something in comparison to what it potentially could be if recorded that way... DDD means (when referring to a CD, not a pair of breasts or a bra, LOL!), that a track was originally recorded in, mixed in, and mastered in full frequency response, (I mean from 1 or 2 Hz to 20Khz without distortion, especially in the bass), and totally UNcompressed, digital form, (instead of analog), therefore capturing the utmost clarity and impact, especially in the bass!... That's why most of the really good, true BASS CD's of the 90's were in DDD form... Look for and listen to and/or get some of the artists and albums available from either Neurodisc Records or DM Records, especially!... Just remember, in order to experience the FULL clarity, dynamic range, frequency response, and raw IMPACT of any of those bass albums, you absolutely MUST get them on a CD, AND play them through a really good set of speakers and subs, powered by some very powerful and clean amplifiers, rather than just listening to them online or from any "downloadable file", because those two last formats are almost ALWAYS compressed to some degree or another, and some are much worse than others, which usually ends up completely obliterating the (truly LOW) bass below 20Hz, and/or adding a shit-ton of distortion to it, making the sound "rough" and "farty", which is the last thing that you want your bass to be! LOL!
[Bolding mine]

Re: I guess there is CD / "DDD" audiophoolia out there after all

Reply #1 –
I am not sure what do you want to comment abou that comment.

DDD Means "Recorded digitally, masterized digitally and delivered digitally". It says nothing about the frequency response.

That could help on bass (compared to a Vinyl or a tape) in that it should have less background noise.
The point about having better frequency response might or might not be the case, in that the CD has what the digital master had, while on an analog medium, it would have the deficiencies of the DA converter of the time that such copy was made + those of the medium itself + those of the playback device, whereas in digital form you might be able to have only one DA, just on the Amp.

Other than that, the post is just trying to make a black/white distinction, where it isn't the case, more so when he specifically talks about downloads (so, not compared to analog copies), and not mentioning remasters or simply different masters that could made the difference be true, while his premise would not be true.

Re: I guess there is CD / "DDD" audiophoolia out there after all

Reply #2 –
Quote from: andy o on
I know, I know. First rule of Youtube comments is, you do not read Youtube comments. But I found this guy's comments amusing cause it's like the opposite of the usual audiophool screed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqpIdnL_dz4&lc=z134cd0iwyzjwxt1422gyduzrvytt54fi

Quote
Because "DDD" was a CD thing, so if you can't find this track on CD in DDD form, then you're gonna be missing something in comparison to what it potentially could be if recorded that way... DDD means (when referring to a CD, not a pair of breasts or a bra, LOL!), that a track was originally recorded in, mixed in, and mastered in full frequency response, (I mean from 1 or 2 Hz to 20Khz without distortion, especially in the bass), and totally UNcompressed, digital form, (instead of analog), therefore capturing the utmost clarity and impact, especially in the bass!... That's why most of the really good, true BASS CD's of the 90's were in DDD form... Look for and listen to and/or get some of the artists and albums available from either Neurodisc Records or DM Records, especially!... Just remember, in order to experience the FULL clarity, dynamic range, frequency response, and raw IMPACT of any of those bass albums, you absolutely MUST get them on a CD, AND play them through a really good set of speakers and subs, powered by some very powerful and clean amplifiers, rather than just listening to them online or from any "downloadable file", because those two last formats are almost ALWAYS compressed to some degree or another, and some are much worse than others, which usually ends up completely obliterating the (truly LOW) bass below 20Hz, and/or adding a shit-ton of distortion to it, making the sound "rough" and "farty", which is the last thing that you want your bass to be! LOL!
[Bolding mine]

As usual, it all depends.  It is true that no effective technology is truly fool proof. If it can do good, that generally grants it the power to do bad. 

In a purely digital system there is by default no distortion, no variations in frequency response, no phase shift, and no added noise. All of that gets added outside of  the digital domain, or if it is added in the digital domain, it is 100% intentional.

Given that one of the comparable analog systems is the vinyl LP, avoiding that "A" is generally a good idea because it inherently  has  audible amounts of everything bad - noise, nonlinear distortion, frequency response variations, phase shift, jitter, timing problems,  IM, channel leakage, you name it, it has it and in audible amounts.

Analog tape is somewhat better, but just one generation of analog tape record playback using the best media and machines is still detectible in an ABX test. Try making a typical commercial recording using just one generation of analog tape! There will be several, and all that badness adds up.

People talk about digital converters, but in many cases, that is rumor and ignorance speaking. In 1973 Ampex developed a digital delay line for use in disc cutting, and the cleanest, most demanding audio we could loop through it (including the infamous analog-killing keys jangling test) was sonically transparent. In. Out. No audible change. I'm not saying that everybody did as well or better, but I am saying that 10 years before the CD, commercial quantities of sonically perfect digital converters were on the market as regular professional audio products.  Not small, not light, not cool, not cheap, but they were there for you if you could write the check, and many did.

So while eliminating A's was not an absolute guarantee of sonic perfection, it did eliminate a lot of sources of sonic badness.

One other source of sonic badness that digital eliminated in the early days  was the then usual messing around with spectral balance and dynamics that were already in common use for analog processing. (they were needed to fit music into the limitations of vinyl and FM) 

The common analog processing steps for music mangling either had not been recreated in the digital domain, or the digital versions  were rare and expensive. For example the fact that the early Telarc recordings used minimal micing and were free of processing was that such things in digital were either unobtainable, rare like hen's teeth, or cost a ton of money.

There are always artistic means for producing great recordings with very simple technology. They just cost time, talent and therefore money.

Re: I guess there is CD / "DDD" audiophoolia out there after all

Reply #3 –
Hmm maybe it's not clear what it was about if you don't read the other posts from the guy at the link. He's not just saying digital is better. He's adamant that CD and DDD is the only way to truly enjoy the bass. He even makes a distinction between "uncompressed flac form" and "supposedly "lossless", but still compressed" flac.

I just thought it was amusing how he seems to be so fanatical about CDs (not just digital) as other audiophiles are about analog.

Re: I guess there is CD / "DDD" audiophoolia out there after all

Reply #4 –
He may came to the conclusion to prefer the 90s CDs because todays lossless downloads offer a recent 'remaster' that is more compressed.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: I guess there is CD / "DDD" audiophoolia out there after all

Reply #6 –
Maybe he thinks it is the analogue mixing console's "fault" that the LPs have the deepest bass in mono, or the preamp employs a subsonic filter?