#CBM Announces CDTV!
10 messages in this thread
To all… does anyone have any idea about the audio quality of the
Commodore CDTV system? Will it function as a decent audio CD player? One
hopes so–I can't afford it in addition but might be able to swing it
instead of a CD player…
They say the unit will play audio CDs. This would imply the same quality,
effectively, as any other CD player, provided you plug it into a similar
amp.
-larry
Larry–
the guys at my local audio store swear there is a difference in CD
players. Not just features–the actual sound. They also tell me the ALL
go out of alignment fairly soon, and it costs some to fix 'em. Mind you, my
ears aren't all that great so I am saving my money.
So maybe the CDTV will not please an audiophile with golden ears.
Jim,
There are differences, of course, but they tend to be due to things like
sampling rate, which is pretty good on the CDTV (can't remember the exact
figure). While the real purist might be able to pick out different units
running the same sample rate, I would bet that most who think they could,
are overestimating their abilities.
-larry
Jim,
That's interesting…everything I recall reading on CD players said
that they're self adjusting as far as the laser – disk alignment goes.
Beyond that…I'm not sure what else there'd be to adjust.
It's been a while, but my memory says that there's actually 3
tracks for every data track. The data track itself, and 2 alignment
tracks, one on each side. Or maybe they're not both alignment tracks…one
might be a timing track.
In any event..while you're audio store guys may be right…I've
never heard of it before (which isn't unusual…lots of things I've never
heard of that 'are').
My own experience…I've got a 5 year old portable CD player (that
can be hooked to my stereo) and a less than a year old component CD player.
I can't tell the difference between them (and I've got a good quality
system). The portable stays on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and gets used
a lot. It's down here in my computer room (with it's AC adapter) and I
listen to it quite a bit. Still sounds great.
Oh well.
Don
Thom,
Going from memory (I've got the specs around here somewhere but can't
locate them in this mess I call a desk). CDTV has 8 times oversampling —
pretty much standard in mid-priced CD players. Being lazy, one enhancement
I'd like to see in CDTV is a multiple disk model — I'd prefer carousel
over cartridge, but either would do.
-sja
Thom-
"…decent audio CD player?"….Heck, I've never heard a CD player I
*didn't* like….have you?
Tim
I have. I was listening to a CD in an audio store. The owner, an old time
stereo speaker guy, then switched to an ancient record. I found the record
much "warmer" in sound, even though it was scratched. He was one of those
audiophiles who do not like the sound of ANY CD. They exist. But you can't
find records these days so no matter.
Jim,
Records are "warmer". They have less dynamic range, and less audio
range, and after use, they wear. All that adds up to a "warm" sound where
everything smoothly blends and the sharp sounds (which make for a "crisp",
"bright" sound) are either missing or somewhat muted.
Not only that, but records are pure analog devices, CD obviously
isn't.
There are a lot of folks who like that type of sound, it is very
pleasing and it's what a lot of folks are used to. It's the same type of
sound you get from an FM station. They have the same dynamic range and
audio range limitations…although not the problem of wear of course.
You're probably aware of this, but another interesting point is
that there's still a fair number of folks who prefer vacuum tube amplifiers
over transistorized amplifier. Studies have shown there is a difference in
them when viewed on an oscilloscope…in particular at the crossover from
positive to negative slopes of a sine wave. Those that prefer the tube
type amplifiers claim they sound "richer" and "fuller" when compared to
transistorized equipment.
Several years ago…I was in a store back east that dealt in high
end audio equipment only. I listented to a side by side demonstration and
would tend to agree that the tube amplifiers do sound better.
In the category of 'average home stereo' you probably couldn't tell
the difference…but in the high priced equipement…I could tell the
difference.
Don
Don (this isn't just to you, but it seems the appropriate place to toss in
my two cents…).
One of the big audiophile mags ("Audio", if memory serves 😎 did lab
and jury (listening panel) testing of a whole slew of CD players, from low
priced to high-end. To grossly simplify their findings, there weren't
enough differences to spit at! It was my understanding, at least in the
beginning, that the actual laser-transport mechanisms all came from only a
few sources. At any rate, CD is so high-tech, tight-tolerance that in
order to get ANY sound, your mechanism is virtually guaranteed to produce
GREAT sound! I hope you know what I mean 8-).
As to some people not liking CD sound (too "harsh"), besides the point
you make about less dynamic range, lots of early CDs DID sound terrible!
The audio engineers had to learn how to mix for the new media, and some of
the analog tape masters that were transferred were not in great shape, or
the transfer was rushed, and not re-mixed, etc., properly. I bought a CD
of an early Rolling Stones album that sounded MUCH worse than my old vinyl
copy (hissing and popping…)! The other thing, of course, is one's system
probably needs re-adjusting when you add the CD player (time to fiddle with
the old equalizer!).
My first CD player, a little portable (Sony "DiscMan"!) bought on
sale, literally "blew" my twelve-year-old (not cheap!) speakers! Talk
about dynamic range! (Of course, my roommate, who can't seem to understand
that we don't have to use ALL of that volume dial range, probably helped
push them over the edge… 😎 I don't think he has any eardums left, or
much cilia… pumping those sounds waves straight into the brain.)
BTW, after CDs, the next auditory revelation came with the sub-woofer:
not just window-rattlin' bass, but it cleaned up the mid-range and highs,
too!
….but then you knew all that!
— Bob