[FireWire]

As I don't have any line-in, I usually listen to my iPod via a RF modulator when I'm in my car, but recently my 12V socket got fried so I had to go back to CDs. It's not very convenient as I have to go thru many of them to find the one I was looking for, and because they only contain about one hour worth of music, I have to change disk many times during long drives.

I was wondering why manufacturer didn't start to include DVD player instead of CD, as this allows for better music quality (24-bits/96-192 kHz) and more importantly, I could fit half of my collection on one disk. When people started to burn their own CD in the late 90s, they started to support the CD-R and CD-RW so people could listen to their mixes in their car. It was a quick transition without much hassle. It just happened. I don't think it would have been more difficult to quietly upgrade to a DVD player which would have been backward compatible with CD.

Any reason you can think of? And beside, why didn't this format replace CD entirely since the last decade?

[Laminar]

mp3 CDs. Acceptable quality, hours and hours of music.

[SpaceMonkey]

DVD-Audio (and SACD) failed as a commercial standard because most people were satisfied with the listening experience they had with CDs and could not perceive enough of a "jump" in quality to make the switch worthwhile, and, coincidentally, listening habits changed to favor illicit MP3s and purchased downloads as the medium of choice.

[FireWire]

Perhaps they wouldn't switch for quality reason, but having 4.7 GB worth of music on only one disc is a good argument in my point of view, even for MP3. My MP3 collection takes over 8 GB, so I could fit my entire collection on two DVDs, instead of hundreds of CDs. If manufacturers adopted support for CD-RW and MP3 CD, it could have been easy to support DVD at the same time, no? Even if people download their songs, they still need a medium to listen to it.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

Perhaps they wouldn't switch for quality reason, but having 4.7 GB worth of music on only one disc is a good argument in my point of view, even for MP3. My MP3 collection takes over 8 GB, so I could fit my entire collection on two DVDs, instead of hundreds of CDs. If manufacturers adopted support for CD-RW and MP3 CD, it could have been easy to support DVD at the same time, no? Even if people download their songs, they still need a medium to listen to it.

iPods and car adapters. Trying to find one track among 4GB of music on a disc, in a car no less, sounds like a nightmare.

[FireWire]

Yes, but they still include CD players for those who don't use iPods. I think those people would have benefited from larger capacity, for around the same price (and in turn, it would have created a demand for higher quality audio). That's a subject for another thread, but I don't understand why we resist improving that area.. 24 bits and broader frequency technology exists, yet nothing changed for the last 10 years.. It's not like capacity is an issue anymore...

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

Yes, but they still include CD players for those who don't use iPods. I think those people would have benefited from larger capacity, for around the same price (and in turn, it would have created a demand for higher quality audio).

*Shrug* Some people still buy CDs. And besides, a DVD full of MP3s would be an even more pain in the butt to scan through than an MP3 CD. And commercial DVD-Audio discs don't sell because...

That's a subject for another thread, but I don't understand why we resist improving that area.. 24 bits and broader frequency technology exists, yet nothing changed for the last 10 years.. It's not like capacity is an issue anymore...

...the quality is just not dramatically different to most people's ears. It's not at all like the jump from VHS to DVD, or DVD to Blu-ray, for example.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

...the quality is just not dramatically different to most people's ears. It's not at all like the jump from VHS to DVD, or DVD to Blu-ray, for example.

Well because we're used to crap quality. But most people agree that vinyls sounds better (more rich) than CD? If we could bring that quality to everyday music it would be great.

[starman]

Most people today listen to music with earbuds or at 60MPH. The art of listening is long gone.

Personally, I love the DVD-A and SACDs I have, but it's a shame they didn't catch on.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

Well because we're used to crap quality. But most people agree that vinyls sounds better (more rich) than CD? If we could bring that quality to everyday music it would be great.

But DVD audio doesn't "sound more like vinyl".

[-Q-]

And in no way is a car the ideal listening environment, so audio quality is less of a concern to people.

[The Final Dakar]

My car is an ideal music listening environment -- it has 12 Bose® speakers.

[phantomdragonz]

number of speakers does not improve the quality, actually it usually degrades it.

the most important factors in quality audio is having decent speakers ( i firmly believe that all the audiophile stuff is bonkers) and most importantly a quiet and acoustically correct listening space.

cars are FAR from that, road noise and the crowded space seriously hinder any sort of high quality audio.

however headphones are ideal for quality you lose the physical feel of the music that you get with regular speakers.

I am far from a music lover but that makes sense right?

-Zach

[Doofy]

The quality ceiling has pretty much been hit already chaps.

Upgrading a studio from 24/96 to 24/192 is a very expensive proposition, so most aren't geared up for it. We've basically hit a price/performance curve which is way too steep (and is mostly pointless, since you can't hear the difference anyway).

But, 24/96+ is only any real use at the recording/mixing stage. You're almost certainly not going to hear the difference between 24/44 and 24/96 while listening to the end product via a stereo playback. And definitely not in a car.

16/44 to 24/44 - yes, you'll hear it. But not in a car. And not if the mastering engineer has got it in his head to be "loud".

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And not if the mastering engineer has got it in his head to be "loud".

And you call yourself an audio guy. Don't you know ANYTHING? If it's not "Loud" it's crap! "Loud" fixes everything. Duh!

In all seriousness, I'm far from being an audiophile, but even I can tell the difference between something mastered properly and something mastered to be "loud," even when it's been reduced to 128 kbps MP3 and being played on my car speakers while driving at 65 MPH.

[FireWire]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

But DVD audio doesn't "sound more like vinyl".

No? I was under the impression that the higher resolution produced curves that more closely matched the analog sound wave. Still not up to par to real, unlimited resolution found in analog but still.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

No? I was under the impression that the higher resolution produced curves that more closely matched the analog sound wave. Still not up to par to real, unlimited resolution found in analog but still.

I can get super technical, but basically the theory is that analog recordings and playback can occur as high as 50khz (even though we can only hear to 20khz). Since the maximum frequency possible is half the sample rate, a 24/96 recording maxes out at 48khz, very close to the maximum of analog audio. However 24/192 exceeds the limits of analog audio.

How much we can actually benefit from things we cannot hear is another debate, though.

[LegendaryPinkOx]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

My car is an ideal music listening environment -- it has 12 Bose® speakers.

The first thing I did when I brought my car home was rip out every last Bose® speaker. You know each one of those things had a built-on amplifier? requiring me to dismantle my rear hatch just to access the back of that giant hunk of crap dangling from the driver.

Replaced them with Infinity Kappa's all round, and suddenly drum sets have high-hats again!

[The Final Dakar]

I replaced my car horn with a Bose® speaker.

[Spheric Harlot]

If you were to fit half your collection on a single DVD, it would still be 192 Kbps MP3, not 24/96 lossless audio.

A DVD-audio has about the same length as a regular cd.

[imitchellg5]

If you car is a Jaguar XJ, then yes, that's the ideal listening environment. 1,200-watt (15-channel) Bowers & Wilkins sexiness.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I replaced my car horn with a Bose® speaker.

I replaced all of my wheels with Bose® speakers.

And installed a Bose suspension.

YouTube - Bose active suspension

[imitchellg5]

The BOSE suspension is pretty awesome actually, my dad said he saw the Lexus that it's installed on driving around Honolulu once.

[downinflames68]

My stereo has DVD mp3 ability. It's great.

[Dex13]

yeah, but you also enjoyed it when sean yepez was molested

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I can get super technical, but basically the theory is that analog recordings and playback can occur as high as 50khz (even though we can only hear to 20khz). Since the maximum frequency possible is half the sample rate, a 24/96 recording maxes out at 48khz, very close to the maximum of analog audio. However 24/192 exceeds the limits of analog audio.

How much we can actually benefit from things we cannot hear is another debate, though.

There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz

Also note that the maximum frequency that can theoretically be represented is just the ceiling.

At 44 kHz sample rate, you get sampling errors (aliasing) and thus audible waveform distortion down to around 8 kHz, which, for reference, is about the upper limit of what a guitar amp will produce, and is WELL within the audible range.


http://www.cybermike.net/reference/l...l/DIGI_13.html

It should be understood that the Nyquist frequency is an absolute maximum frequency limit for an ADC, and does not represent the highest practical frequency measurable. To be safe, one shouldn't expect an ADC to successfully resolve any frequency greater than one-fifth to one-tenth of its sample frequency.

[P]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I can get super technical, but basically the theory is that analog recordings and playback can occur as high as 50khz (even though we can only hear to 20khz). Since the maximum frequency possible is half the sample rate, a 24/96 recording maxes out at 48khz, very close to the maximum of analog audio. However 24/192 exceeds the limits of analog audio.

How much we can actually benefit from things we cannot hear is another debate, though.

One theory is that the higher frequencies are somehow detected anyway, but more likely is that the current trend in mastering is that everything should be loud. The dynamic range is lost, so newer recordings sound worse than older ones, even though a CD has a maximum dynamic range that far exceeds that of vinyl.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by P 

One theory is that the higher frequencies are somehow detected anyway, but more likely is that the current trend in mastering is that everything should be loud. The dynamic range is lost, so newer recordings sound worse than older ones, even though a CD has a maximum dynamic range that far exceeds that of vinyl.

Couple notes:

1. I'd think that aliasing in the audible range, as described above, is a FAR bigger factor than ultrasonics.

2. Yes, vinyl has always been limited/compressed to some extent during mastering due to the fact that excessive dynamic jumps can make a needle hop out of its groove.

3. Still, the dynamic range of vinyl is *much* greater than commonly claimed, as analog signals can easily still be heard *below* the noise floor of the medium. I have a great Decca LP of Solti conducting Ravel's "Bolero". The snare at the beginning is actually softer than the noise, but it's still clearly in there. With CDs, the noise floor is rock bottom.

4. Most recordings today are digital, so the vinyl master source is digital, too. IOW, the frequency range is the same. However, vinyl *still* often enough sounds VASTLY better. (Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Stadium Arcadium" is absolutely atrocious on CD and quite excellent on vinyl). Yes, that's a result of the loudness wars, and people who haven't the slightest clue about actual signal fidelity considering their automobiles an "ideal listening situation" (that seriously the dumbest claim ever ). Now, I do a lot of listening in the car myself, as it's one of the few times I'm actually on my own. Yes, it's a FUN listening environment, but massive dynamic range compression for boosting lower-level signals is as much the car-people's fault as that of the radios (the two actually worked hand in hand: On the one hand, not letting the audio signal drop below a certain threshold increases radio reception radius, while a moving automobile raises a hell of a noise floor. Loudness Wars spiral out of control).
Vinyl, being a niche product, is often enough mastered for people who actually go through some effort to listen to music.

5. The dynamic RESOLUTION is *far* more important than the absolute dynamic RANGE. Digital audio has the same logarithmic resolution across the entire dynamic range. The problem with this is that we are much more sensitive to dynamic changes on softer signals. So soft signals get pushed into a more "safe" dynamic range, which pushes peaks over the limit, which means the signal dynamics need to be compressed/limited, which is EXACTLY how the Loudness Wars started. Radio and car "hi-fi" did the rest.

This problem goes away with 24-bit recording, but CDs are 16-bit.


:stretches:

Aah. Nothing like a good rant.

[Spheric Harlot]

As to why DVD-Audio didn't become standard:

Optical media are dead.

The high-end music market is all about lossless 24/96 downloads. Take a look through a high-end hi-fi studio's recent catalogues sometime. Nine out of ten sound sources in those catalogues are NAS systems. They'll have an optical slot for ripping. But other than that, no more optical media players.

[Eug]

I bought couple of DVD Audio titles, just because my DVD player had the capability of reading the discs. DVD Audio is really a stupid concept IMO.

As far as I'm concerned, DVD Audio is to CD is like what 32K video is to 8K video for home use on a 40" TV, with the viewers sitting 12 feet back.

To put it another way, CD is ALREADY high-definition audio. DVD Audio is just higher definition audio, but an improvement that the vast majority of people will never be able to appreciate with mainstream equipment and untrained ears.

This is in stark contrast to Blu-ray vs DVD. Even to untrained eyes on a 40" TV, good Blu-ray looks much better. On a bigger screen, it looks immensely better. Blu-ray vs. DVD is like comparing CD to AM radio.

P.S. Also, IMO, vinyl usually sounds worse, esp. with most equipment out there.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I bought couple of DVD Audio titles, just because my DVD player had the capability of reading the discs. DVD Audio is really a stupid concept IMO.

As far as I'm concerned, DVD Audio is to CD is like what 32K video is to 8K video for home use on a 40" TV, with the viewers sitting 12 feet back.

To put it another way, CD is ALREADY high-definition audio. DVD Audio is just higher definition audio, but an improvement that the vast majority of people will never be able to appreciate with mainstream equipment and untrained ears.

Pretty much anybody would be able to tell the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit audio if you tell them what to listen for, and have a system with the appropriate resolution.

I specifically did NOT mention Blu-Ray because that doesn't belong in this thread, but my personal opinion is that in five years, it will be a slightly quaint footnote of media history, like SACD and DVD-Audio are already today.

But you're a video nut as much as I'm an audio nut, so *of course* the difference between the higher-res and lower-res media are blatantly obvious to us - especially since we have systems that make this difference blatantly obvious.

Also, in response to your P.S., it is my understanding that analog video (even the latest iterations of VHS) is capable of considerably better reproduction than DVDs are, but it usually looks worse, esp. with most equipment out there.

You also underestimate how shitty most home CD players actually are.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Pretty much anybody would be able to tell the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit audio if you tell them what to listen for, and have a system with the appropriate resolution.

That's why I said "untrained".

I specifically did NOT mention Blu-Ray because that doesn't belong in this thread, but my personal opinion is that in five years, it will be a slightly quaint footnote of media history, like SACD and DVD-Audio are already today.

My personal opinion is that Blu-ray will remain a niche but reasonably popular optical standard in 5 years.

But you're a video nut as much as I'm an audio nut, so *of course* the difference between the higher-res and lower-res media are blatantly obvious to us.

I guess that's why HD TV is so freakin' popular. You don't have to be a video nut to appreciate HD video and Blu-ray. That's the whole point. And, IMO, CD quality for audio is already better for audio than Blu-ray quality is for video, but both are "good enough" for the mainstream.

I personally think that CD is the last significant optical audio standard.
I personally think that BR is the last significant optical video standard.

DVD Audio and SACD were NEVER significant. Blu-ray has already become mainstream.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Also, in response to your P.S., it is my understanding that analog video (even the latest iterations of VHS) is capable of considerably better reproduction than DVDs are, but it usually looks worse, esp. with most equipment out there.

SVHS never matched DVD in the consumer space. I don't think anyone ever had WVHS in North America.

BTW, for parties I used to use a VHS deck (actually SVHS) to record music. The quality was significantly better than cassette.

You also underestimate how shitty most home CD players actually are.

Now compare those home CD players to home turntables. I still remember back in the 80s plugging in my portable CD player into friends' and families' stereo systems, and comparing to their records. I think I must have single-handedly sold a number of CD players in the 80s just in my own circle of acquaintances, and at that time CD players were not cheap.

Yes, I have been buying CDs for 25 years now, and expect to be buying them for a few more years at least. I don't expect Blu-ray to have the same longevity, but it will be around for a while. I expected DVD Audio to be a failure, but wondered if it could be a low penetrance niche. Nope, it was a failure as expected.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Now compare those home CD players to home turntables. I still remember back in the 80s plugging in my portable CD player into friends' and families' stereo systems, and comparing to their records. I think I must have single-handedly sold a number of CD players in the 80s just in my own circle of acquaintances, and at that time CD players were not cheap.

Yes, we did that comparison quite a bit in the 90s.

Unless it was broken, in most cases, the turntable did a lot better on those consumer systems. Or unless you were comparing a $50 turntable to a $250 CD player.

I'll just leave it at that, though.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Yes, we did that comparison quite a bit in the 90s.

Unless it was broken, in most cases, the turntable did a lot better on those consumer systems. Or unless you were comparing a $50 turntable to a $250 CD player.

I'll just leave it at that, though.

$400-$1000 turntables compared to my portable CD player. Portable CD player won every time. Literally within 2 minutes, the decision to go CD was made.

[P]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Couple notes:

1. I'd think that aliasing in the audible range, as described above, is a FAR bigger factor than ultrasonics.

That text is a little inexact. The problem he mentions only occurs because the sampling is discrete. Mathematically, a sampling frequency of more than twice the signal frequency is always absolutely sufficient. I'm no electrical engineer, so I'm not going to judge if he's right or wrong, but to me it seems a bit non-rigorous.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

4. Most recordings today are digital, so the vinyl master source is digital, too. IOW, the frequency range is the same. However, vinyl *still* often enough sounds VASTLY better. (Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Stadium Arcadium" is absolutely atrocious on CD and quite excellent on vinyl).

That is not because of vinyl being inherently better. The two recordings were individually mastered by different people.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Vinyl, being a niche product, is often enough mastered for people who actually go through some effort to listen to music.

QFT. This is reason for vinyl sounding better, not any inherent advantages in vinyl.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

$400-$1000 turntables compared to my portable CD player. Portable CD player won every time. Literally within 2 minutes, the decision to go CD was made.

As someone who was FLOORED by the difference and didn't actually switch to vinyl until 1992, I won't have to go out on a limb to say that either those turntables were broken (most were at that time, through simple neglect), or the SUPER BASS BOOST inflation on that Discman impressed you - and them - as much as it did me when I was a boy.

Do you remember when most CD players (and many CDs) had EMPHASIS built in - an EAR-splitting high shelf boost that was intended to compensate for the overaggressive high-frequency filtering they had to build into D/A circuitry in the 80s/90s to reduce aliasing caused by crappy design (anything else wasn't feasible in consumer electronics at the time)?

Boy did that sound PRESENT, and CLEAR, and AIRY, and WOW. It also caused me splitting headaches within a short time, and it appealed to people who mistake "IMPRESSIVE" for "audio fidelity" or "sound quality".

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that - Bose makes an extremely successful business out of it.

Just keep it the hell away from me, is all.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

As someone who was FLOORED by the difference and didn't actually switch to vinyl until 1992, I won't have to go out on a limb to say that either those turntables were broken (most were at that time, through simple neglect), or the SUPER BASS BOOST inflation on that Discman impressed you - and them - as much as it did me when I was a boy.

Or the actual records were not in good condition.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by P 

That text is a little inexact. The problem he mentions only occurs because the sampling is discrete. Mathematically, a sampling frequency of more than twice the signal frequency is always absolutely sufficient. I'm no electrical engineer, so I'm not going to judge if he's right or wrong, but to me it seems a bit non-rigorous.

No, that is incorrect.

The image I posted above is actually a goof on my part: It shows a frequency ABOVE the Nyquist frequency, which, if improperly filtered - which is hard and expensive to do - will result in artifacting BELOW the Nyquist frequency.

E.g. a frequency of 25 kHz (3 kHz above Nyquist), digitized at a sample rate of 44 kHz, will result in an audio artifact of 19 kHz (3 kHz *below* Nyquist), as shown in the graph.

This can be avoided through expensive analog filtering BEFORE the A/D stage, though.



What I was actually referring to, and why the TEXT I quoted is correct, is the fact that waveforms well below the Nyquist frequency can already get completely messed up due to the sampling rate:


"Fig.7: A family of sinusoids at the critical frequency, all having the same sample sequences of alternating +1 and –1. That is, they all are aliases of each other, even though their frequency is not above half the sample rate."
(courtesy wikipedia)

Nyquist frequency is in red - the absolute maximum that can be represented by that sample rate.

As you can see, a waveform with a frequency of 2/3 of Nyquist - the blue waveform - results in *exactly* the same sample stream.

On CD, that would be a frequency of about 14 kHz - well within the audio range of the young and fit - that is simply GONE.

Simple example, but as I said above, this phenomenon happens all the way down to about 8kHz (ca. 1/5 sample rate) from what I learned in acoustics class, while the quote above goes so far as to suggest 5x or 10x higher sampling rates than the highest frequency you'll want to reliably reproduce.

Originally Posted by P 

That is not because of vinyl being inherently better. The two recordings were individually mastered by different people.

Yes, that's why I didn't write just that, but continued with the section you QFT.

Originally Posted by P 

QFT. This is reason for vinyl sounding better, not any inherent advantages in vinyl.

My points 1, 3, and 5 addressed why vinyl CAN BE inherently "better" than 16-bit CD - greater USEFUL dynamic range, greater dynamic resolution, and no aliasing/sample error.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I replaced my car horn with a Bose® speaker.

So you doubled the value of your SMART. Good move.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Or the actual records were not in good condition.

That too. Goes hand in hand with the broken turntable.

[Eug]

No bass boost. I always hated that. Actually, I don't think that portable even had bass boost.

Anyways, many of the actual records were indeed not in the greatest condition. Which brings me to another point. What used to annoy me to no end were those people who didn't play their records so they could keep them pristine condition. What's the point of an audio format if you don't play it?

It's like buying comic books only to seal them in plastic and never allow anyone to read them.

Anyways, the argument is moot. Vinyl is dead except for a few token collectors and self-proclaimed golden ears, so there's not much point in arguing about it now. So are DVD Audio and SACD. CD and Blu-ray are both alive and kicking, and will be for many years (although the former is declining).

[mduell]

Didn't improve form factor or distribution. Mass market doesn't care about the quality angle. Industry not interested in packing even more content on a single disk.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Anyways, the argument is moot. Vinyl is dead except for a few token collectors and self-proclaimed golden ears, so there's not much point in arguing about it now. So are DVD Audio and SACD. CD and Blu-ray are both alive and kicking, and will be for many years (although the former is declining).

FYI - Vinyl is not dead. In fact, some of the only independent music stores that survived the past decade did so because of their vinyl selection.

[downinflames68]

The AAC vinylester polymers exponentially increase the median resonance inside the cocular bronchial tubes located on the inner ear, as you see here.

A small equation showing the relatively simple distortion present in all forms of PPT files, both physical and digital, represented by E for Ewesome. Quite simple really, the harmonics affect the sample sequences of alternating +1 and –1 bisexual currents.


As you can plainly see, I am clearly right.

[Spheric Harlot]

Oh yeah. You were the guy who argued that the quality of digital cables didn't matter.

[downinflames68]

A one and zero is a one and zero.

[CollinG3G4]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

A one and zero is a one and zero.

Not with the Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable.
Amazon.com: Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable: Electronics

[Spheric Harlot]

We don't really need to go over jitter again.

Rob obviously didn't read or understand it the last time I posted info on that, and he's made it clear that even the relatively simple stuff above is apparently beyond him.

(though I'm pretty sure that cable is still a total rip-off.)

[macaddict0001]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

A one and zero is a one and zero.

True, as long as there is continuity across the cable.

But your first post was rude, this thread was productive and had a lot of intelligent thought put into it.

On another note my thoughts are that, yes vinyl may sound better but that is because either it is mastered at an appropriate level or since, like tube amps it is a less accurate reproduction, which can add to the sound. Not necessarily a bad thing.

I have been frustrated by the poor sound quality on many CD's but that doesn't mean that there aren't good CD's out there. Oh and HMV can order nearly any album on Vinyl, but I think that's a Canadian chain. Other Music stores are probably not that different though.

[Eug]

HMV is not a Canadian chain only. It originally began in England, but it now has a secondary chain in Canada (as well as places like Hong Kong).

HMV stands for His Master's Voice.



P.S. I have a place in my heart for vinyl. I have an antique wind-up gramophone. Totally awesome. And yes it also sounds different from CD.