Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

The usual problems, here, I suspect, regarding the wording employed

"Electromagnetic interference (EMI), which would normallymask fine
details

This may be meant to be "EMI of a type that would 'normally' mask..." So is
selecting some types of EMI on the basis of defining the effect which would
be a symptom of the class of EMI mentioned.

in similar players, is dramatically reduced using Arcam's
proprietary "Mask of Silence" strategy. The use of "Stealth Mat" (unique
metal fibre matting) further diffuses EMI to ensure the every nuance of
each recording is heard in its full glory."

Not at all clear what "diffuses EMI" means here. May simply be a misuse of
English. My understanding is that the idea would be to absorb or reject EMI
depending on source location, but dunno if that is what they mean.


Whatever it is or means, the 'ensure every nuance is heard', as opposed
to not heard if 'it' is not in place, is pretty unambiguous to me.


FWIW The only thing I've noticed about the Arcam DVD player I'm using us
that the levels of *mechanical* noise it emits is very low. So you don't
hear any hums, buzzes, whooses, etc, from it. Given that other players or
recorders I've tried made quite a din, this is a plus point for the Arcam
in my view.


An old Marantz CDP I had made a bit of a noise, audible from a few
yards. The Denon (quite expensive) and Akai (£30 cheap) DVDs are more or
less silent, as is a newish 180UKP HK CDP. Mechanical noise gets on my
nerves, and strikes me as sloppy engineering. The noise floor of my (how
to put this) downstairs hifi is set by a REL subwoofer, a sort of hum
that doesn't change with volume - vibrating transformer I suspect.

Rob