Eeyore wrote:

Rob wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote

You would understand my curiosity and confusion here, given the claims of
manufacturers and reviewers.
I wouldn't give you the time of day for the claims of manufacturers or
reviewers. I lost faith in the latter (and stopped buying HiFi mags) after
reading a review of the Linn Sondek turntable sometime around 1980, which
was so absurdly and ridiciculoudly OTT in it's praise for it that, had it
been an advert, it would have contravened ASA rules.
And given the objective analysis available, you'd (well, I'd) think this
sort of thing:

http://www.arcam.co.uk/prod_fmj_CD37_intro.cfm

wouldn't be allowed.
What in particular ? Actually, it seems all of their claims have a sound
scientific basis.

Maybe you should buy one ?
Stealth Mat indeed :-)
It's a valid EMC technique, just a silly name for it.
I thought you were joking. So this 'strategy' is valid,

The stategy is certainly valid, no doubt. I've even done similar things myself.


Did it improve the sound?


and will lead to better reproduction of fine detail in your opinion:

That's the subjective bit, but is is *possible*.


Ah, OK. So it's not subjective - it's an objective notion.


"Electromagnetic interference (EMI), which would normally mask fine
details 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."

?

Bear in mind that's the Marketing Dept's presentation of it. I'd have described it
differently but it might have sounded boring.. It would not surprise me if there
were a measurable difference. ARCAM aren't like your average hi-fi liars.


No, not measurable - *audible*; that's their claim. Read the extract
again (not sure what's happened to my newsreader thing!) - "... heard in
its full glory".

Rob