On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:27:59 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:45:29 +0100, Eiron wrote:

Nope, the last *significant* improvement in CD quality happened around
1990, when 'bitstream' converters came in. A cheap modern Technics CD
player is very close to sounding as good as anything you can buy at
any price.

I have a cheap modern Technics CD player (2002) which is
vastly improved by the addition of a Meridian 203 DAC.

********. Don't forget I used to *own* a 203 DAC, and it didn't make a
whit of difference to the sound of either my Marantz CD-94 or my Sony
CDP 715E. It's all in your imagination - which is fine, but don't
confuse that with anything in the physical soundfield.

In
fact I have two such setups which I consider superior to my
Marantz 6000 CD player. An additional bonus is that the
Technics will play any CD-R's without quibble whereas the
Marantz is very picky.

That's certainly a solid practical difference.


No wonder you can't hear the difference between cables, Stew :-)

As with so many, you have a vivid imagination. As you surely already
know, I'll gladly give you £1,000 if *you* can hear any difference
between cables.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:27:59 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:45:29 +0100, Eiron wrote:

Nope, the last *significant* improvement in CD quality happened around
1990, when 'bitstream' converters came in. A cheap modern Technics CD
player is very close to sounding as good as anything you can buy at
any price.

I have a cheap modern Technics CD player (2002) which is
vastly improved by the addition of a Meridian 203 DAC.

********. Don't forget I used to *own* a 203 DAC, and it didn't make a
whit of difference to the sound of either my Marantz CD-94 or my Sony
CDP 715E. It's all in your imagination - which is fine, but don't
confuse that with anything in the physical soundfield.

In
fact I have two such setups which I consider superior to my
Marantz 6000 CD player. An additional bonus is that the
Technics will play any CD-R's without quibble whereas the
Marantz is very picky.

That's certainly a solid practical difference.


No wonder you can't hear the difference between cables, Stew :-)

As with so many, you have a vivid imagination. As you surely already
know, I'll gladly give you £1,000 if *you* can hear any difference
between cables.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Forget the cables. You'll no doubt be farting around balancing
the output level to +/- 0.1 decibel to make the test impractical.

I'll bet you an even £1000 that on my system, playing my
music, I can tell the difference between a Technics CD player
SL-PG490 alone, and the same player with a Meridian DAC
203 optically connected, in more than 67% instances.

Alan.

Alan Murphy wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...


As with so many, you have a vivid imagination. As you surely already
know, I'll gladly give you £1,000 if *you* can hear any difference
between cables.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


Forget the cables. You'll no doubt be farting around balancing
the output level to +/- 0.1 decibel to make the test impractical.


Alan, matching the output levels is essential to making any valid
comparison between components.

After all, hi-fi tends to sound better at louder levels than lower ones
(up to a certain limit, of course)

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:37:29 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:27:59 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:45:29 +0100, Eiron wrote:

Nope, the last *significant* improvement in CD quality happened around
1990, when 'bitstream' converters came in. A cheap modern Technics CD
player is very close to sounding as good as anything you can buy at
any price.

I have a cheap modern Technics CD player (2002) which is
vastly improved by the addition of a Meridian 203 DAC.

********. Don't forget I used to *own* a 203 DAC, and it didn't make a
whit of difference to the sound of either my Marantz CD-94 or my Sony
CDP 715E. It's all in your imagination - which is fine, but don't
confuse that with anything in the physical soundfield.

In
fact I have two such setups which I consider superior to my
Marantz 6000 CD player. An additional bonus is that the
Technics will play any CD-R's without quibble whereas the
Marantz is very picky.

That's certainly a solid practical difference.

No wonder you can't hear the difference between cables, Stew :-)

As with so many, you have a vivid imagination. As you surely already
know, I'll gladly give you £1,000 if *you* can hear any difference
between cables.

Forget the cables. You'll no doubt be farting around balancing
the output level to +/- 0.1 decibel to make the test impractical.

Almost all cables don't need any 'farting about' to achieve that
requirement, and level difference has *nothing* to do with the claims
made for 'high end' cables. Noted that you back off rapidly when
challenged on your snide comments.

I'll bet you an even £1000 that on my system, playing my
music, I can tell the difference between a Technics CD player
SL-PG490 alone, and the same player with a Meridian DAC
203 optically connected, in more than 67% instances.

Done, given that the levels are equalised, but you'll need to achieve
that in thirty trials for statistical significance. Two out of three
won't do!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Done, given that the levels are equalised, but you'll need to achieve
that in thirty trials for statistical significance. Two out of three
won't do!
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Hiding behind equalisation again, Stew.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:01:07 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

Done, given that the levels are equalised, but you'll need to achieve
that in thirty trials for statistical significance. Two out of three
won't do!

Hiding behind equalisation again, Stew.

It is and always has been an essential pre-requisite of any comparison
- all good salesman know that..................

Alternatively, you are saying that you can achieve the sound of a
$16,000 Mark Levinson 'Reference' DAC just by advancing your volume
control a tad. You can't have it both ways. Naturally, I knew you'd
chicken out when actually called on your bull****.

I can of course tell 20 out of 20 with the *same* DAC in circuit, but
the volume boosted by 0.5dB in one case. It doesn't sound *louder*, it
just sounds 'better', more dynamic, more detailed etc etc. This ain't
rocket science, and it ain't new. The whole point of the notorious MF
X-10D 'buffer' was that it boosted the signal by 10%, just enough to
make sure that it sounded 'better', but not enough to make the
trickery obvious.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:01:07 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

Done, given that the levels are equalised, but you'll need to achieve
that in thirty trials for statistical significance. Two out of three
won't do!

Hiding behind equalisation again, Stew.

It is and always has been an essential pre-requisite of any comparison
- all good salesman know that..................

Alternatively, you are saying that you can achieve the sound of a
$16,000 Mark Levinson 'Reference' DAC just by advancing your volume
control a tad. You can't have it both ways. Naturally, I knew you'd
chicken out when actually called on your bull****.

I can of course tell 20 out of 20 with the *same* DAC in circuit, but
the volume boosted by 0.5dB in one case. It doesn't sound *louder*, it
just sounds 'better', more dynamic, more detailed etc etc. This ain't
rocket science, and it ain't new. The whole point of the notorious MF
X-10D 'buffer' was that it boosted the signal by 10%, just enough to
make sure that it sounded 'better', but not enough to make the
trickery obvious.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Were you born boring, or did you have to work really hard at it?
I told you that the bet was a plain comparison without equalisation.
You are the welsher. Do you want to take that bet or not?

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:22:24 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:01:07 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Murphy"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

Done, given that the levels are equalised, but you'll need to achieve
that in thirty trials for statistical significance. Two out of three
won't do!

Hiding behind equalisation again, Stew.

It is and always has been an essential pre-requisite of any comparison
- all good salesman know that..................

Alternatively, you are saying that you can achieve the sound of a
$16,000 Mark Levinson 'Reference' DAC just by advancing your volume
control a tad. You can't have it both ways. Naturally, I knew you'd
chicken out when actually called on your bull****.

I can of course tell 20 out of 20 with the *same* DAC in circuit, but
the volume boosted by 0.5dB in one case. It doesn't sound *louder*, it
just sounds 'better', more dynamic, more detailed etc etc. This ain't
rocket science, and it ain't new. The whole point of the notorious MF
X-10D 'buffer' was that it boosted the signal by 10%, just enough to
make sure that it sounded 'better', but not enough to make the
trickery obvious.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Were you born boring, or did you have to work really hard at it?
I told you that the bet was a plain comparison without equalisation.
You are the welsher. Do you want to take that bet or not?

Stop lying, you simply said that you could tell the difference between
the player and the DAC. I'm not talking about equalisation, I'm
talking about the *volume* levels being the same. Any idiot (that
would be you in this case) can tell the difference between two items
which have different output levels.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering