In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

With CD under identical circumstances few - very few, if any - will
reliably tell which is which.

In my experience there is so much post production that goes on at the
mastering stage that often the master tape and the production CD are
wildly different. This may or may not be a good thing. But it doesn't
matter really, as the public have never heard the original and so have
no reference.

I think that depends on the circumstances. The listener may have some
'reference' if the recording is of something like a symphony or an opera,
and the listener has some experience of how these sound in concert/opera
halls. Thus they expect the result to be a convincing representation of
familiar acoustic instruments in a convincing, appropriate, and plausible
acoustic. Sometimes one for a hall they have heard before.

In some cases they may also have the 'reference' of having heard the same
performance broadcast on R3. (e.g. This occurs when a broadcast is
subsequently put onto a cover CD for BBC Music Mag.)

Hence I'd say this *does* matter in some cases, but becomes part of the
'recording chain' so far as the end user of the CD is concerned. Thus I'd
agree that it "may or may not be a good thing", but disagree with your view
that it does not matter.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


Yes, but you are conventiently missing out the rest of the
specification. 600 Ohms - balanced line on XLR.

What's convenient about that?

Because Arny, my dear fellow, it doesn't mean a thing if the OP is
single ended. And if it is, the 400 Ohms is pretty high (unless of
course it's a cathode follower:-)))

I'm afraid I've lost/forgotten the context here. However in my view I would
say that in general, for domestic audio equipment, a 400 Ohm source
impedance isn't what I'd call "high". The anticipated loads are only of the
order of 1000pF//10kOhms or higher, and I'd expect a 400 Ohm source not to
have problems delivering across the audio band into such a load. I'd also
expect 400 Ohms to be low enough to avoid noise or distortion problems in
the receiver.

The situation is no doubt different in professional situations where long
balanced lines may be required, and where impedance matching is desirable.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
With CD under identical circumstances few - very few, if any - will
reliably tell which is which.

In my experience there is so much post production that goes on at the
mastering stage that often the master tape and the production CD are
wildly different. This may or may not be a good thing. But it doesn't
matter really, as the public have never heard the original and so have
no reference.

Indeed.

The whole objective of disc mastering, was to produce a lacquer which
sounded as close as possible to the original tape. Any fool could make
it sound different.

Indeed again.

CD mastering is quite a simple process. Cutting a lacquer is incredible
difficult.

Yes. However, my point was that if you had a suitable master that could be
cut direct to disk with no changes, and did the same to CD, the disk would
be immediately recognisable as sounding not the same as the master, while
the CD wouldn't.

--
*Pride is what we have. Vanity is what others have.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
With CD under identical circumstances few - very few, if any - will
reliably tell which is which.

In my experience there is so much post production that goes on at the
mastering stage that often the master tape and the production CD are
wildly different. This may or may not be a good thing. But it doesn't
matter really, as the public have never heard the original and so have
no reference.

Indeed.

The whole objective of disc mastering, was to produce a lacquer which
sounded as close as possible to the original tape. Any fool could make
it sound different.

Indeed again.

CD mastering is quite a simple process. Cutting a lacquer is incredible
difficult.

Yes. However, my point was that if you had a suitable master that could be
cut direct to disk with no changes, and did the same to CD, the disk would
be immediately recognisable as sounding not the same as the master, while
the CD wouldn't.

Your point taken.
But sadly, now that we do have the possibility to clone the original
this is seldom done. That's a pity.

Iain

--
*Pride is what we have. Vanity is what others have.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:55:53 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
.. .

Stewart is a technician (?) in a print room with a big gob.

Draw your own conclusions... ;-)

Bull's-eye!

I don't see Oinkie's posts any more, but I have no doubt that
he is the postal operative to whom you refer:-))

Still keeping up the snide comments and childish name-calling, eh?
Well, at least I haven't slunk off to third-world obscurity.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

With CD under identical circumstances few - very few, if any - will
reliably tell which is which.

In my experience there is so much post production that goes on at the
mastering stage that often the master tape and the production CD are
wildly different. This may or may not be a good thing. But it doesn't
matter really, as the public have never heard the original and so have
no reference.

I think that depends on the circumstances. The listener may have some
'reference' if the recording is of something like a symphony or an opera,
and the listener has some experience of how these sound in concert/opera
halls. Thus they expect the result to be a convincing representation of
familiar acoustic instruments in a convincing, appropriate, and plausible
acoustic. Sometimes one for a hall they have heard before.

In some cases they may also have the 'reference' of having heard the same
performance broadcast on R3. (e.g. This occurs when a broadcast is
subsequently put onto a cover CD for BBC Music Mag.)

Hence I'd say this *does* matter in some cases, but becomes part of the
'recording chain' so far as the end user of the CD is concerned. Thus I'd
agree that it "may or may not be a good thing", but disagree with your
view
that it does not matter.


When I wrote the above, I was thinking more about pop music.
I was "referee" at a CD mastering session just this morning, where the label
owner wanted someone with experience to keep an eye on the final phase
of the project.

As far as classical and jazz recordings are concerned, there is much more of
an effort made to make as few alterations as possible, so the CD bears a
much greater resemblance to the master.

Iain

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Isn't 600 ohms the standard source impedance for audio
production?

Yes, but you are conventiently missing out the rest of the
specification. 600 Ohms - balanced line on XLR.

What's convenient about that?

Because Arny, my dear fellow, it doesn't mean a thing
if the OP is single ended.

Please explain.

And if it is, the 400 Ohms is pretty high (unless of course it's a
cathode follower:-)))

If 400 ohm source impedances are bad, how does developing them with a
cathode follower mitigate things?

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:49:11 +1000, Tat Chan
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Good point, and it certainly seems to hold for the latest generation
of 'universal' players. My new (made in China) Pioneer DV-575A is
sonically indistinguishable from the Meridian 588 on CD,

that says a lot. Did you upgrade your Sony to a Meridian by any chane?


No, but a friend of mine reckoned that his 'high end' Meridian was
bound to be *way* superior to my 'Chinky cheapy' universal player. It
may be some time before I'm invited back........... :-)

out of curiosuity, what speakers were your friend using?

Assuming your friend is male and married, I hope his wife doesn't hear about
the Pioneer sounding as good as the Meridian!





Hmmm, I have been itching to replace my 2nd gen Philips DVD player and 12 y.o.
Rotel CD player with the Pioneer 676A (local equivalent of the 575) but I can't
quite seem to justify the purchase ...


Mine cost me £109. Surely can't be *that* hard to justify! I can't buy
a new tyre for that price.....................


well, they cost £80 here, before haggling



My DVD player and CD player both work, and the Pioneer would be an extra box in
the house.

Besides, I do need to get a new spare tyre ...

And what sort of tyres do German cars need that cost more than £109? Top of the
line Pirelli Neros?


Having said all that, the Pioneer is very tempting ...

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 18:14:15 +1000, Tat Chan
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:49:11 +1000, Tat Chan
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Good point, and it certainly seems to hold for the latest generation
of 'universal' players. My new (made in China) Pioneer DV-575A is
sonically indistinguishable from the Meridian 588 on CD,

that says a lot. Did you upgrade your Sony to a Meridian by any chane?


No, but a friend of mine reckoned that his 'high end' Meridian was
bound to be *way* superior to my 'Chinky cheapy' universal player. It
may be some time before I'm invited back........... :-)

out of curiosuity, what speakers were your friend using?

B&W N800s, not the latest diamond version.

Assuming your friend is male and married, I hope his wife doesn't hear about
the Pioneer sounding as good as the Meridian!

He's more likely to tell her about his mistress! :-)

Hmmm, I have been itching to replace my 2nd gen Philips DVD player and 12 y.o.
Rotel CD player with the Pioneer 676A (local equivalent of the 575) but I can't
quite seem to justify the purchase ...

Mine cost me £109. Surely can't be *that* hard to justify! I can't buy
a new tyre for that price.....................

well, they cost £80 here, before haggling

So what's the problem? Gives great pictures, too.

My DVD player and CD player both work, and the Pioneer would be an extra box in
the house.

Besides, I do need to get a new spare tyre ...

And what sort of tyres do German cars need that cost more than £109? Top of the
line Pirelli Neros?

235/40x17 Continental Sport Contact II, on my Audi A6 3.0 Sport
Quattro. The 225/35x18 Michelin Pilots on my wife's TT are even more
expensive! :-(
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:04:38 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"andy" wrote in message
oups.com...
As yet another owner of a Pioneer DV-575A I am curious about what the
above modifications will achieve and why?

**Output muting, via the use of BJTs has always been a sonic disaster,
IME. A relay contributes no distortion, whilst in the O/C mode. The
output IC used, whilst adequate, is hardly state of the art. Output ICs
in 1983 (ie: First generation) CD players were superior. In Philips
derived machines, that usually meant an NE5532/5534 chip. A fine chip,
back then and still a fine chip today. There are two, 220 Ohm resistors
in series with each O/P IC. These should be shorted (after replacing
the
ICs with a more suitable device, of course). A 440 Ohm output impedance
is pitifully high. Additionally, it would be nice to organise a spilt
rail power supply, for the output IC. At present, it is powered by a
single rail supply, thus a large electrolytic coupling cap is required.

I suggest anyone who is interested, to compare the 575A to a decent,
contemporary CD (only) player, such as a Rotel RCD951 and report on any
differences.

All well and good Trevor, but like Andy says: 'why'...???

**Because Lord Pinkerton could do the job for almost no cost. The benefits
are tangible. For those not capable of doing the job, I feel it is
probably
a toss-up as to if the value is there.

You claim that the benefits are tangible, I suggest that they are
almost certainly only theoretical.

**As is your right to do.


Don't see the point of buying a perfectly adequate budget player in the
first place and then spending *more* money on it.....???

**Me either. Still, I modded my own budget players. The cost was a little
time and some cheap chips and some relays I had lying around. The results
were worthwhile, in two out of the three instances. The bedroom system is
really too crappy to bother modding any player. The other rooms have quite
decent systems.

You did of course do this with two identical players, and compared
'before and after' sound quality?

**Yep. And so did two clients. I supplied one client with two, identical
players (budget, DVD-A). One modded, the other stock standard. Only I knew
which serial numbered unit had been altered. He reported the modded one as
sounding better.


My basic benchmark is that, since my 'off the shelf' Pioneer DV 575A
sounds identical to a 'high end' Meridian 588, it's vanishingly
unlikely that replacing a few parts inside the Pioneer willl make any
audible difference - except possibly for the worse!

**Nope. There is zero chance it will sound worse. There is a high
probability it will sound better.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au