|
|
CD or not CD
Why be coy about saying Sony and Philips? Odd :-)
Don't forget the "dedicated" mechanisms used in even the most overpriced audiophile gear are the same cheap units as used in everything else. When the cheap ones can read any (undamaged) cd without error, why not? I think a lot of audiophiles forget how trivially easy reading a cd is by modern technological standards. -- Jim H |
CD or not CD
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:34:53 +0000 (UTC), Jim H wrote:
Why be coy about saying Sony and Philips? Odd :-) Don't forget the "dedicated" mechanisms used in even the most overpriced audiophile gear are the same cheap units as used in everything else. When the cheap ones can read any (undamaged) cd without error, why not? I think a lot of audiophiles forget how trivially easy reading a cd is by modern technological standards. You're wrong. It isn't easy designing audio circuits nowadays that are mediocre enough to muffle high audio frequencies for that "warm sound." Usually you have to use cables so badly enginered that they have a 3 db dropoff at only 5-10khz or perhaps insert a badly designed triode tube stage into the audio path. It also helps to have incorporated a fresh $5,000-20,000 outlay; it doesn't matter for what the money is spent. Of course a new fresh $5-20K outlay will always sound better than the old one. |
CD or not CD
more from the 'TCS school' of popular uk.rec.audio-ism
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:34:53 +0000 (UTC), Jim H wrote: Why be coy about saying Sony and Philips? Odd :-) Don't forget the "dedicated" mechanisms used in even the most overpriced audiophile gear are the same cheap units as used in everything else. When the cheap ones can read any (undamaged) cd without error, why not? I think a lot of audiophiles forget how trivially easy reading a cd is by modern technological standards. You're wrong. It isn't easy designing audio circuits nowadays that are mediocre enough to muffle high audio frequencies for that "warm sound." Usually you have to use cables so badly enginered that they have a 3 db dropoff at only 5-10khz or perhaps insert a badly designed triode tube stage into the audio path. It also helps to have incorporated a fresh $5,000-20,000 outlay; it doesn't matter for what the money is spent. Of course a new fresh $5-20K outlay will always sound better than the old one. By 'read' I mean the reading of the digital information, not the conversion to analogue which you seem to be refering to. Today you can buy a computer cd drive, capable of reading a whole standard audio cd without error in 5 minutes, for a few pounds. The redbook 150k/s might have been considered quite fast 20 years ago but today its nothing. -- Jim H |
CD or not CD
From the comments comming back it would appear that there is agreement that all
cd transports/loader/lasers sound the same and by definition have the same abilities. This is far from the truth and not just a subjective matter as you are able to see the differences clearly on test equipment. The new multimedia designs are inferior at reading standard cds or should I say not as dedicated and the sound quality is only satisfactory for people who aint bothered about true high fidelity. Obviously this concern is only going to be raised by enthusiasts and these are the minority of consumers and are no longer of interest to the majors in manufacturing. It is not just about 0's and 1s and a CDrom on a computer has a lot of fuzz the digital filter has to look at as well as the signal. If I am going to be forced into using an inferior transport mech then It will degrade the sound of my audio system. |
CD or not CD
A certain TCS, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
You're wrong. It isn't easy designing audio circuits nowadays that are mediocre enough to muffle high audio frequencies for that "warm sound." Yes, but a CD transport is not an audio circuit. -- "Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com |
CD or not CD
A certain Derbydrummer, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
From the comments comming back it would appear that there is agreement that all cd transports/loader/lasers sound the same and by definition have the same abilities. This is far from the truth and not just a subjective matter as you are able to see the differences clearly on test equipment. What sort of differences ? The new multimedia designs are inferior at reading standard cds or should I say not as dedicated and the sound quality is only satisfactory for people who aint bothered about true high fidelity. That's a terrible pity, as they are used in all of the top expensive CD players. It is not just about 0's and 1s Then what is it about ? and a CDrom on a computer has a lot of fuzz the digital filter has to look at as well as the signal. The transport has no digital filter. -- "Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com |
CD or not CD
|
CD or not CD
I don't need to try reading I already can.
Are you saying that three transport from three different manufactures perform identically? Affraid not, there are to many variable factors, buffing the signal using a cmos chip being just one of them. This is all I am interested in. As you are obviously into digital audio can you explain why the digital signals differ when viewed on a scope and how the digital filter reacts to the visable differences seen and how it effects the performance of the filter. Regards |
CD or not CD
"RJH" wrote in message
... "Chris Isbell" wrote in message ... On 30 Aug 2003 12:35:16 GMT, (Derbydrummer) wrote: From the comments comming back it would appear that there is agreement that all cd transports/loader/lasers sound the same and by definition have the same abilities. This is far from the truth and not just a subjective matter as you are able to see the differences clearly on test equipment. Have you discovered a new law of physics? Try reading "The Art of Digital Audio" by John Watkinson. This explains why the transport is physically unable to affect the sound unless there are uncorrected errors reading the CD. If you have evidence to the contrary then perhaps you could present it. -- Chris Isbell Southampton UK Why do some cds produce more 'clatter' (physical noise) from the transport than others? And some cd players seem better at reading cds than others? Is this to do with the transport or error correction circuitry or what? Incidentally, my best audio reader is a cheapo all in one panasonic. Cheapo? - Check this out http://www.whsmith.co.uk/WHS/Go.asp?...HDVD400&DB=622 and http://www.dvdrhelp.com/dvdplayers.p...rch&#comme nt s (cut & paste if it wraps - sorry...) and http://www.cyberhome-europe.de/ £49* brand new (FFS!) from none other than W H Smiff !! - Multiregion (by Remote hack), picture and sound quality well up to par, all the trimmings including Zoom, plays everything in the book (+ or -) except SACD/DVDA and LPs............. Downside - no display (other than on-screen of course). How the hell can you beat that......???? *That's FORTY NINE QUID!!! |
CD or not CD
"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 23:58:17 +0000 (UTC), Jim H used to say... Why can I read data cds without error, but not audio ones? Data CDs are *not* the same as Audio CDs. Data CDs have error checking bits, audio CDs don't. More evidence of how flamingly ignorant you are about digital, Kurt. Both audio and data CDs have error checking bits by the bucket. Data CDs have more of them, but that's because *any* error is intolerable on a data CD, while a few errors won't hurt the utility of an audio CD. In practice, it is commonplace for audio CDs to be read from start to finish totally error-free. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk