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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

While different transports will certainly have different 'eye'
patterns, modern multimedia drives with dual lasers are just as good
as 'dedicated' CD drives. That is a simple fact, which you can indeed
verify with measurements.

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.

This is utter nonsense, and betrays a profound lack understanding of
digital audio systems.

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.

It *is* just about 0s and 1s so far as the transport mechanism and
associated error-correction and data restructuring electronics are
concerned. The digital filter does not come into play until the
datastream has been completely reclocked and edge-cleaned.

If I am going to be forced into using an inferior transport mech then It will
degrade the sound of my audio system.

Absolute ********! If you really *must* use a separate transport (a
fundamentally inferior process with CD), then what matters is the
quality of the DAC, not the quality of the transport. Please note that
a good DAC is *not* sensitive to different transports, despite what
some ignorant 'high end' dealers will try to tell you.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

a low pass filter?

"TCS" wrote in message
news:slrnbkvmab.2ka1.The.Central.Scrutinizer@turin g.kaosol.net...
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.