dave weil said:

So, that makes the 20-plus year old ABX site even MORE irrelevant in
terms of using as a reference.

Are you trying to nullify the Borg Bible? Shame on you, you shameless
Religious Persecuter.

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:
To explain slightly, a CD and decent CD player will give an exact
rendition of the material recorded on that CD.

To clarify slightly, Plowborg is immune to all nuances of quality. He
believes that his understanding of music is fully digitized and that the
emotional impetus of composers, and the corresponding emotional
responses of listeners, are irrelevant. He truly believes that his way
of dealing with the vagaries of art is superior because he can
concentrate on "getting the job done" without the distractions of human
emotional response.

No, pet. I'm used to hearing the output of the sound desk and comparing it
with the recording made from that.

Pratts like you may think you can improve on what was recorded with your
fancy mains cables etc, but then you would, wouldn't you?

You should get a job in the recording industry. Since you know so much
about what sounds 'good' you'd make a fortune.

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

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

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:59:43 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article
,
Jenn wrote:
Incorrect. I've stated several times that I WANT CD to be superior in
every way, and that's the truth. They are more convenient, more readily
available, and there is more music (my main interest) available in
print. I listen to CDs a great deal more than I listen to LPs and I own
many more CDs than I do LPs. Further, I think that the average CD
sounds better in just about every way to the average LP. I would have
to be an idiot to not CDs to sound better. And, I'm a believer in
science and I understand that the science as we presently understand it
tells us that CDs should sound better than all LPs.

To explain slightly, a CD and decent CD player will give an exact
rendition of the material recorded on that CD. Philips and Sony made sure
the parameters were up to this when launching the first domestic system
capable of giving 'studio' quality. But it can't make up for a poor
quality master tape or whatever - it just reproduces that warts and all.

The AES paper that was recently referenced seems to indicate that given
the same input, CD masters can sound different one from the other.

In 1992, that may well have been true, particularly if some facilities
really did believe that it was a 'plug and play' system not needing
any special care. Hopefully, the industry has learned a little in the
past 14 years...................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article
,
Jenn wrote:
Incorrect. I've stated several times that I WANT CD to be superior in
every way, and that's the truth. They are more convenient, more
readily
available, and there is more music (my main interest) available in
print. I listen to CDs a great deal more than I listen to LPs and I
own
many more CDs than I do LPs. Further, I think that the average CD
sounds better in just about every way to the average LP. I would have
to be an idiot to not CDs to sound better. And, I'm a believer in
science and I understand that the science as we presently understand it
tells us that CDs should sound better than all LPs.

To explain slightly, a CD and decent CD player will give an exact
rendition of the material recorded on that CD. Philips and Sony made sure
the parameters were up to this when launching the first domestic system
capable of giving 'studio' quality. But it can't make up for a poor
quality master tape or whatever - it just reproduces that warts and all.

The AES paper that was recently referenced seems to indicate that given
the same input, CD masters can sound different one from the other.

Only if one is seriously flawed. That paper provided no attempt at
explanation
and ultimately implied they were able to fix the problem in production of
the
masters. A simple bit check of the results should have voided the defective
master. Remember... this wasn't digitizing anything... it was (in
simplistic
terms) just a digital transfer. Obviously data was lost in the process.

ScottW

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:53:19 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

To explain slightly, a CD and decent CD player will give an exact
rendition of the material recorded on that CD. Philips and Sony made sure
the parameters were up to this when launching the first domestic system
capable of giving 'studio' quality. But it can't make up for a poor
quality master tape or whatever - it just reproduces that warts and all.

The AES paper that was recently referenced seems to indicate that given
the same input, CD masters can sound different one from the other.

Only if one is seriously flawed. That paper provided no attempt at
explanation
and ultimately implied they were able to fix the problem in production of
the
masters. A simple bit check of the results should have voided the defective
master. Remember... this wasn't digitizing anything... it was (in
simplistic
terms) just a digital transfer. Obviously data was lost in the process.

ScottW

Am I mistaken, or do you have an ARCAM?

On 12 Mar 2006 09:00:09 -0800, "Warm Blue Glow"
wrote:

Am I mistaken, or do you have an ARCAM?

That would be impossible, since the closest toopid ever came to serving
was those two books that he read (and maybe that movie that he saw...)

I didn't say ARCOM (I think that's the acronym you're grasping for).
Maybe I should have written it Arcam, but I've occasionally seen it in
all caps.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:53:19 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

To explain slightly, a CD and decent CD player will give an exact
rendition of the material recorded on that CD. Philips and Sony made
sure
the parameters were up to this when launching the first domestic system
capable of giving 'studio' quality. But it can't make up for a poor
quality master tape or whatever - it just reproduces that warts and
all.

The AES paper that was recently referenced seems to indicate that given
the same input, CD masters can sound different one from the other.

Only if one is seriously flawed. That paper provided no attempt at
explanation
and ultimately implied they were able to fix the problem in production of
the
masters. A simple bit check of the results should have voided the
defective
master. Remember... this wasn't digitizing anything... it was (in
simplistic
terms) just a digital transfer. Obviously data was lost in the process.

ScottW

Am I mistaken, or do you have an ARCAM?

Yeah... a CD-92, Why?

ScottW

From: dave weil
Date: Sun, Mar 12 2006 11:59 am
Email: dave weil

That would be impossible, since the closest toopid ever came to serving
was those two books that he read (and maybe that movie that he saw...)

I didn't say ARCOM (I think that's the acronym you're grasping for).
Maybe I should have written it Arcam, but I've occasionally seen it in
all caps.

ARCAM: Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal.

toopid doesn't have an ARCOM either...

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:00:12 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:53:19 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

To explain slightly, a CD and decent CD player will give an exact
rendition of the material recorded on that CD. Philips and Sony made
sure
the parameters were up to this when launching the first domestic system
capable of giving 'studio' quality. But it can't make up for a poor
quality master tape or whatever - it just reproduces that warts and
all.

The AES paper that was recently referenced seems to indicate that given
the same input, CD masters can sound different one from the other.

Only if one is seriously flawed. That paper provided no attempt at
explanation
and ultimately implied they were able to fix the problem in production of
the
masters. A simple bit check of the results should have voided the
defective
master. Remember... this wasn't digitizing anything... it was (in
simplistic
terms) just a digital transfer. Obviously data was lost in the process.

ScottW

Am I mistaken, or do you have an ARCAM?

Yeah... a CD-92, Why?

Why did you buy it instead of the absolute cheapest Sony or Pioneer?
Was is only the pride of ownership or some front panel feature, or did
you spend the extra money because of some perceived sound difference?

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:00:12 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:53:19 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

To explain slightly, a CD and decent CD player will give an exact
rendition of the material recorded on that CD. Philips and Sony made
sure
the parameters were up to this when launching the first domestic
system
capable of giving 'studio' quality. But it can't make up for a poor
quality master tape or whatever - it just reproduces that warts and
all.

The AES paper that was recently referenced seems to indicate that
given
the same input, CD masters can sound different one from the other.

Only if one is seriously flawed. That paper provided no attempt at
explanation
and ultimately implied they were able to fix the problem in production
of
the
masters. A simple bit check of the results should have voided the
defective
master. Remember... this wasn't digitizing anything... it was (in
simplistic
terms) just a digital transfer. Obviously data was lost in the process.

ScottW

Am I mistaken, or do you have an ARCAM?

Yeah... a CD-92, Why?

Why did you buy it instead of the absolute cheapest Sony or Pioneer?

Because people said good things about the ring dac.
No local dealers, I wasn't buying new anyway so only one
way to find out for myself...except everyone says there must
be something wrong with it as I'm not impressed. Seems to
work...so I'm kind of hard pressed to think of a fail mode
that would be so subtle.

Was is only the pride of ownership or some front panel feature, or did
you spend the extra money because of some perceived sound difference?

I wasn't that much more than my AMC... I got it used.

I'm still curious...why this line of questioning?

ScottW