WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 14:43:39 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"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

It just seems that you're convinced that there's no improvement
possible in the digital domain and CDs, at least in terms of the
format itself. It also just seems a waste of money if even the
cheapest CD player would resolve the same signal as a more expensive
one, which is the ultimate extension of what you seem to be arguing
here. Of course, if you paid multiples just to have a nice CD player
to match up with the rest of your system (nice faceplate, fancy name,
good pedigree, longer lifespanetc.), that's cool.

Did you think that the Ring DAC would do something to this already
"perfect system" of CD reproduction?

I'm not being snide here - I'm trying to get to the why of why you'd
spend hundreds of dollars more on a somewhat expensive CD player if
you believe what you do about the abilities of CDs. Note that I'm not
addressing the variability of digital masters that you brought up,
because one would assume that a certain CD player wouldn't be of much
use in that situation anyway, Ring DAC or not.

Finally, it sounds like you might have proved your own hypothesis to
yourself g.

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

From: George M. Middius
Date: Sun, Mar 12 2006 11:49 am
Email: George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net

Maybe you didn't know that Arcam is an electronics company in the UK.
Sounds like you're referring to a military award.

Please let me rub toopid's pudgy face in his lack of military service
(and his utter lack of knowledge thereof) as I see fit, including the
use of obscure puns. We've been debating some military history here. I
am constantly amazed at how one person can be so wrong (and yet be so
insistent that he's right).

Arcam is a manufacturer of stereo equipment. ARCAM is an Army Reserve
Components Achievement Medal. So the question Mr. Weil asked opened a
door for me to remind toopid that he needs to read more (and maybe
watch another movie) about the military in order to get a clue.

Otherwise, he'll just keep looking stupid. Er, toopid.

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

It just seems that you're convinced that there's no improvement possible in the digital domain and CDs, at least in terms of the format itself.

Dave:

Apart from mixing all fruit (digital domain) and pears (CDs), your
statement has some merit. Digital domains may always be improved using
higher sampling rates, for instance. But given a _specific_ digital
medium, there are absolute limits both on the recording and playback
sides. Only so much information may be encoded in that format. As long
as the reproducer is capable of decoding that information *fully*, then
it is at the limits of the medium. Period. The End. So, we may improve
the domain, but once a specific fruit is picked, it becomes limited.

After that, choices in CD players become one of extraneous parameters
from its capabilities to decode. The quality of the transport, ease of
use, appearance, convenience factors, disc handling, longevity and so
forth. One might choose the $29 CD player, and purchase 3/year as they
wear out. Or, one may choose the $800+ player that is well-and-truly
expected to last a lifetime. Or anything in between. But the brute fact
of the matter is that there is an absolute ceiling on the quality of
sound they may produce. In today's world, that is fully achieved by a
few $$ worth of chips. The rest is sheet-metal, buttons and lights.

But, a useful, obvious but oft-forgotten concept to hold in one's mind
when dealing with any medium, digital or otherwise is GIGO.... Garbage
In, Garbage Out. No medium is capable of 'improving' a bad recording.
And in no case does adding or subtracting artifacts constitute an
improvement. Accordingly, attention and efforts should be on improving
the recording process where there is opportunity as the playback
process (in the case of CDs) is settled-technology. Despite fond wishes
to the contrary.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

It's not "mixing" the concepts. It was meant to restrict the conversation to the digital part of CDs, (snip)

OK... But that _should_ be a very short conversation as those "digital
part(s)" limits are specific, well-understood and irrefutable. And
either the playback meets those limits, or it does not... there is no
in-between.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

wrote in message
ups.com

It just seems that you're convinced that there's no
improvement possible in the digital domain and CDs, at
least in terms of the format itself.

Apart from mixing all fruit (digital domain) and pears
(CDs), your statement has some merit. Digital domains may
always be improved using higher sampling rates, for
instance.

At some point consideration has to be given to the performance of the entire
record/playback system as well as the performance limits that are imposed by
various steps along the way.

There is no way to regain lost bandwidth or lost dynamic range once it has
been lost.

It turns out that the CD format is one of the most perfect parts of the
whole process.

Consumers seem to be wonderously naive about the limits on performance that
are imposed closer the extreme ends of the entire record/playback system.

Hey, it helps sell "The new distribution format of the year" and "The new
remastering of the month".

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

wrote in message
oups.com


In reproduction, from most-to-least effect on what is
heard: Transducers (speakers, phono cartridges, analog
tape heads), amplification electronics (headroom,
inherent distortion, characteristics-when-clipping), then
about everything else. CD players within basic parameters
produce an output that is neither better nor worse than
the source. Tuners, within basic parameters, reproduce
exactly what was broadcast, other electronic/digital
media are similar. Analog tapes & Vinyl have their own
problems and parameters that vary wildly, but are equally
real and still suffer/benefit from the electronics and
the speakers.

You forgot rooms, microphones, mixing, and mastering equipment.

Rooms are just plain the worst.

Microphones are as bad if not worse than cartridges. Make that worse, almost
without exception.

Mixing equipment is about as bad or slightly worse than other forms of
amplification.

Mastering equipment can be about as bad as rooms because after all, its
mission in life is to obviously change the sound of music.

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

On 13 Mar 2006 06:58:04 -0800, " wrote:

It's not "mixing" the concepts. It was meant to restrict the conversation to the digital part of CDs, (snip)

OK... But that _should_ be a very short conversation as those "digital
part(s)" limits are specific, well-understood and irrefutable. And
either the playback meets those limits, or it does not... there is no
in-between.

Still, I think that you're ignoring other variables within the
"box"...or are you saying that all algorithms, output devices, DACs,
transports, etc, are considered equal? Note that I'm *excluding* those
other things like build quality, front panel operation and the like...

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

You forgot rooms, microphones, mixing, and mastering equipment.

Rooms are just plain the worst.

I seldom record at home... this was pointed towards the reproduction
end of the systems, not the recording end.

Rooms (listening areas), well, they are, in my opinion, the easiest to
control, between speaker placement, furniture placement and realistic
expectations, it gets pretty easy. I would also except dedicated
listening rooms from this, as that is a separate art-form entirely.

The entire chain from the bow on the violin to the air molecules
impacting on your ears at home is nothing much but a very long chain of
various weak links. Of those links, digital playback devices are
perhaps the strongest. Which, I think is the precise point of
discussion here.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

From:
Date: Mon, Mar 13 2006 10:15 am
Email: "

This does not preclude me from indulging in and enjoying various
non-ideal choices (such as tube amps), but I do so with open eyes (and
ears), and not as a matter of faith.

Not so easily dismissed, I'm afraid.

This clearly makes you a 'tube bigot.'

Just like when I mention that I listen to (and enjoy) LPs, even with
their inherent 'flaws,' I become a 'vinyl bigot.'

So admitting that you realize the limitations of a medium does not
'save' you from being pigeonholed, you tube bigot.

Please come back when you have a clue. Lack of understanding of
physics, electronics, auditory perception, accounting and family law
noted.

But hey! If you want to listen to legacy equipment that sounds like
**** and cannot possibly reproduce sound as well as a table radio,
Enjoy!

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

wrote in message
oups.com
You forgot rooms, microphones, mixing, and mastering
equipment.

Rooms are just plain the worst.

I seldom record at home... this was pointed towards the
reproduction end of the systems, not the recording end.

I also record almost nothing at home - but that does not change the fact
that even really pretty good rooms are pretty horrible in terms of bandwidth
and dynamic range.

Rooms (listening areas), well, they are, in my opinion,
the easiest to control, between speaker placement,
furniture placement and realistic expectations, it gets
pretty easy. I would also except dedicated listening
rooms from this, as that is a separate art-form entirely.

Point is, they set the lowest level of of SQ of any part of the system.

The entire chain from the bow on the violin to the air
molecules impacting on your ears at home is nothing much
but a very long chain of various weak links. Of those
links, digital playback devices are perhaps the
strongest. Which, I think is the precise point of
discussion here.

It's a point of discussion here only because we've got so many vinyl
diehards who still believe all the disinformation that has been circulated
about it.