Another Kroodown is imminent
 

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.

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

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.

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

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

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

"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

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

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?

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

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.

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

"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

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

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...

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

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?

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

"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

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.

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

Yikes....

My tube vs. SS listening is about 20%, if that. I am not so sure where
you popped up, but I would suspect that my 'legacy' equipment is in
pretty good shape, and does as well as considerable 'new' stuff, tube
or otherwise. Nor am I at all enamored of flea-power either. I have
substantial speakers requiring substantial power for the most part, and
my 75wpc/rms 6550-driven amp barely makes the grade on some sources.
For that I have a solid-state amp rated at 225wpc/rms @ 8 ohms.
Headroom and all that.

What I give up with tubes is 'live listening levels' on high
peak-to-average (30dB+) sources. I know that... and very seldom does
that need ever arise. Other than occasional organ pieces and very few
others, the music I generally prefer does not really require thunderous
levels to be enjoyable. Nor is it my ambition to make either my ears or
my neighbors' ears bleed. On the other hand, with single voices and/or
small orchestras and groups, 75 watts does just fine.

The nice thing about having several systems set up at the same time is
that one has choices, and no 'committment' need be made to any one over
any other.

But, you are entitled to your opinion. If owning tubes makes me a 'tube
bigot', so be it.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

wrote in message
oups.com
..

But, you are entitled to your opinion. If owning tubes
makes me a 'tube bigot', so be it.

The same applies to me. However, I use the tubed equipment I have even less
frequently than you do.

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:45:33 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On 13 Mar 2006 06:03:09 -0800, " wrote:

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)

It's not "mixing" the concepts. It was meant to restrict the
conversation to the digital part of CDs, because as you noted, CDs can
be improved in other areas.

Where did he say CD can be improved in non-digital areas? It's not
exactly rocket science to decode a 44/16 signal with a 24/192 DAC chip
in a functionally perfect way, nor is it straining anyone's ability to
design an output stage with a hard-limited output voltage and a couple
of milliamps maximum current requirement.

Note also that, so far as the digital side goes, the ultimate
'high-end' transports such as the Mark Levinson 'Reference' still use
the same basic Philips or Sony transport mechs and error-correction
electronics, as cheap mass-market players.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:17:11 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:45:33 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On 13 Mar 2006 06:03:09 -0800, " wrote:

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)

It's not "mixing" the concepts. It was meant to restrict the
conversation to the digital part of CDs, because as you noted, CDs can
be improved in other areas.

Where did he say CD can be improved in non-digital areas?

He didn't say anything about it. I was EXCLUDING those areas as a
consideration.

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

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?

OK... as we are splitting the already-split hairs... Let me try to
write it again.

We have a disc that is digitally encoded. We have a system that decodes
this information and sends it to the amplifier. AKA A Digital-to-Analog
Converter... DAC for short. We are confining this conversation to
_THAT_ element alone, not anything else beyond the conversion.

So, if the Analog output of the DAC equal-or-exceeds the information
digitally encoded on the disc and without loss or addition of
artifacts, it does the job as well as it can be done. Can we agree on
that? So, whether that conversion system is a $8 pair of chips in a $49
item, or a $400 outboard DAC, if the results are equal, then there is
nothing to choose between them PURELY FUNCTIONALLY. There may be much
to choose between them in other ways, but those choices have nothing to
do with their very specific intended purpose.

Similarly, for transports and anything else of that nature. That one
transport uses oilite bearings and another jeweled bearings may have to
do with longevity, but not with sound output. That one may sound like a
sewing-machine in heat and the other be dead silent again has nothing
to do with its absolute function. So, you need to define your terms and
decide what you mean by 'equal'. If you feel that the reliability and
additional functionalities (outside of the specific purpose) of one
player over another are worth a premium in price, that is entirely your
choice... I feel so as I purchased a Yamaha changer at ~$190 over a
no-name single player at $40 three years ago for its functionality. But
did I have any illusions that I was getting superior sound out of the
Yamaha over the no-name? Not hardly. Nor would I comparing the Yamaha
to an outboard DAC.

And do I vastly prefer the Philips-style transport over the Sony-type
transport. But that preference is perhaps irrational, and would not
determine my choice except that all other things are equal.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

On 13 Mar 2006 12:13:31 -0800, " wrote:

We are confining this conversation to
_THAT_ element alone, not anything else beyond the conversion.

Well, I wasn't. So this "conversation" is over, since everything in
the chain is relevant to the question of whether CD players can sound
different.

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com
.

But, you are entitled to your opinion. If owning tubes
makes me a 'tube bigot', so be it.

The same applies to me. However, I use the tubed equipment I have even
less frequently than you do.


How often does he use your tube equipment?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

dave weil wrote:
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.

What led you to this conclusion?

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.

That leap of logic left you a bit short of firm ground.

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.

It looks very little different than my AMC. I can't vouch for any of
the other stuff.


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

Who are you quoting? and what do you mean by 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.

What do I think I believe Dave and what posts of mine gave you that
conclusion?

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.

I don't know... ability to read deformed pits by the laser.... error
correction algorithms... interpolation.... are these things consistent
across CD players?

But if two supposedly identical CDs sound different on the same
player... I have to believe that one is either flawed or has different
data. Since both supposedly had the same data.... there is but one
conclusion IMO.


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

Here's my hypothesis... If the Arcam sounds different... it probably
has a tweeked FR or some subtle distortion. Is there a chance that
might sound better to me than perfect accuracy? Maybe. If you paid
attention I've said many times I haven't been interested in perfect
accuracy or exact reproduction of a "live sound" since I saw Queen live
sometime in the late 70's. If my stereo sounded that bad I'd have to
burn it.

ScottW

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

Clyde Slick said:

I use the tubed equipment I have even
less frequently than you do.

How often does he use your tube equipment?

rim shot

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Here's my hypothesis... If the Arcam sounds different... it probably
has a tweeked FR or some subtle distortion.

My CD23 FMJ sounds different from my AMC CD8a. The Arcam sounds more
correct.

Stephen

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:00:37 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:17:11 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:45:33 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On 13 Mar 2006 06:03:09 -0800, " wrote:

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)

It's not "mixing" the concepts. It was meant to restrict the
conversation to the digital part of CDs, because as you noted, CDs can
be improved in other areas.

Where did he say CD can be improved in non-digital areas?

He didn't say anything about it. I was EXCLUDING those areas as a
consideration.

So why post "as you noted"? Just more Vile lies?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

On 13 Mar 2006 09:25:40 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

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.'

Er, no, he clearly stated that tube amps are a non-ideal choice. It
seems that you're not listening to reason......

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

Perhaps that's because you refuse to admit that they are flaws, as
opposed to 'flaws'. I listen to and enjoy LPs, but I've *never* been
called a vinyl bigot.

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

Is English perhaps not your first language?

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

He appears to have several clues - you do not so appear.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

On 13 Mar 2006 12:13:31 -0800, " wrote:

And do I vastly prefer the Philips-style transport over the Sony-type
transport. But that preference is perhaps irrational, and would not
determine my choice except that all other things are equal.

Depends what you mean by that, as they have been essentially the same
for about ten years now.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:23:55 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On 13 Mar 2006 12:13:31 -0800, " wrote:

We are confining this conversation to
_THAT_ element alone, not anything else beyond the conversion.

Well, I wasn't. So this "conversation" is over, since everything in
the chain is relevant to the question of whether CD players can sound
different.

Obviously they *can* be made to sound different, what matters is that
in practice they *don't*, so long as you avoid those ludicrous 'high
end' players like the Audio Note which are deliberately broken!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

On 13 Mar 2006 14:55:42 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:

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.

I don't know... ability to read deformed pits by the laser.... error
correction algorithms... interpolation.... are these things consistent
across CD players?

Pretty much, given that 99% of available players (aside from the
Chinese copies, of course!) use the same Sony or Philips transport
mech and associated electronics package.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:01:14 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Here's my hypothesis... If the Arcam sounds different... it probably
has a tweeked FR or some subtle distortion.

My CD23 FMJ sounds different from my AMC CD8a. The Arcam sounds more
correct.

Evidence for this wild assertion? Is this based on price and
reputation?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: Tues, Mar 14 2006 1:03 am
Email: Stewart Pinkerton

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.'

Er, no, he clearly stated that tube amps are a non-ideal choice. It
seems that you're not listening to reason......

Er, yes. It seems that you cannot detect a parody when you see one.

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

Perhaps that's because you refuse to admit that they are flaws, as
opposed to 'flaws'. I listen to and enjoy LPs, but I've *never* been
called a vinyl bigot.

I admit that there are flaws (or 'flaws') with LPs, and I have posted
as such. I also admit to listening to tubes, with their flaws (or
'flaws'), although my amps are currently SS. When push comes to shove,
however, I have been called a 'vinyl bigot' and a 'tube bigot' because
I have also posted that I enjoy them both.

There is no need, IMO, to say that I listen to something and need to
list that I understand the inherent flaws (with or without parantheses)
of that medium or technology in order to make it 'OK' with anybody
here.

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

Is English perhaps not your first language?

I speak Amurrican, not English, dammit. If you listen to outdated
technology, and if you admit as much here, you are a 'bigot.' Sorry,
that's just how it is. You are a vinyl bigot.

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

He appears to have several clues - you do not so appear.

There were several clues to the perceptive that that this was
tongue-in-cheek. For example, accounting, family law...

Perhaps if I had added 'podiatry' you would have caught on.

You guys need to stop taking everything so seriously...

I mean, you think haggis is food. We call that 'entrails' here. I
assumed that if you ate haggis that automatically meant that you had a
sense of humor...

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

Warm Blue Glow, or was it Shhhh!, wrote:

I mean, you think haggis is food. We call that 'entrails' here. I
assumed that if you ate haggis that automatically meant that you had a
sense of humor...

It's only the Linn and Tannoy fans that enjoy haggis.
Down south we eat faggots, about as often as you eat chitlins.

--
Eiron

There's something scary about stupidity made coherent - Tom Stoppard.

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:39:20 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:00:37 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:17:11 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:45:33 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On 13 Mar 2006 06:03:09 -0800, " wrote:

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)

It's not "mixing" the concepts. It was meant to restrict the
conversation to the digital part of CDs, because as you noted, CDs can
be improved in other areas.

Where did he say CD can be improved in non-digital areas?

He didn't say anything about it. I was EXCLUDING those areas as a
consideration.

So why post "as you noted"? Just more Vile lies?

You need to lay off the sauce. I posted "as you noted" because he went
on to talk about factors like mastering and recording being variables.

You're dismissed now.

WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:01:14 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Here's my hypothesis... If the Arcam sounds different... it probably
has a tweeked FR or some subtle distortion.

My CD23 FMJ sounds different from my AMC CD8a. The Arcam sounds more
correct.

Evidence for this wild assertion? Is this based on price and
reputation?

Casual use in the same system, and, no. I bought the AMC online on the
assumption that it wouldn't sound different from what I was used to and
because it had XLR outputs.

Oh, well.

Stephen