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

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.

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

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".

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

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

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

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

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