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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

"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

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

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

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