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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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.

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.

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