In article , Eeyore
wrote:


mick wrote:


It hasn't changed my view on pitch controls though - 28ppm is very,
very tiny. I doubt if even those with "perfect pitch" could reliably
detect a frequency error of 100ppm (0.1Hz at 1kHz), never mind 28ppm
without something else to compare it with - not a likely circumstance
when one is attempting to listen to the music! The pitch control is
only useful to those attempting to compare players. :-)

1 cent of pitch ( one hudredth of a semitone) is a little over 500 ppm.

28ppm or 100 ppm will most certainly be inaudible.

Maybe the 'pitch control' is to use as an adjustment for out-of-tune
singing or perfoming... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:07:34 +0000, Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Eeyore
wrote:


mick wrote:


It hasn't changed my view on pitch controls though - 28ppm is very,
very tiny. I doubt if even those with "perfect pitch" could reliably
detect a frequency error of 100ppm (0.1Hz at 1kHz), never mind 28ppm
without something else to compare it with - not a likely circumstance
when one is attempting to listen to the music! The pitch control is
only useful to those attempting to compare players. :-)

1 cent of pitch ( one hudredth of a semitone) is a little over 500 ppm.

28ppm or 100 ppm will most certainly be inaudible.

Maybe the 'pitch control' is to use as an adjustment for out-of-tune
singing or perfoming... :-)



Nah... It's to add another zero to the price tag!

OTOH, perhaps those players with such a control use a R/C oscillator so
they are incorrect by design... ;-)

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info http://mixpix.batcave.net

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Maybe the 'pitch control' is to use as an adjustment for out-of-tune
singing or perfoming... :-)


I would find such a control useful when practicing my violin against an
orchestral CD -
which as an amateur I have to resort to. There are big variations in the A
used by
different orchestras: sharp of 440 Hz for some European orchestras, and
much
flatter for many baroque performances. It's a nuisance having to retune my
violin to
match, and would be even more so for some other instruments. A pitch
control on
the CD player (just as on my ancient Thorens vinyl deck) would be great.

I would be surprised if there are ever significant differences between the
clocks used
in the recording apparatus and that in the CD player, even using the crappy
crystals
that you get in watches.

Patrick Wallace
__________________________________________________ ___________________

Eeyore wrote:

mick wrote:

Eiron wrote:
mick wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Eiron" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Iain Churches" wrote

I am told that the HK does not have even
a pitch control. Many serious listeners, especially those with an
accurate sense of pitch require this.
**Are you suggesting that the recordings are faulty? That is the
only way a CD player can play at the wrong speed. Pitch controls are
of no use for domestic listening. I've seen DJs use them, however.
The speed of a CD player is only as accurate as its quartz
oscillator. I wouldn't be surprised if a player could gain or lose a
tenth of a second during an hour, and vary with temperature. Not that
it matters for normal listening but it makes comparisons difficult.
**A cheap crystal would suffer such poor figures.


I think it would have to be *very* cheap or an R/C oscillator! That's
about 0.17% error or 1666ppm. Even a ceramic resonator would typically
be better than 100ppm over any sensible temperature range. There is *no
way* that anyone is going to detect that sort of error using ears. IMHO
a pitch control on a CD player is an unnecessary gimmick to give the
snake oil fans something to crow about. ;-)
I suggested 0.1 second per hour, not per minute, so 28ppm not 1666. My
cheap non-adjustable Casio wris****ch is accurate to about 10ppm so it's
the right range for an unadjusted quartz oscillator. I think I'll do
some measurements and find out the truth....
oops! sorry - forgot the other 60... :-(

It hasn't changed my view on pitch controls though - 28ppm is very, very
tiny. I doubt if even those with "perfect pitch" could reliably detect a
frequency error of 100ppm (0.1Hz at 1kHz), never mind 28ppm without
something else to compare it with - not a likely circumstance when one is
attempting to listen to the music! The pitch control is only useful to
those attempting to compare players. :-)

1 cent of pitch ( one hudredth of a semitone) is a little over 500 ppm.

28ppm or 100 ppm will most certainly be inaudible.


I tried a little experiment - playing 1kHz test tones from two CD players
into a dual-trace oscilloscope. ( Actually a software 'scope from
http://www.virtins.com )

The results,

MP3 player: 22ppm slow
Pioneer DV696AV: 12ppm slow
Marantz CD273: reference
Pioneer PD8700: 365ppm fast

I don't know which player has the most accurate clock but it is surprising
that my trusty old Pioneer should be so fast, gaining about 1.3 seconds
in an hour. That's possibly why my wife didn't like it. It must be on
the verge of audibility for someone with perfect pitch.

--
Eiron.

I tried a little experiment - playing 1kHz test tones from two CD players
into a dual-trace oscilloscope. ( Actually a software 'scope from
http://www.virtins.com )

How do you rate that?...

The results,

MP3 player: 22ppm slow
Pioneer DV696AV: 12ppm slow
Marantz CD273: reference
Pioneer PD8700: 365ppm fast

I don't know which player has the most accurate clock but it is surprising
that my trusty old Pioneer should be so fast, gaining about 1.3 seconds
in an hour. That's possibly why my wife didn't like it. It must be on
the verge of audibility for someone with perfect pitch.

Umm... and what did the scope -reference- to;?....
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
I tried a little experiment - playing 1kHz test tones from two CD players
into a dual-trace oscilloscope. ( Actually a software 'scope from
http://www.virtins.com )

How do you rate that?...
The results,

MP3 player: 22ppm slow
Pioneer DV696AV: 12ppm slow
Marantz CD273: reference
Pioneer PD8700: 365ppm fast

I don't know which player has the most accurate clock but it is surprising
that my trusty old Pioneer should be so fast, gaining about 1.3 seconds
in an hour. That's possibly why my wife didn't like it. It must be on
the verge of audibility for someone with perfect pitch.

Umm... and what did the scope -reference- to;?....

The player I used as as a reference, obviously.

--
Eiron.

"Patrick Wallace" wrote in message
...

I would be surprised if there are ever significant differences between the
clocks used
in the recording apparatus and that in the CD player, even using the
crappy crystals
that you get in watches.

Crappy?

The frequency accuracy of even the cheapest watch has to be far better than
is required by almost any other domestic electronic device (or indeed the
vast bulk of industrial applications)

David.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson"
wrote in message
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Trevor
Wilson scribeth
thus

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Trevor Wilson"
wrote in message

**That would be a reasonable assumption. HK have
clearly put a lot of effort into building a quality
analogue section in that machine.

An ultimate quality analog section for a CD player -
a 5532, a few penny
resistors, and a couple of caps.

**No, but that is an adequate one. More crucially,
however, many cheap players use vastly inferior OP
amps. I've seen 4558 class OP used in many cheap
players. Cheap DVD players are guilty of this.
Further, correct implemented muting can make a big
difference. Cheap players use a transistor, whilst better quality
ones use relays. For the record: The HK uses a
transistor. Mine will soon have relays fitted. Trevor Wilson
A Relay!..A relay!!, All that contact resistance and
wrecktification!!!

**Points:

* Muting circuits are usually short to ground type
operation.

Addresses neither shortcoming of some relays.

* Decent, hermetically sealed, gold-on-silver relays are
not expensive.

But short-lived because the contact materials are way
too soft.

**Not IME, for the particular use mentioned. Murcury
wetted is better, but more expensive.


Distortion form such contacts is very difficult to
measure.

Distortion in transistor muting circuits is very
difficult to measure. Here's a challenge to Trevor - measure the
distortion of
your CD player and post the results.

**I can't measure the distortion in my CD player. The
levels are below the limits of my test equipment (Sound
Technology 1700B).

How about your measurements on a super-econo DVD player. Or, are $29 DVD
players too expensive or too hard to find for you to test?

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Trevor Wilson"
wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Trevor Wilson"
wrote in message

**That would be a reasonable assumption. HK have
clearly put a lot of effort into building a quality
analogue section in that machine.

An ultimate quality analog section for a CD player - a
5532, a few penny resistors, and a couple of caps.

**No, but that is an adequate one.

More than adequate - sonically transparent, even at
audio production signal levels.

**Not IMO. There are superior ICs available.

Unsupported opinions are worth less than a dime a dozen.

More crucially, however, many cheap players use vastly
inferior OP amps.

Ignorance and fear speaks.

I've seen 4558 class OP used in many cheap players.

They can do the job.

**No, they cannot. They audible problems, compared to
superior ICs. 5532s are MUCH better.

Prove it.

Ignorance and fear speaks.

Cheap DVD players are guilty of this.

It's probably not a sin.

**Nope. Just cost-cutting.

Further, correct
implemented muting can make a big difference. Cheap
players use a transistor,

They can do the job.

**Rarely.

Prove it.

Ignorance and fear speaks.

whilst better quality ones use relays.

Slow, noisy, unreliable, and generally provide no
audible advantage.

**Wrong. I suggest you try for yourself. It may well
surprise you.

Been there, done that. Were you even born then?

For the record: The HK uses a transistor.

Thanks Trevor for discrediting yourself.

Mine will soon have relays fitted.

Ignorance and fear speaks.

Fact is Trevor, you've never ever done an adquate job of
comparing two CD players.

**Wrong.

Prove it.

Your worship of those absolutely insanely mis-designed
ME
amplfiers says it all.

**Do you mean: I appreciate the elegance of design,
superb objective performance and sound quality of a
particular amplifier, which you have ZERO experience
with?

It is not my fault that even the most benknighted of American audiophiles
failed to fall for ME's weirdness in suffient numbers for them to achieve
any commercial presence over here.

An amplifier whose schematics you've never sighted?

Given that one can have as many sonically-transparent 100wpc amplifiers for
use with competently designed speakers as one wishes for less than $200
each - why pay more?

An amplifier you've never measured, heard or even
touched? Is that your assertion?

One phrase says it all - zero loop feedback.

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote
"Trevor Wilson" wrote

More crucially, however, many cheap players use
vastly inferior OP amps.

Ignorance and fear speaks.

I've seen 4558 class OP used in many cheap players.

They can do the job.

**No, they cannot. They audible problems, compared to
superior ICs. 5532s are MUCH better.

What audible problems are those ? I've never used the
4558 since there's so much better to be had for very
little extra like the 4560 for example so I'm unfamiliar
with its alleged failings.

Incidentally I've never met a 4558 anywhere other than
cheap disco / DJ and low end MI grade gear.

I own some studio monitors that in their day were highly regarded, whose
system amplifier was full of 4558s. NHT Pro A10s. They still sound good!