"Eeysore = total NUT CASE "
 

"Eeysore = total NUT CASE "

The earliest CD players were utter ****E. Esp the CDP-101. Truncated
reverb tails is what I remember especially.

You mean fading out the track early in the CD mastering to try and stop
you hearing the tape hiss?

NO.

I mean failure of signal resolution compared to CD (on a Sony CDP-101)
with
vinyl on my Garrard 401 wirh Ortofon RMG309 arm and M75E II cartridge.


** No turntable will play a CD and no CD player will play an LP.

Get the point - ****wit ?


And (in my mind) you'd have to be DEAF not to notice it.


** You have to be brain dead to wildly assume that CDs and LPs derived from
multi-generation tapes and "re-mastered " by god knows who on god know what
can be used to make such comparisons.

Totally invalid test method, used only by the worst sort of audiophool
cretins.

" Go **** a pig you MORON."




...... Phil

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

The noise floor of a well-made recording is on the order of 75-80 dB.

Have you gone completely MAD ?

I can beat you by easily 50dB.


Do you do all your recording in an anechoic chamber then?

David.

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"John Phillips" wrote in message

On 2008-06-16, Jim Lesurf wrote:


IIRC Lipschitz and Vanderkooy were publishing about dither in JAES in
about 1984 and just after. Although dither had been know for a long
time I suspect you are right that noise floors for material
transferred to CD were probably sufficient in the early days of CD
(1982-ish) to render external dither unnecessary.

AFAIK Vanderkooy and Lip****z were knowingly publishing old news, in an
effort to overcome some pretty strange false claims that were being
circulated at the time by people who should have known better.

That is also my recollection. I can't remember when the first work on
dither was done, but I think it was produced a long time ago. Hence there
really isn't much excuse for someone writing magazine articles like NKs not
to understand it. I was certainly reading about such matters long ago.

FWIW prompted by the thread I got out the latest HFW and re-read his
article with more care. Can't say I enjoyed the experience, but did so out
of curiosity and a wish to be fair.

The problem seems to be that he systematically misunderstands a set of
related matters. These don't seem to be confined to dither, but also cover
aspects of measurement and how to understand what a spectrum is telling
him.

Maybe I should do some more on this sometime, to cast some light on the
ways people can easily misundestand such matters.


One of my musings was that for a short period after ADCs got better it
may have been that CDs lacking dither but displaying the effects of
quantization noise might have made it onto the market. I have no idea
if this did actually happen, though.

The earliest CD players had converters good enough to demonstrate
dynamic range on the order of 93 dB, which is pretty close to the
theoretical max:

http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/Son...ndex.htm#DR_DA

I can add that the results you show seem consistent with that reported
by Martin Colloms in 1983. You have a better analyser, though. :-)


About 15 or more years later, a highly-regarded CD player improved on
the legacy players performance by only about 1 dB

http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/cd67se/index.htm#DR_LB

The noise floor of a well-made recording is on the order of 75-80 dB.
Below that is the noise floor, usually from analog (thermal) sources.
This is many times more than is required to properly dither a proper 16
bit conversion.

I'd be interested in seeing data on the noise performance of studio mics
and preamps, etc. If I recall correctly, their bandwidths also may cast
some doubt on the idea that LP recordings provide wide ultrasonic
bandwidths of genuine recorded sounds. (As distinct from distortion
products, etc.)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

In article , Eeyore
wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote:

The earliest CD players had converters good enough to demonstrate
dynamic range on the order of 93 dB, which is pretty close to the
theoretical max:

Oh come on !

The earliest CD players were utter ****E. Esp the CDP-101. Truncated
reverb tails is what I remember especially.

On Pink Floyd it sounded dreadful. I have a special memory of that.

Prompted by what you say, I had a look at the first review of the CDP101 in
Hi Fi News. (Martin Colloms, March 1983).

This shows measurements of the nominal THD with test signals down to -80
dBFS. The results seem quite typical for a CD player of the time, and would
not look particularly odd nowdays - allowing for the limits of the
measurement kit he had at the time. These signals would probably be well
below the noise level on an LP of the same recording - unless those making
the LP employed extra level compression. Indeed, at -80dBFS they might be
below the noise level on the analogue tapes for DSoTM. The noise from the
tapes might have dithered the results nicely *if* the engineers making the
CD then resisted playing about with the results. :-)

Given this, it seems dubious that what you claim was due to the player
trunkating the reverb. The player MC tested seemed to perform without
trunkating signals well below what you be hearing above noise on an LP.

Reading the article I did note one comment by MC, though. He borrowed some
recordings and CDs from various CD/LP companies. Then commented that the
only ones that systematically had a full dynamic range were the ones from
DECCA. Others were reported as being trunkated to quantisation levels much
poorer than the 16-bit level.

So perhaps you are confusing poor resolution *CDs* with the player being
used. Or perhaps your player was faulty.

But I can't comment personally on the Sony as I've not used one. That
said, I happily used a 1st generation Marantz for about a decade, and found
no signs of 'trunkated reverb tails' being due to the player. Although I
have found that the quality of CDs varies a lot! Makes me wonder if a
number of people in the biz have an understanding of digital audio on a par
with NK. :-)

I have a feeling some later reviews have linearity plots down to below
-95dB. So may see if I can find one for the CDP101 sometime.

Thankfully the technology has improved awesomely since.

Odd then that HFW seems in recent years to have taken to recommending
people buy some of the old machines like these for their sound quality.
:-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:34:57 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:


That is also my recollection. I can't remember when the first work on
dither was done, but I think it was produced a long time ago. Hence there
really isn't much excuse for someone writing magazine articles like NKs not
to understand it. I was certainly reading about such matters long ago.
...

Dither was certainly used in the BBC thirteen channel PCM coders used
for the BBC radio distribution network in 1972(?)

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

On 2008-06-19, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Eeyore
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
The earliest CD players had converters good enough to demonstrate
dynamic range on the order of 93 dB, which is pretty close to the
theoretical max:

Oh come on !

The earliest CD players were utter ****E. Esp the CDP-101. Truncated
reverb tails is what I remember especially.

On Pink Floyd it sounded dreadful. I have a special memory of that.

Prompted by what you say, I had a look at the first review of the CDP101 in
Hi Fi News. (Martin Colloms, March 1983).
... [snip] ...
Reading the article I did note one comment by MC, though. He borrowed some
recordings and CDs from various CD/LP companies. Then commented that the
only ones that systematically had a full dynamic range were the ones from
DECCA. Others were reported as being trunkated to quantisation levels much
poorer than the 16-bit level.

This was also reported in Stereophile's review of the CDP-101 (or one of
the follow-ups). See http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/193/index.html
and subsequent pages.

Of the CDP-101 and a Decca CD: "Sonically, the Decca was worth all
the others put together, and -— multimiked recording and tipped-up
top notwithstanding —- delivered the most realistic reproduction of an
orchestra I have heard in my home in 20-odd years of audio listening!"

And, disagreeing with Eeyo "In fact, on the basis of that Decca disc
alone, I am now fairly confident about giving the Sony player a clean
bill of health, and declaring it the best thing that has happened to
music in the home since The Coming of Stereo."

So perhaps you are confusing poor resolution *CDs* with the player being
used. Or perhaps your player was faulty.

In fact on the specific issue of digital processing with or without dither
and the effect on resolution in "reverb tails", since the CDP-101 had
only analogue reconstruction filters there seems to be no possibility
to blame the player - only the CD mastering.

--
John Phillips

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

In article , John Phillips
wrote:
On 2008-06-19, Jim Lesurf wrote:

Prompted by what you say, I had a look at the first review of the
CDP101 in Hi Fi News. (Martin Colloms, March 1983). ... [snip] ...
Reading the article I did note one comment by MC, though. He borrowed
some recordings and CDs from various CD/LP companies. Then commented
that the only ones that systematically had a full dynamic range were
the ones from DECCA. Others were reported as being trunkated to
quantisation levels much poorer than the 16-bit level.

This was also reported in Stereophile's review of the CDP-101 (or one of
the follow-ups). See
http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/193/index.html and subsequent
pages.

I also notice that the Stereophile pages give a reference to an article on
Dither which Martin Colloms had published in the August 1983 issue of HFN.
So it is clear that many people in the consumer audio mags knew about this
when CD was launched. :-)


So perhaps you are confusing poor resolution *CDs* with the player
being used. Or perhaps your player was faulty.

In fact on the specific issue of digital processing with or without
dither and the effect on resolution in "reverb tails", since the CDP-101
had only analogue reconstruction filters there seems to be no
possibility to blame the player - only the CD mastering.

You having mentioned that made me check, and I can confirm that the
squarewave results in the HFN review of the CDP101 show no 'pre-ringing'. I
haven't found a detailed spec for the CDP101, and can't recall any details.
But it looks like it used the simple method of 16 bit DACs followed by an
analogue filter. The Philips method of using 14 bit x 4 oversampled
employed transverse digital filters. The symptom for this was the familiar
'time symmetric' ringing before and after each square wave edge.

Above said, what I don't know is how monotonic or linear the Sony DACs
were. But the THD results I've seen don't look particularly bad - allowing
for the kit used and the noise floor of a dithered signal and a finite
duration FFT.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

John Phillips wrote:

Has anyone read the article "Dirty Digital" by Noel Keywood in July's
"Hi-Fi World"? I picked up a copy for some amusement during a journey
yesterday and was stunned by the article's technical incompetence.

Keywood says of CD that "dynamic range is limited to 85 dB or so by
dither noise" (incorrect - it's actually about 93.3 dB IIRC for 2 LSB p-p
of TPDF dither). Then he complains, disingenuously, about the "dirty
distortion" of quantization on CD (he calls it "digital distortion"),
misunderstanding the fact that it just isn't present when you use dither.

Yeah, so he's a ****. He works in hi-fi. What did you expect ?

Maybe it's all part of a big plan to get us to go back to valve radiograms ?

Graham

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"Jim Lesurf"

You having mentioned that made me check, and I can confirm that the
squarewave results in the HFN review of the CDP101 show no 'pre-ringing'.
I
haven't found a detailed spec for the CDP101, and can't recall any
details.
But it looks like it used the simple method of 16 bit DACs followed by an
analogue filter.


** The output filter used in the famous Sony CDP 101 ( and several other
contemporary Sony models) was entirely passive - made by Murata and
consisting of an array of ceramic resonators.

Response was - dB at 20 kHz, sloping at -100dB per octave after that.

No kidding, the result was *zero* spurious supersonic signals despite no
use of oversampling.


Above said, what I don't know is how monotonic or linear the Sony DACs
were.


** Stop bragging about your monumental ignorance - you pathetic, pommy PITA
pommy ******.

Arny posted the info here, in this SAME thread, on June 19th.

http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/Son...ndex.htm#DR_DA

THD = circa 0.002% - including all noise sources.

It was as linear as all hell.



...... Phil.

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"Phil Allison"


**Typo:

Response was -1dB at 20 kHz, sloping at -100dB per octave after that.




...... Phil