Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

Eeyore wrote:

Rob wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote

You would understand my curiosity and confusion here, given the claims of
manufacturers and reviewers.
I wouldn't give you the time of day for the claims of manufacturers or
reviewers. I lost faith in the latter (and stopped buying HiFi mags) after
reading a review of the Linn Sondek turntable sometime around 1980, which
was so absurdly and ridiciculoudly OTT in it's praise for it that, had it
been an advert, it would have contravened ASA rules.
And given the objective analysis available, you'd (well, I'd) think this
sort of thing:

http://www.arcam.co.uk/prod_fmj_CD37_intro.cfm

wouldn't be allowed.
What in particular ? Actually, it seems all of their claims have a sound
scientific basis.

Maybe you should buy one ?
Stealth Mat indeed :-)
It's a valid EMC technique, just a silly name for it.
I thought you were joking. So this 'strategy' is valid,

The stategy is certainly valid, no doubt. I've even done similar things myself.


Did it improve the sound?


and will lead to better reproduction of fine detail in your opinion:

That's the subjective bit, but is is *possible*.


Ah, OK. So it's not subjective - it's an objective notion.


"Electromagnetic interference (EMI), which would normally mask fine
details in similar players, is dramatically reduced using Arcam’s
proprietary “Mask of Silence” strategy. The use of “Stealth Mat” (unique
metal fibre matting) further diffuses EMI to ensure the every nuance of
each recording is heard in its full glory."

?

Bear in mind that's the Marketing Dept's presentation of it. I'd have described it
differently but it might have sounded boring.. It would not surprise me if there
were a measurable difference. ARCAM aren't like your average hi-fi liars.


No, not measurable - *audible*; that's their claim. Read the extract
again (not sure what's happened to my newsreader thing!) - "... heard in
its full glory".

Rob

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

Ironically, I know of 2 CDP 101s that are both still fully operable, and
they both play CDRs quite nicely. I believe that they were on the market
several years when the Meridian 200 was new. Talk about CDRs not existing
when they were designed!


My Philips CD104, also dating from long before CD-Rs, plays them absolutely
fine (when it works at all that is!)

David.

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

Rob wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote

You would understand my curiosity and confusion here, given the claims of
manufacturers and reviewers.
I wouldn't give you the time of day for the claims of manufacturers or
reviewers. I lost faith in the latter (and stopped buying HiFi mags) after
reading a review of the Linn Sondek turntable sometime around 1980, which
was so absurdly and ridiciculoudly OTT in it's praise for it that, had it
been an advert, it would have contravened ASA rules.
And given the objective analysis available, you'd (well, I'd) think this
sort of thing:

http://www.arcam.co.uk/prod_fmj_CD37_intro.cfm

wouldn't be allowed.
What in particular ? Actually, it seems all of their claims have a sound
scientific basis.

Maybe you should buy one ?
Stealth Mat indeed :-)
It's a valid EMC technique, just a silly name for it.
I thought you were joking. So this 'strategy' is valid,

The stategy is certainly valid, no doubt. I've even done similar things myself.

Did it improve the sound?

It removed the interference !


and will lead to better reproduction of fine detail in your opinion:

That's the subjective bit, but is is *possible*.

Ah, OK. So it's not subjective - it's an objective notion.

Please elaborate. Yes. the influence is measurable by test equipment.


"Electromagnetic interference (EMI), which would normally mask fine
details in similar players, is dramatically reduced using Arcam’s
proprietary “Mask of Silence” strategy. The use of “Stealth Mat” (unique
metal fibre matting) further diffuses EMI to ensure the every nuance of
each recording is heard in its full glory. ?

Bear in mind that's the Marketing Dept's presentation of it. I'd have described it
differently but it might have sounded boring.. It would not surprise me if there
were a measurable difference. ARCAM aren't like your average hi-fi liars.

No, not measurable - *audible*; that's their claim. Read the extract
again (not sure what's happened to my newsreader thing!) - "... heard in
its full glory".

And how good are YOUR ears ?

Graham

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

David Looser wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Ironically, I know of 2 CDP 101s that are both still fully operable, and
they both play CDRs quite nicely. I believe that they were on the market
several years when the Meridian 200 was new. Talk about CDRs not existing
when they were designed!

My Philips CD104, also dating from long before CD-Rs, plays them absolutely
fine (when it works at all that is!)

Since we're in digital history world, I'd like to say that I thought the
original CD players I heard STANK. Truncutation of reverb tails was the bete
noire for me.

Then a pro-colleague bought a Denon DCD-1700. - I ended up buying it off him at
what must be at today's prices easily $3000. I still have it. It was the
first CD player I'd ever heard that sounded like it was making MUSIC !

Plus it feels solid and just 'feels nice'.Machined aluminium and heavy build.
Damn, that's the stufff ! I dare say I'll get an external DAC for it one day
but the dual oversampled BBs don't do a bad job.

Graham

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

Eeyore wrote:

Rob wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote

You would understand my curiosity and confusion here, given the claims of
manufacturers and reviewers.
I wouldn't give you the time of day for the claims of manufacturers or
reviewers. I lost faith in the latter (and stopped buying HiFi mags) after
reading a review of the Linn Sondek turntable sometime around 1980, which
was so absurdly and ridiciculoudly OTT in it's praise for it that, had it
been an advert, it would have contravened ASA rules.
And given the objective analysis available, you'd (well, I'd) think this
sort of thing:

http://www.arcam.co.uk/prod_fmj_CD37_intro.cfm

wouldn't be allowed.
What in particular ? Actually, it seems all of their claims have a sound
scientific basis.

Maybe you should buy one ?
Stealth Mat indeed :-)
It's a valid EMC technique, just a silly name for it.
I thought you were joking. So this 'strategy' is valid,
The stategy is certainly valid, no doubt. I've even done similar things myself.
Did it improve the sound?

It removed the interference !


and will lead to better reproduction of fine detail in your opinion:
That's the subjective bit, but is is *possible*.
Ah, OK. So it's not subjective - it's an objective notion.

Please elaborate. Yes. the influence is measurable by test equipment.


"Electromagnetic interference (EMI), which would normally mask fine
details in similar players, is dramatically reduced using Arcam’s
proprietary “Mask of Silence” strategy. The use of “Stealth Mat” (unique
metal fibre matting) further diffuses EMI to ensure the every nuance of
each recording is heard in its full glory. ?
Bear in mind that's the Marketing Dept's presentation of it. I'd have described it
differently but it might have sounded boring.. It would not surprise me if there
were a measurable difference. ARCAM aren't like your average hi-fi liars.
No, not measurable - *audible*; that's their claim. Read the extract
again (not sure what's happened to my newsreader thing!) - "... heard in
its full glory".

And how good are YOUR ears ?

Graham


About average I suppose. But I take what I assume is your point - the
fact that I or any other human can't hear whatever it is the Stealth Mat
does doesn't mean it can't be heard. The defence rests ;-)

Rob

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

In article , Eeyore
wrote:


Since we're in digital history world, I'd like to say that I thought the
original CD players I heard STANK. Truncutation of reverb tails was the
bete noire for me.

Looking back up this thread you may notice that we discussed that
previously. IIRC the main point was that evidence showed that early players
generally would have reproduced low level signals without "trunkation of
reverb tails". But some of the early *CDs* were poorly made. So what you
claim may have been due to faulty discs, or a faulty individual player.

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.]
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Since we're in digital history world, I'd like to say that I thought the
original CD players I heard STANK. Truncutation of reverb tails was the
bete noire for me.

Looking back up this thread you may notice that we discussed that
previously. IIRC the main point was that evidence showed that early players
generally would have reproduced low level signals without "trunkation of
reverb tails". But some of the early *CDs* were poorly made. So what you
claim may have been due to faulty discs, or a faulty individual player.

Also true I suppose.

Graham

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Ironically, I know of 2 CDP 101s that are both still
fully operable

Do they still cut off (truncate) reverb tails the way I
recall ?

Never did.

I think you had a broken one, I posted a detailed description of a possible
failure that would cause that symptom last week.

Dirty Digital [sic.]
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

Ironically, I know of 2 CDP 101s that are both still
fully operable

Do they still cut off (truncate) reverb tails the way I
recall ?

Never did.

I think you had a broken one

Wasn't mine but a good friend whose opinion in audio I generally respected a
lot. But we disagreed about the CDP-101. He also had one of those betamax
A/D/As too.


I posted a detailed description of a possible failure that would cause that
symptom last week.

It was a Floyd album it really hit me on. Damned if I can remember which album
or track now though.

The Denon 1700 was a revalation though. And so beautifully built. I had Hayden
Labs service it once and I may yet do so again. I doubt you'll ever find a
more solid, satisfying, reasonably compact transport that closes its door with
a decent CLUNK.

Graham