David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

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.

I'm also confused by the fact that most of you tech aware types seem to
have spent many, many, times more than necessary on your CDP hardware to
achieve nothing of sonic benefit.

I used my Philips CD104 until it started going wrong faster than I could
keep repairing it. These days I use a modest Panasonic DVD player for CD
playback.

I just don't know. It's very rare that I listen to a whole CD - one or two
tracks tops.

Odd, very odd.

It's very rare that I interrupt an LP.

Well it's a lot more difficult to interupt to interupt one. In any case it
will "interupt" itself half-way through.

For some reason I find uncompressed computer rips (of a CD) played through
a CDPs DAC less 'unpleasant'

I wonder whether you could "really" tell the difference in a double-blind
test? Somehow I doubt it.


I wonder too; it doesn't make sense.

Rob

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 ?

Graham

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 ?

Graham


Stealth Mat indeed :-)

Maybe I should!

Rob

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.

Graham

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.

Graham


I thought you were joking. So this 'strategy' is valid, and will lead to
better reproduction of fine detail in your opinion:

"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."

?

Rob

In article , Rob
wrote:

The usual problems, here, I suspect, regarding the wording employed

"Electromagnetic interference (EMI), which would normallymask fine
details

This may be meant to be "EMI of a type that would 'normally' mask..." So is
selecting some types of EMI on the basis of defining the effect which would
be a symptom of the class of EMI mentioned.

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."

Not at all clear what "diffuses EMI" means here. May simply be a misuse of
English. My understanding is that the idea would be to absorb or reject EMI
depending on source location, but dunno if that is what they mean.

FWIW The only thing I've noticed about the Arcam DVD player I'm using us
that the levels of *mechanical* noise it emits is very low. So you don't
hear any hums, buzzes, whooses, etc, from it. Given that other players or
recorders I've tried made quite a din, this is a plus point for the Arcam
in my view.

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

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

The usual problems, here, I suspect, regarding the wording employed

"Electromagnetic interference (EMI), which would normallymask fine
details

This may be meant to be "EMI of a type that would 'normally' mask..." So is
selecting some types of EMI on the basis of defining the effect which would
be a symptom of the class of EMI mentioned.

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."

Not at all clear what "diffuses EMI" means here. May simply be a misuse of
English. My understanding is that the idea would be to absorb or reject EMI
depending on source location, but dunno if that is what they mean.


Whatever it is or means, the 'ensure every nuance is heard', as opposed
to not heard if 'it' is not in place, is pretty unambiguous to me.


FWIW The only thing I've noticed about the Arcam DVD player I'm using us
that the levels of *mechanical* noise it emits is very low. So you don't
hear any hums, buzzes, whooses, etc, from it. Given that other players or
recorders I've tried made quite a din, this is a plus point for the Arcam
in my view.


An old Marantz CDP I had made a bit of a noise, audible from a few
yards. The Denon (quite expensive) and Akai (£30 cheap) DVDs are more or
less silent, as is a newish 180UKP HK CDP. Mechanical noise gets on my
nerves, and strikes me as sloppy engineering. The noise floor of my (how
to put this) downstairs hifi is set by a REL subwoofer, a sort of hum
that doesn't change with volume - vibrating transformer I suspect.

Rob

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.


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

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


"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.

Graham

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