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

Rob wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Rob wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
Couple of the Wki things - 24 bit recording isn't always
dithered,
As a practical matter *every* real-world 24 bit audio recording *is*
dithered by random noise from other parts of the recording chain.
You'd be be hard preseed NOT to dither a 24 bit recording - LMAO !

Silly beyond extreme.
No point shooting messenger people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantiz...und_processing)
I intentionally didn't look up the reference since I was much more
interested in your interpretation of it.
"24-bit audio is sometimes used undithered"

Is mine a misinterpretation?

Well .... if you had a source with 144 dB s/n ratio it would be undithered.

Got it yet ?

Got what?

In order for a signal not be 'self-dithered' by its own noise floor, the source
would have to have a s/n ratio of 144dB with a 24 bit converter.

I won't go into how utterly unfeasible that would be.

Graham

In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel
scribeth thus


tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore scribeth thus

You are all FOOLS.

No you claimed to hear a particular sound which seems, from the
explanation from the railway signalling standards, to be similar in
nature and you also said that you had a recording of it somewhere and
that IIRC you were looking it up?.

And I found it..

In which particular way would would you like to eat your words ? Shoved down
your
wretched throat I hope.

Well this was a quite sensible argument but if you have the resort to
the same abusive level as him down there, you can shove your disc up
your arse as far as it will go!......

....Plonk!....

--
Tony Sayer

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

"Serge Auckland" wrote in
message

My 206, which has the same transport etc as your 200 also
struggles with CDRs in the same way. Mine will usually,
but not always play a CDR all the way through, but won't
allow me to select tracks, or to jump from one track to
another. It has never been happy with CDRs from when they
became available so I recently sent it back to Meridian
as I wondered if the laser was losing strength. They told
me that the laser was fine, the player was still to spec,
it was just never designed to play CDRs, as they didn't
exist when the 200 series was designed.

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!

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

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 ?

Graham

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Serge Auckland" wrote in
message

My 206, which has the same transport etc as your 200 also
struggles with CDRs in the same way. Mine will usually,
but not always play a CDR all the way through, but won't
allow me to select tracks, or to jump from one track to
another. It has never been happy with CDRs from when they
became available so I recently sent it back to Meridian
as I wondered if the laser was losing strength. They told
me that the laser was fine, the player was still to spec,
it was just never designed to play CDRs, as they didn't
exist when the 200 series was designed.

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!

It doesn't mean, however, that the CDP101 was actually *designed* to work
with CDRs, it just happens to do so. The 200 series Meridian wasn't and
doesn't.
S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com