In article
..com, scribeth thus
On Feb 14, 11:08*am, tony sayer wrote:

So what are you comparing them to then the original signal?..

You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right
software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal.

So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the same or
another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B comparison?.
--
Tony Sayer

On Feb 15, 2:33*pm, tony sayer wrote:

You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right
software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal.

So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the same or
another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B comparison?.

With a good sound card in the PC, and against an average CD player,
the difference is surprisingly stark. (but, of course, idiots on this
group will claim otherwise.)

[Trimmed to just posting in one group.]

In article
,
wrote:
On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, tony sayer wrote:

You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right
software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal.

So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the same or
another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B comparison?.

With a good sound card in the PC, and against an average CD player,
the difference is surprisingly stark. (but, of course, idiots on this
group will claim otherwise.)

Your assertion is rather ambiguous or vague for various reasons.

Firstly, since your posting was in two groups it wasn't clear which group
you were calling "idiots". :-)

Secondly, your carefully preload your response by limiting it to comparing
"good" sound cards with "average" CD players. Since you've not defined here
the meaning of either qualifier you can simply choose to define "good" and
"average" to mean "can be distinguished" - so making your assertion
self-referentially "true" even if one category or the other were actually
void of members. :-)

Thirdly, you can also be self-referentially be defining "idiot" to mean "no
one in reality". So maybe just playing word-games to use rhetoric in place
of you having any actual checkable evidence.

Forthly, you omit to give any assessible evidence of your claim. Making an
assertion that you can do something is one thing. Providing evidence that
others can check that you *can* do what you claim - when you only have the
sound to go on - is something entirely different.

Perhaps you could list the names of some of the "idiots" on the group you
had in mind, and give references to postings where they claimed a "good"
soundcard *couldn't* be distinguished from an "average" one. Note the
inclusion of the qualifiers you used.

BTW Tony, did you xpost this just to expose the sweeping assertion? I can't
see the context for it having much to do with the thread title.... IIRC
'jamie' seems to have a history of making dubious claims on the digital-tv
group... or am I confusing him with some "idiot"?... :-)

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 message

[Trimmed to just posting in one group.]

In article
,
wrote:
On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, tony sayer wrote:

You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right
software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal.

So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the
same or
another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B
comparison?.

With a good sound card in the PC, and against an average CD player,
the difference is surprisingly stark. (but, of course, idiots on
this
group will claim otherwise.)

Your assertion is rather ambiguous or vague for various reasons.

Firstly, since your posting was in two groups it wasn't clear which
group
you were calling "idiots". :-)

Secondly, your carefully preload your response by limiting it to
comparing
"good" sound cards with "average" CD players. Since you've not
defined
here the meaning of either qualifier you can simply choose to define
"good" and "average" to mean "can be distinguished" - so making your
assertion self-referentially "true" even if one category or the
other
were actually void of members. :-)

Thirdly, you can also be self-referentially be defining "idiot" to
mean
"no one in reality". So maybe just playing word-games to use
rhetoric in
place of you having any actual checkable evidence.

Forthly, you omit to give any assessible evidence of your claim.
Making an
assertion that you can do something is one thing. Providing evidence
that
others can check that you *can* do what you claim - when you only
have the
sound to go on - is something entirely different.

Perhaps you could list the names of some of the "idiots" on the
group you
had in mind, and give references to postings where they claimed a
"good"
soundcard *couldn't* be distinguished from an "average" one. Note
the
inclusion of the qualifiers you used.

BTW Tony, did you xpost this just to expose the sweeping assertion?
I
can't see the context for it having much to do with the thread
title....
IIRC 'jamie' seems to have a history of making dubious claims on the
digital-tv group... or am I confusing him with some "idiot"?... :-)


I'll cross-post this back to alt.radio.digital, because I don't think
Jamie would see your reply otherwise.




--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

On Feb 15, 6:35*pm, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

I'll cross-post this back to alt.radio.digital, because I don't think
Jamie would see your reply otherwise.

I didn't miss much, good grief. :-)
It contains such a large pile of unfocused spluttering, I can't really
find anything solid enough to respond to.

To clarify the content of my last post though:
- by "good sound card" I meant one which doesn't use resampling - the
vast majority of them resample everything to 48 or 96KHz (whichever is
their maximum rate)
- by "average CD player" I meant one which doesn't read ahead, cache,
check for errors, and then re-read where necessary (99.9% of them in
other words).

wrote in message


To clarify the content of my last post though:
- by "good sound card" I meant one which doesn't use resampling -
the
vast majority of them resample everything to 48 or 96KHz (whichever
is
their maximum rate)


Which sound card have you got?



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Only just caught up with this one, too busy designing a better idiot,
sorry...
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
[Trimmed to just posting in one group.]

In article
,
wrote:
On Feb 15, 2:33 pm, tony sayer wrote:

You can rip a CD perfectly using a PC CD-ROM drive and the right
software, which gives you an error-free wav copy of the signal.

So you reckon you'd be able to reliably tell that apart from the same
or
another CD of that material from a CD player in a live A-B comparison?.

With a good sound card in the PC, and against an average CD player,
the difference is surprisingly stark. (but, of course, idiots on this
group will claim otherwise.)

Your assertion is rather ambiguous or vague for various reasons.

Firstly, since your posting was in two groups it wasn't clear which group
you were calling "idiots". :-)

Secondly, your carefully preload your response by limiting it to comparing
"good" sound cards with "average" CD players. Since you've not defined
here
the meaning of either qualifier you can simply choose to define "good" and
"average" to mean "can be distinguished" - so making your assertion
self-referentially "true" even if one category or the other were actually
void of members. :-)

Thirdly, you can also be self-referentially be defining "idiot" to mean
"no
one in reality". So maybe just playing word-games to use rhetoric in place
of you having any actual checkable evidence.

Forthly, you omit to give any assessible evidence of your claim. Making an
assertion that you can do something is one thing. Providing evidence that
others can check that you *can* do what you claim - when you only have the
sound to go on - is something entirely different.

Perhaps you could list the names of some of the "idiots" on the group you
had in mind, and give references to postings where they claimed a "good"
soundcard *couldn't* be distinguished from an "average" one. Note the
inclusion of the qualifiers you used.

BTW Tony, did you xpost this just to expose the sweeping assertion? I
can't
see the context for it having much to do with the thread title.... IIRC
'jamie' seems to have a history of making dubious claims on the digital-tv
group... or am I confusing him with some "idiot"?... :-)

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

BTW Tony, did you xpost this just to expose the sweeping assertion? I can't
see the context for it having much to do with the thread title.... IIRC
'jamie' seems to have a history of making dubious claims on the digital-tv
group... or am I confusing him with some "idiot"?... :-)

Slainte,

Jim


Actually my mistake for not making this that clear!..

Jamie over on alt.radio.digital has asserted that most all CD digital
players sound ****e owing to all the jitter they have. He thinks that
this could be eliminated by taking the audio off the CD as a datastream
and putting that onto a hard drive and replaying that via a good sound
card. This according to Jamie would then get rid of the jitter and thus
make the CD audibly better..

Just interesting to see what the contents of uk.rec.audio think of
that..


Is your assertion of that as I've described it above about right
Jamie?..
--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Actually my mistake for not making this that clear!..

Jamie over on alt.radio.digital has asserted that most all CD digital
players sound ****e owing to all the jitter they have. He thinks that
this could be eliminated by taking the audio off the CD as a datastream
and putting that onto a hard drive and replaying that via a good sound
card. This according to Jamie would then get rid of the jitter and thus
make the CD audibly better..

Just interesting to see what the contents of uk.rec.audio think of
that..


Ah!, an explanation for this thread at last!

Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of whether CD players sound
"****e" because of jitter to one side for the moment, the mention of a
hard-drive seems singularly inappropriate. Since data is written to, and
recovered from, hard drives in blocks, a pretty substantial RAM buffer is
needed between the drive and the sound card. The effects of jitter on the
audio can be eliminated fairly easily by using an adequate buffer. What
*could* be an issue is the effects of jitter on data recovery, against which
reading of the audio as a datastream and putting it somewhere else for a
while is utterly irrelevant.

David.

On Feb 16, 12:05*pm, "David Looser"
wrote:
"tony sayer" wrote in message

Actually my mistake for not making this that clear!..

Jamie over on alt.radio.digital has asserted that most all CD digital
players sound ****e owing to all the jitter they have. He thinks that
this could be eliminated by taking the audio off the CD as a datastream
and putting that onto a hard drive and replaying that via a good sound
card. This according to Jamie would then get rid of the jitter and thus
make the CD audibly better..

Just interesting to see what the contents of uk.rec.audio think of
that..

Ah!, an explanation for this thread at last!

My apologies for Tony's actions, and for dumping this thread mid-way
into another group (I cross-posted a response without noticing the
first time).
Tony is something of a semi-troll, and a person with limited intellect
imho.
I think he was trying to impress some of his pals from the Digital TV
groups (they all pick on me because I'm gay) by cross-posting -
presumably in the hope that my comments in this thread would attract a
barrage of ridicule from the members of uk.rec.audio .