What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

D.M. Procida wrote:

-------------------



** CD players are unsurprisingly designed to play audio CDs made to the
original 1982 Red Book standard. Such disks carry the rectangular logo:
"Compact Disc digital audio".

I'm talking about standard audio CDs.

** No you are not, cos like anyone you have no idea if a given CD is
"standard" or not.

If you bothered to read my post, you would see that it refers to CDs being
sold that do not comply despite having the rectangular logo.

Perhaps you ought to read what you write more carefully in that case.


** Really - perhaps you can go **** yourself.


And perhaps be a little less rude while you're at.


** No need exists to be polite to brain dead trolls like you.




..... Phil

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article , RJH
wrote:
People keep arguing as if an inability to get perfection means that
nothing can be done. I know the Civil Service love this ploy, and
debaters use it. But the reality is that if you want to hear a sound
as similar as possible to what you'd get in a live venue, then you do
need to have some idea what that actually sounds like. :-)


I think you're deploying shifting sands here. I don't think anybody is
asking for perfection.

Actually, I think 'perfection' *is* implicitly what Bob is taking for
granted in his arguments to the effect that it is irrelevant to become
familiar with the sound in a venue and trying to use that as a reference
when assessing how convincingly your home hifi plays material from there.
Note his total failure (thus far) to accept that doing such a comparison
could ever have any usefulness.

The process isn't perfect. But it can be very useful *if* what you want to
hear at home is a result convincingly similar to 'being there'. *And* if
the recording/broadcast was made with this aim in mind - which will be
the case for examples like R3 concerts, etc.

OTOH if you just want a 'music box' that plays studio creations that were
laid down track by track, say, then I'd agree the above would be
irrelevant. But that means you want a music box not a high *fidelity*
system. *And* this can be relevant for 'studio creations' which aim at
an effect other than replicating being in the venue.

Note: I do NOT use the term "music box" here in a derogatory sense. I'm
just trying to signal that different people want different things. This
kind of distinction isn't new. You can see it discussed, for example, in
Milner's "Perfecting Sound Forever" book. Nothing wrong in this in itself.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article , RJH
wrote:

Yes of course - partly my point in fact. You wouldn't want a version of
the live performance as experienced.


Yet when I listen to a R3 broadcast from the RAH, RFH, etc, I want a sound
at home which is as similar as I can get to what I hear when I was there.

So not all events or listeners are the same. And not all recording
engineers/producers will have the same aims.

It's Bob's apparent lack of realising this which has puzzled me.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
OTOH if you just want a 'music box' that plays studio creations that were
laid down track by track, say, then I'd agree the above would be
irrelevant. But that means you want a music box not a high *fidelity*
system. *And* this can be relevant for 'studio creations' which aim at
an effect other than replicating being in the venue.

Not quite, Jim. Pop type recordings are mixed by their engineers for the
very best sound they can get in their control room. To say they will sound
just as good on a 'music centre' or whatever isn't the case.

A poor sound system will degrade everything. Likewise, a good one will get
the best from everything.

--
*Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all its students.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:56:02 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
wrote:



Actually, I've just remembered and I'm going to have to fess up. Strange
as it may seem and against all I've already said about using classical for
evaluation, I can remember when the dealer put the 208 on against my 207
the disc chosen from my collection by him that stood out as having a
considerable improvement was:

Dvorak Symphony No.9
Wiener Philharmonika - Kirill Kondrashin
Decca 400 047-2
So the exception that proved the rule. Still like that recording.

(It is all streamed from the server now so it is quick and easy to find
that information.)

That event must have been roughly 1990 and anticipating that someone was
likely check the release date of the recording I checked it myself. The
disc offered by Arkivmusic.com isn't the same at all. Different cover and
other works on the disc mine had nothing else on it.


Cheers,

Bob.

I too liked that recording. It was amongst the earliest CDs that I
bought; that one would probably been acquired in 1983.

According to the liner it was recorded in the Sofiensaal in September
1979 and released on CD in 1982.

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
OTOH if you just want a 'music box' that plays studio creations that
were laid down track by track, say, then I'd agree the above would be
irrelevant. But that means you want a music box not a high *fidelity*
system. *And* this can be relevant for 'studio creations' which aim at
an effect other than replicating being in the venue.

Not quite, Jim. Pop type recordings are mixed by their engineers for the
very best sound they can get in their control room. To say they will
sound just as good on a 'music centre' or whatever isn't the case.

I'm using 'music box' more generally to mean a system which plays music in
a way that suits the user from info that is abstracted from the effects of
being performed live in a real acoustic venue. i.e. the parallel in my mind
is with old mechanical music boxes, not 'music centers'. So I'm using
the term with what you describe included. However it hinges also on just
what 'best' means in the minds of those creating recordings, etc. They
don't all use the same meaning or want the same results.

The point here is that for some listeners and types of music, the optimum
is whatever the user finds 'nicer' without any need to consider a 'real'
source event's sound. As distinct from wanting to hear, warts and all, what
a live performance of something like a Prom would have sounded like if
you'd been standing or sitting in a suitable point in the RAH.

Similarly, some popular music creators want a result that 'sells' by
whatever means. From EQ to compression to soupy added reverb. Whatever
they think the target audience will want to buy. A R3 engineer might
have something else in mind, etc...

I'm not saying there is anything wrong about the 'music box' approach. Just
that it means the user has a different requirement to someone who wants to
'be at the hall'. Hence for them, the sound of a hall won't directly
matter, but for others, it will.

A poor sound system will degrade everything. Likewise, a good one will
get the best from everything.

Agreed. But one effect of a poor system can be to blur distinctions.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article , Jim Lesurf
writes:

OTOH if you just want a 'music box' that plays studio creations that were
laid down track by track, say, then I'd agree the above would be
irrelevant. But that means you want a music box not a high *fidelity*
system. *And* this can be relevant for 'studio creations' which aim at
an effect other than replicating being in the venue.

Note: I do NOT use the term "music box" here in a derogatory sense. I'm
just trying to signal that different people want different things. This
kind of distinction isn't new. You can see it discussed, for example, in
Milner's "Perfecting Sound Forever" book. Nothing wrong in this in itself.

The producer of a studio creation will be trying to create the sound
he feels is ideal, so it's only polite to try to reproduce that sound
accurately.

--
Mike Fleming

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In message , Mike Fleming
writes

The producer of a studio creation will be trying to create the sound
he feels is ideal, so it's only polite to try to reproduce that sound
accurately.

Not sure how well I can express myself here. I think two different
experiences are being discussed. Listening to 'classical' musical, it
is the sound engineer is trying to capture that live sound, to be
reproduced at home via CD.

With 'popular' (including pop/rock/country/whatever) music is not the
opposite true? Whether we are discussing a recording made last week or
the Crystals in 1963, it is the live artist trying to reproduce the
sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD.

In other words, the 'real' sound with classical is what we hear live.
With pop, the 'real' sound is decided by the engineer.
--
Graeme

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

On 18/11/2017 08:23, Graeme wrote:
In message , Mike Fleming
writes

The producer of a studio creation will be trying to create the sound
he feels is ideal, so it's only polite to try to reproduce that sound
accurately.

Not sure how well I can express myself here.Â* I think two different
experiences are being discussed.Â* Listening to 'classical' musical, it
is the sound engineer is trying to capture that live sound, to be
reproduced at home via CD.

With 'popular' (including pop/rock/country/whatever) music is not the
opposite true?Â* Whether we are discussing a recording made last week or
the Crystals in 1963, it is the live artist trying to reproduce the
sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD.

That won't work with Sgt Pepper and the many albums that followed it.


In other words, the 'real' sound with classical is what we hear live.
With pop, the 'real' sound is decided by the engineer.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article , Graeme
writes:

In message , Mike Fleming
writes

The producer of a studio creation will be trying to create the sound
he feels is ideal, so it's only polite to try to reproduce that sound
accurately.

Not sure how well I can express myself here. I think two different
experiences are being discussed. Listening to 'classical' musical, it
is the sound engineer is trying to capture that live sound, to be
reproduced at home via CD.

With 'popular' (including pop/rock/country/whatever) music is not the
opposite true? Whether we are discussing a recording made last week or
the Crystals in 1963, it is the live artist trying to reproduce the
sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD.

In other words, the 'real' sound with classical is what we hear live.
With pop, the 'real' sound is decided by the engineer.

A fair amount of non-classical music is performed for recordings only
and never played live. But you're rather making my point, the engineer
decides what the real sound is, so, if you want the real sound that
the engineer decided on, you need a high fidelity system.

--
Mike Fleming

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In message , Graeme Wall
writes
On 18/11/2017 08:23, Graeme wrote:

With 'popular' (including pop/rock/country/whatever) music is not
the opposite true?* Whether we are discussing a recording made last
week or the Crystals in 1963, it is the live artist trying to
reproduce the sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD.

That won't work with Sgt Pepper and the many albums that followed it.

Surely that is exactly where it works? Sgt Pepper was an engineer
produced album, and the Beatles could never have played it live, to
sound like the album the public knew. Perhaps we are at cross purposes,
but I struggle to see how any live band could reproduce, on stage, the
same sound that had been created on a record by Phil Spector, George
Martin etc. Having said that, does it matter? People still love
hearing the Beatles thumping out Get Back on a roof, but it isn't the
same as track as released. Then again, does it matter? How many times
has Queen at Live Aid been played via YouTube? Fans love to listen to
their favourites whether live or as presented on disc, the fact that the
music will never be quite the same is irrelevant.
--
Graeme

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article ,
Graeme wrote:
In message , Mike Fleming
writes

The producer of a studio creation will be trying to create the sound
he feels is ideal, so it's only polite to try to reproduce that sound
accurately.

Not sure how well I can express myself here. I think two different
experiences are being discussed. Listening to 'classical' musical, it
is the sound engineer is trying to capture that live sound, to be
reproduced at home via CD.

With 'popular' (including pop/rock/country/whatever) music is not the
opposite true? Whether we are discussing a recording made last week or
the Crystals in 1963, it is the live artist trying to reproduce the
sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD.

In other words, the 'real' sound with classical is what we hear live.
With pop, the 'real' sound is decided by the engineer.

It is in both cases.

If you were to do a rule of thumb for a classical recording with no chance
to experiment or rehearse in the venue, you'd simply sling a stereo pair
above the conductor. Since he is the one who 'engineers' the balance of
the orchestra. But that's not a place any member of the audience can hear
the work from.

--
*Consciousness: That annoying time between naps.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

On 18/11/2017 09:43, Graeme wrote:
In message , Graeme Wall
writes
On 18/11/2017 08:23, Graeme wrote:

Â*With 'popular' (including pop/rock/country/whatever) music is not
theÂ* opposite true?Â* Whether we are discussing a recording made last
week orÂ* the Crystals in 1963, it is the live artist trying to
reproduce theÂ* sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD.

That won't work with Sgt Pepper and the many albums that followed it.

Surely that is exactly where it works?Â* Sgt Pepper was an engineer
produced album, and the Beatles could never have played it live, to
sound like the album the public knew.Â* Perhaps we are at cross purposes,
but I struggle to see how any live band could reproduce, on stage, the
same sound that had been created on a record by Phil Spector, George
Martin etc.

We are at cross purposes, I was addressing the remark about live artists
trying to reproduce the sound record buyers hear on the LP/CD.

Having said that, does it matter?

To me, not at all.

People still love
hearing the Beatles thumping out Get Back on a roof, but it isn't the
same as track as released.Â* Then again, does it matter?Â*Â* How many times
has Queen at Live Aid been played via YouTube?

25,806,265 times apparently!

Fans love to listen to
their favourites whether live or as presented on disc, the fact that the
music will never be quite the same is irrelevant.

Agreed

The thing about Sgt Pepper is that there was never going to be the
chance to hear it live.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article , Mike Fleming
wrote:

A fair amount of non-classical music is performed for recordings only
and never played live. But you're rather making my point, the engineer
decides what the real sound is, so, if you want the real sound that the
engineer decided on, you need a high fidelity system.

Indeed. And for material like R3 broadcasts of concerts, having some idea
of what being there sounds like can help you to decide if what your hi-fi
is producing is a decent representation. Becoming familiar with the sound
of such performances in halls can be a useful guide.

However for some other types of recording, there will be no acoustic
'original' beyond what someone sitting at a mixing desk created as they
operated the controls to get a result they think will 'sell', or have
impact or please their target audience. Using a setup you would never get
to hear and which is unlike home hi-fi systems. In those cases you can't
access such a reference so just have to decide if you like the result or
not.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

On 12/11/2017 13:39, D.M. Procida wrote:
Now that the contents of a CD can be held in RAM, never mind in other
cheaper and still very fast digital storage, what does an expensive CD
player offer that a cheap transport and a decent digital-to-analog
converter cannot?

If DAC products can buffer seconds' or even minutes' worth of data, and
can stream it out to the actual DAC circuitry with GHz precision, there
doesn't seem to be much need any more for costly CD players.

Am I missing something?

Daniele

Not really.

However, if you can get a good deal on a top class CD player then it's always
there for future use whereas the cheaper alternatives might or might not last.
I got an ex-demo top of the range tecnics a few years ago for less than half
price and it does the job really well when needed.

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Mike Fleming
wrote:

A fair amount of non-classical music is performed for recordings only
and never played live. But you're rather making my point, the engineer
decides what the real sound is, so, if you want the real sound that the
engineer decided on, you need a high fidelity system.

Indeed. And for material like R3 broadcasts of concerts, having some idea
of what being there sounds like can help you to decide if what your hi-fi
is producing is a decent representation. Becoming familiar with the sound
of such performances in halls can be a useful guide.

However for some other types of recording, there will be no acoustic
'original' beyond what someone sitting at a mixing desk created as they
operated the controls to get a result they think will 'sell', or have
impact or please their target audience. Using a setup you would never get
to hear and which is unlike home hi-fi systems. In those cases you can't
access such a reference so just have to decide if you like the result or
not.

It's quite true that you can't hear a reference for certain material,
because you'll never hear what (say) Kraftwerk heard in their studio in
1976 or what Laurie Anderson heard in her head.

However, if you know what an ordinary human voice sounds like, and a
piano and a violin, and you know that your hi-fi does a good job of
rendering those in your sitting room, you can listen to Kraftwerk or
Laurie Anderson and have a reasonable degree of confidence that you're
hearing a good rendition of what you should be hearing.

On top of that, even if you listen to something that has no reference,
so that you don't know whether a certain pleasing colouration is part of
it or just a lucky anomaly of your playback system, you can hear the
same thing on another system and realise that one reveals more than the
other, or one is able to present details that the other cannot, and
that's another reasonable and not entirely subjective basis for judging
that one might be better than the other - even in the absence of of a
"real" sound to make your comparisons with.

Daniele

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

On 17/11/2017 10:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Not quite, Jim. Pop type recordings are mixed by their engineers for the
very best sound they can get in their control room. To say they will sound
just as good on a 'music centre' or whatever isn't the case.

AIUI sometimes they are mixed to sound the best they can _on_ _poor_
_equipment_ which compromises the reproduction on something good.

snip

Andy

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
However for some other types of recording, there will be no acoustic
'original' beyond what someone sitting at a mixing desk created as they
operated the controls to get a result they think will 'sell', or have
impact or please their target audience. Using a setup you would never get
to hear and which is unlike home hi-fi systems. In those cases you can't
access such a reference so just have to decide if you like the result or
not.

It's actually quite rare to have a totally electronic recording.
Most have vocals. Many real drums, guitars, and so on. All of which picked
up by microphones in exactly the same way as a classical piece.

--
*Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 17/11/2017 10:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Not quite, Jim. Pop type recordings are mixed by their engineers for
the very best sound they can get in their control room. To say they
will sound just as good on a 'music centre' or whatever isn't the case.

AIUI sometimes they are mixed to sound the best they can _on_ _poor_
_equipment_ which compromises the reproduction on something good.

Same applies to many classical recordings and broadcasts. If nothing else
the dynamic range is usually reduced.

--
*I didn't drive my husband crazy -- I flew him there -- it was faster

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

It's actually quite rare to have a totally electronic recording. Most
have vocals. Many real drums, guitars, and so on. All of which picked up
by microphones in exactly the same way as a classical piece.

Agreed. But may be partioned off to some extent with panels of acoustic
materials, etc. Hence there may not be one overall acoustic, etc. So no
quite "the same way" as something like a R3 concert broadcast.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes:

If you were to do a rule of thumb for a classical recording with no chance
to experiment or rehearse in the venue, you'd simply sling a stereo pair
above the conductor. Since he is the one who 'engineers' the balance of
the orchestra. But that's not a place any member of the audience can hear
the work from.

"People make an awful lot of fuss, anyway, about the quality of the
sound they listen to. Have you noticed; they spend all that time
trying to get the exact effect of an orchestra actually playing in
their sitting room. Personally, I can't think of anything I should
hate more than an orchestra actually playing in my sitting room."

--
Mike Fleming

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 19:15:11 +0000, Mike Fleming
wrote:

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes:

If you were to do a rule of thumb for a classical recording with no chance
to experiment or rehearse in the venue, you'd simply sling a stereo pair
above the conductor. Since he is the one who 'engineers' the balance of
the orchestra. But that's not a place any member of the audience can hear
the work from.

"People make an awful lot of fuss, anyway, about the quality of the
sound they listen to. Have you noticed; they spend all that time
trying to get the exact effect of an orchestra actually playing in
their sitting room. Personally, I can't think of anything I should
hate more than an orchestra actually playing in my sitting room."

You have this backwards. The only way to have the orchestra playing in
your sitting room is with an anechoic recording - nasty sounding
things. What they are trying to do is expand the walls of the sitting
room to match the concert hall by reproducing the acoustics of the
hall. Some of the Dolby D coverage from the RHA was not half bad at
that.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

On 20/11/2017 20:52, Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 19:15:11 +0000, Mike Fleming
wrote:

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes:

If you were to do a rule of thumb for a classical recording with no chance
to experiment or rehearse in the venue, you'd simply sling a stereo pair
above the conductor. Since he is the one who 'engineers' the balance of
the orchestra. But that's not a place any member of the audience can hear
the work from.

"People make an awful lot of fuss, anyway, about the quality of the
sound they listen to. Have you noticed; they spend all that time
trying to get the exact effect of an orchestra actually playing in
their sitting room. Personally, I can't think of anything I should
hate more than an orchestra actually playing in my sitting room."

You have this backwards. The only way to have the orchestra playing in
your sitting room is with an anechoic recording - nasty sounding
things. What they are trying to do is expand the walls of the sitting
room to match the concert hall by reproducing the acoustics of the
hall. Some of the Dolby D coverage from the RHA was not half bad at
that.


Woosh!


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article ,
(Don Pearce) writes:

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 19:15:11 +0000, Mike Fleming
wrote:

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes:

If you were to do a rule of thumb for a classical recording with no chance
to experiment or rehearse in the venue, you'd simply sling a stereo pair
above the conductor. Since he is the one who 'engineers' the balance of
the orchestra. But that's not a place any member of the audience can hear
the work from.

"People make an awful lot of fuss, anyway, about the quality of the
sound they listen to. Have you noticed; they spend all that time
trying to get the exact effect of an orchestra actually playing in
their sitting room. Personally, I can't think of anything I should
hate more than an orchestra actually playing in my sitting room."

You have this backwards. The only way to have the orchestra playing in
your sitting room is with an anechoic recording - nasty sounding
things. What they are trying to do is expand the walls of the sitting
room to match the concert hall by reproducing the acoustics of the
hall. Some of the Dolby D coverage from the RHA was not half bad at
that.

Perhaps I should include this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_DptPvj7ts

And I don't think my sitting room is big enough for an orchestra to
play in it. Expanding the walls to match the concert hall would run
into issues with planning permission, and next door's side wall.

--
Mike Fleming

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

On 20/11/17 00:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It's actually quite rare to have a totally electronic recording.
Most have vocals. Many real drums, guitars, and so on. All of which picked
up by microphones in exactly the same way as a classical piece.


Actually, not that rare. EDM.

--
Adrian C

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:36:57 +0000, Mike Fleming
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) writes:

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 19:15:11 +0000, Mike Fleming
wrote:

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes:

If you were to do a rule of thumb for a classical recording with no chance
to experiment or rehearse in the venue, you'd simply sling a stereo pair
above the conductor. Since he is the one who 'engineers' the balance of
the orchestra. But that's not a place any member of the audience can hear
the work from.

"People make an awful lot of fuss, anyway, about the quality of the
sound they listen to. Have you noticed; they spend all that time
trying to get the exact effect of an orchestra actually playing in
their sitting room. Personally, I can't think of anything I should
hate more than an orchestra actually playing in my sitting room."

You have this backwards. The only way to have the orchestra playing in
your sitting room is with an anechoic recording - nasty sounding
things. What they are trying to do is expand the walls of the sitting
room to match the concert hall by reproducing the acoustics of the
hall. Some of the Dolby D coverage from the RHA was not half bad at
that.

Perhaps I should include this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_DptPvj7ts

And I don't think my sitting room is big enough for an orchestra to
play in it. Expanding the walls to match the concert hall would run
into issues with planning permission, and next door's side wall.

Inflatable houses are the answer.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article , Mike Fleming
wrote:

"People make an awful lot of fuss, anyway, about the quality of the
sound they listen to. Have you noticed; they spend all that time trying
to get the exact effect of an orchestra actually playing in their
sitting room. Personally, I can't think of anything I should hate more
than an orchestra actually playing in my sitting room."

Misses a point that some of us may want to hear the "sound of the orchestra
in the *concert hall* " in our listening room - or at least as close to
that as we can get. And if - like me - you enjoy going to classical
concerts you may wish to do this. Or at least get as close to it as you
can. Something I'd love, not hate. No-one is demanding you or anyone else
*has* to want the same, though.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article , Adrian Caspersz
wrote:
On 20/11/17 00:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It's actually quite rare to have a totally electronic recording.
Most have vocals. Many real drums, guitars, and so on. All of which picked
up by microphones in exactly the same way as a classical piece.


Actually, not that rare. EDM.

Even more so when you add in aggressive 'autotune', etc, on what might
otherwise be human voices. 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

Mike Fleming Moron wrote:

----------------------


And I don't think my sitting room is big enough for an orchestra to
play in it. Expanding the walls to match the concert hall would run
into issues with planning permission, and next door's side wall.



** In a heavily damped room, the lack of reverberation makes the walls seem to disappear. If you play a recording with room ambience included, that is then the only ambience you hear. The apparent "size" of your room changes with each recording.

Much the same experience is heard when listening on good headphones, except the main image is in front of you.



..... Phil

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article ,
Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 20/11/17 00:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It's actually quite rare to have a totally electronic recording. Most
have vocals. Many real drums, guitars, and so on. All of which picked
up by microphones in exactly the same way as a classical piece.


Actually, not that rare. EDM.

Of course purely electronic instrumentals exist. But only as a very small
proportion of all recordings.

--
*Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

On 21/11/17 10:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 20/11/17 00:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It's actually quite rare to have a totally electronic recording. Most
have vocals. Many real drums, guitars, and so on. All of which picked
up by microphones in exactly the same way as a classical piece.


Actually, not that rare. EDM.

Of course purely electronic instrumentals exist. But only as a very small
proportion of all recordings.


Made since the year dot, yes :)

--
Adrian C

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

On 21/11/2017 09:47, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Mike Fleming
wrote:

"People make an awful lot of fuss, anyway, about the quality of the
sound they listen to. Have you noticed; they spend all that time trying
to get the exact effect of an orchestra actually playing in their
sitting room. Personally, I can't think of anything I should hate more
than an orchestra actually playing in my sitting room."

Misses a point that some of us may want to hear the "sound of the orchestra
in the *concert hall* " in our listening room - or at least as close to
that as we can get. And if - like me - you enjoy going to classical
concerts you may wish to do this. Or at least get as close to it as you
can. Something I'd love, not hate. No-one is demanding you or anyone else
*has* to want the same, though.


Does nobody remember A Song of Reproduction?


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article , Graeme Wall
wrote:
On 21/11/2017 09:47, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Mike Fleming
wrote:

"People make an awful lot of fuss, anyway, about the quality of the
sound they listen to. Have you noticed; they spend all that time
trying to get the exact effect of an orchestra actually playing in
their sitting room. Personally, I can't think of anything I should
hate more than an orchestra actually playing in my sitting room."

Misses a point that some of us may want to hear the "sound of the
orchestra in the *concert hall* " in our listening room - or at least
as close to that as we can get. And if - like me - you enjoy going to
classical concerts you may wish to do this. Or at least get as close
to it as you can. Something I'd love, not hate. No-one is demanding
you or anyone else *has* to want the same, though.


Does nobody remember A Song of Reproduction?

Yes, I've had a copy for many years. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article ,
Adrian Caspersz wrote:
Of course purely electronic instrumentals exist. But only as a very small
proportion of all recordings.


Made since the year dot, yes :)

There were electronic instruments in the year dot?

I'd say by their very nature they came rather later than the gramophone.
;-)

--
*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

On 21/11/17 13:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian Caspersz wrote:
Of course purely electronic instrumentals exist. But only as a very small
proportion of all recordings.


Made since the year dot, yes :)

There were electronic instruments in the year dot?


Of course... someone must have done a jig to Morse code!

I'd say by their very nature they came rather later than the gramophone.
;-)

gramophone in 1877
morse code in 1830

er, siphon recorder in 1867
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphon_recorder


--
Adrian C

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

D.M. Procida wrote:

Clearly, the discerning hi-fi consumer will buy whatever seems to work
for them at the right price.

But, why do the manufacturers design and build CD players the way they
do?

[...]

The cheapest CDROM drive has to scrape every bit off a disc in order to
function as a reliable device for digital storage of software and data.
Presumably it can do just the same job for a music CD.

It might be cool to design a CD player with a solid, weighty chassis and
aerospace-grade bearings - but if the job of getting data off it can be
done as effectively by a transport + reader + data interface that costs
peanuts, why spend money doing that when it could be spent where it
would make more difference (a better DAC, a better control interface, a
better PSU)?

It's still not clear to me whether I'm missing something about how CD
audio actually works, or whether the CD player as we've known it for the
last 30+ years is an anachronism.

In a hotel lobby today, I was leafing through an hi-fi magazine I
happened to see. It reviewed a CD player, opening with a sentence to the
effect that "the CD player as we know it may soon be dead".

This CD player (a Meridian, and rather expensive) apparently uses a
cheap CD-ROM drive to get the data off the disk, and can use the drive's
extra speed to read ahead and buffer it (allowing it for example to have
multiple goes at reading problematic areas of the disk) in pretty much
the way I suggested would be possible.

I assume it's this one:
https://www.meridian-audio.com/en/products/cd-players/reference-808v6/.

So maybe I'm not missing anything... although I do note that this
solution to the problem of playing CDs doesn't actually make the
business cheaper.

Daniele

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
This CD player (a Meridian, and rather expensive) apparently uses a
cheap CD-ROM drive to get the data off the disk, and can use the drive's
extra speed to read ahead and buffer it (allowing it for example to have
multiple goes at reading problematic areas of the disk) in pretty much
the way I suggested would be possible.

I've got a CD 'jukebox' here. Either plays CDs direct, or rips them to an
internal hard drive. And thrust me, you don't want a CD-Rom drive spinning
at speed in the same room as a CD you're listening to.

--
*El nino made me do it

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

Once upon a time on usenet Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
This CD player (a Meridian, and rather expensive) apparently uses a
cheap CD-ROM drive to get the data off the disk, and can use the
drive's extra speed to read ahead and buffer it (allowing it for
example to have multiple goes at reading problematic areas of the
disk) in pretty much the way I suggested would be possible.

I've got a CD 'jukebox' here. Either plays CDs direct, or rips them
to an internal hard drive. And thrust me, you don't want a CD-Rom
drive spinning at speed in the same room as a CD you're listening to.

Thrust you? No thanks. ;-)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
This CD player (a Meridian, and rather expensive) apparently uses a
cheap CD-ROM drive to get the data off the disk, and can use the drive's
extra speed to read ahead and buffer it (allowing it for example to have
multiple goes at reading problematic areas of the disk) in pretty much
the way I suggested would be possible.

I've got a CD 'jukebox' here. Either plays CDs direct, or rips them to an
internal hard drive. And thrust me, you don't want a CD-Rom drive spinning
at speed in the same room as a CD you're listening to.

I know what a CD-ROM drive at full blast sounds like. However even the
cheapest ones now have quiet or silent modes; they don't all have to run
at top speed all the time.

The Meridian solution seems to do as I imagined, needing neither to
operate fully in real-time or to require storage of the complete CD.

Is your CD jukebox a homegrown affair?

Daniele

What is the point of expensive CD players?
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:41:35 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
This CD player (a Meridian, and rather expensive) apparently uses a
cheap CD-ROM drive to get the data off the disk, and can use the drive's
extra speed to read ahead and buffer it (allowing it for example to have
multiple goes at reading problematic areas of the disk) in pretty much
the way I suggested would be possible.

I've got a CD 'jukebox' here. Either plays CDs direct, or rips them to an
internal hard drive. And thrust me, you don't want a CD-Rom drive spinning
at speed in the same room as a CD you're listening to.

I know what a CD-ROM drive at full blast sounds like. However even the
cheapest ones now have quiet or silent modes; they don't all have to run
at top speed all the time.

The Meridian solution seems to do as I imagined, needing neither to
operate fully in real-time or to require storage of the complete CD.

Is your CD jukebox a homegrown affair?

Daniele

Transfer to SSD has to be the answer to all these issues.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus