In article , Mike Fleming
wrote:
If you have no clue what a violin or any other instrument sounds like,
how would you decide if what you hear from a CD is 'fidelity'? Ditto
for the sound of a broadcast from a given hall?

I doubt very much that the Chinese violin sitting in one of my cupboards
upstairs sounds exactly like a Strad or Amati. So while hearing a violin
live will help in general terms, even with absolute auditory
recollection, unless you're listening to exactly the same instrument,
the tone will vary to a greater or lesser extent.

Yes, and changing the tuning of a piano or the strings of a violin alters
the sound. Just as changing venue will, or even playing further from the
bridge with more force.

But if you sit at home and can't tell the difference between a concert from
the RAH and one from the RFH and convincingly recognise the same sound as
being there, you aren't getting anything like 'fidelity'.

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. :-)

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

On 14/11/2017 13:46, Bob Latham wrote:
Over several years I have ripped 2400 CDs. Two I couldn't rip because
they were protected and not red book standard.

Just for once Linux _is_ the answer... it sees straight through the copy
protection schemes. Microsoft played ball, and deliberately did NOT
bypass the copy protection. Since the Sony rootkit scandal things may
have changed, so it may be worth giving them another go.

Andy

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
The idea of needing a live reference is utter Bunkum, you don't.
I've been to many classical concerts and a few rock ones but it
doesn't help in the slightest.

You do push that boat rather too far. :-)

If you have no clue what a violin or any other instrument sounds like,
how would you decide if what you hear from a CD is 'fidelity'? Ditto
for the sound of a broadcast from a given hall?

It just doesn't work like that for me and never has. Some people claim
you cannot decide on kit without listening to "real" music and not
studio created stuff, I don't agree with that either.


That's fine *FOR YOU*. But not a basis for telling *everyone* else they
will be exactly the same as you.


If you don't give a damn for what the sound in the hall was, then,
yes, you can just pick a system, etc, for a Hi-Fi (sic) which acts as
music box and plays the noises you like. But that is a music box not a
High *Fidelity* system.

I just totally disagree. By that token anyone who doesn't listen to jazz
or classical is not likely to end up with High Fidelity.

You fail to distinguish cases in the relevant way. Some recordings will be
in a venue or hall or similar and the acoustic will be a part of the sound
an *audience* would expect to hear. Others will be laid down in a studio
and be 'created' by recording engineers, etc.

[snip]

I have never and will never evaluate kit on classical music, for me it
does not push the system to the edges to see what disappoints or what is
clean.

That's fine for your individual value of "I", but not a basis of asserting
it applied to *everyone* else.

*If* you want to feel at home that what you hear sounds like what you
heard when at the venue, then that is a big help.

Whatever you buy you'll never get anywhere near a live performance in a
different room and hours later you will not be able to recall anyway.

Yet from experience you can get 'nearer' by taking comparisons into
account.

Your views and requirements are fine for you, but avoid taking for granted
they all apply to *everyone* else in *every* case.

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

Jitter now the thing about this is that in pre jitter days, digital audio
sounded decidedly odd.
The absolute levels were erroneous quite often.
The blurring with jitter has actually made CDs sound better but of course
if you had infinite bits then you would not need it would you.


I think in a way this is all a bit of a pink herring, as I don't think
anything like a perfect recording and playback system has yet been designed
as the world is not perfect. Our ears are designed so that intermodulation
of a natural kind is considered pleasant, after all you would design ears
linear if you wanted distortion free sound.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:39:34 +0000,
(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

Yup, the power of marketing to the rich and gullible. This works
particularly well on those with just a little technical knowledge -
enough, for example to understand that jitter is a bad thing, but not
enough to know that it has nothing to do with the CD's drive
mechanism.

d

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

In article
,
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?

More to a CD player than just how it produces sound. And making one which
looks good and has pleasant to use controls and display etc, is likely to
cost the big part of it.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

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

In article
,
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?

It plays a CD. Useful for people that have them and either can't, or don't,
want to have to rip them all, etc. Given this, up to them to decide which
one they prefer, I assume.

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?

That 'DAC' and 'CD Player' aren't synonyms? :-)

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

In article , Jim Lesurf
writes:

In article
,
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?

It plays a CD. Useful for people that have them and either can't, or don't,
want to have to rip them all, etc. Given this, up to them to decide which
one they prefer, I assume.

Isn't that what the "cheap transport" is for?

--
Mike Fleming

In article , Mike Fleming
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
writes:

In article
,
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?

It plays a CD. Useful for people that have them and either can't, or
don't, want to have to rip them all, etc. Given this, up to them to
decide which one they prefer, I assume.

Isn't that what the "cheap transport" is for?

Depends on what you mean by "for". :-)

If someone simply wants a box that plays Audio CDs and outputs analogue
stereo, then a CD Player is what they'd probably prefer.

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

Jim Lesurf 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?

It plays a CD. Useful for people that have them and either can't, or don't,
want to have to rip them all, etc. Given this, up to them to decide which
one they prefer, I assume.

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?

That 'DAC' and 'CD Player' aren't synonyms? :-)

I don't think you understand my question.

You can play a CD perfectly well in a very cheap transport; all you need
to do is stream the data to a DAC, and as long as you have a buffer
(cheap) that can ensure the bits arrive without timing irregularities
(also cheap), you have something that's limited only by the quality of
the DAC.

I'm not comparing DACs and CD players. I'm asking what *expensive* CD
players are supposed to offer.

Daniele

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
Jim Lesurf 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?

It plays a CD. Useful for people that have them and either can't, or
don't, want to have to rip them all, etc. Given this, up to them to
decide which one they prefer, I assume.

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?

That 'DAC' and 'CD Player' aren't synonyms? :-)

I don't think you understand my question.

Well, I answered the question you actually asked. But perhaps not one the
wanted answered. :-)

You can play a CD perfectly well in a very cheap transport;

Can you? Is this "perfectly" so for *all* such "cheap" transports playing
*every* Audio CD. If so, odd, that I've found some CDs that don't play
correctly in some players whilst doing so in others.

all you need to do is stream the data to a DAC, and as long as you have
a buffer (cheap) that can ensure the bits arrive without timing
irregularities (also cheap), you have something that's limited only by
the quality of the DAC.

You missed out a few points.

Firstly, that means you need a DAC. If someone chooses a CD Player that
comes in the box already, so saves the user from needing another box, with
yet more PSU, metalwork, etc.

I'm not comparing DACs and CD players. I'm asking what *expensive* CD
players are supposed to offer.

You'd have to investigate that example by example. Some may just look nice,
others may do something interesting or useful. I'm not sure there is any
global answer that applies in every case.

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