Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #281   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 6/28/2004 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung

Date: 6/27/2004 10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: wjDDc.118970$HG.109026@attbi_s53

S888Wheel wrote:

From: chung

Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From:
(Nousaine)
Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo
wrote:




On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article
,

"Nousaine"
wrote:

It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case
here
on
both sides.

Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything

that
can
be
heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't
measure
a
difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something

similar.
I
then
asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable
sound
.....
and I don't recall a response.

Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that

we
haven't
already done?

It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10
people
were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor

are
you
the expert on what measurements to make.

So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices?

Are
some
people just lucky?

Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest

you
pose
those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves.

Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think
about the questions.

It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset
with
any eroneous conclusions they may draw.

Really? It seems like some of the people who came up with the erroneous
conclusions get unhappy when it was pointed out to them why those
conclusions were erroneous. I did not sense any objectivists getting
upset over these erroneous conclusions at all.

The question is better answered by the
designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the
designers.



If you would say they "listen" to them for validation
then
I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?




Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate
you
should have already considered this.

Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer,
think. And question.

I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on
consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues.

Wait a minute. Tom was asking some very general questions on the design
process. I would think that someone not being very technical can still
give an educated guess.

What is the point of guessing? I think such guesses are nothing more than

shark
food.

Or start thinking about an answer.

Why? Some of us would really prefer to get at the best sound we can get

without
becoming EEs.


In that case, you probably don't want to know the answer anyway.


If the answers are not simple and easy for the layman to get then I am not that
interestred.

So why
are you even interested in Tom's question?


Because it looked to me like bait for a shell game.


In case you have forgotten, Tom's question was how did the designers
design those products, if, as Mr Bromo suggested, no one knows how to
make measurements that show those products work.


If that was the question then it was based on a false premise. Bromo never
claimed "no one knows how to make measurements that shows those products work."


Please read with more care. Here is what Tom asked:

"Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we
haven't already done?"

To which, Mr Bromo replied:

"It might be that no one knows. "

The question posted by Tom was how did the designers design those
products *if, as Mr. Bromo suggested,* no one knows how to make
measurements that show those products work.

Where is the false premise? Do you see a difference between "claimed"
(your word) and "suggested"?


Seems like a legitimate
and fair question to ask on this forum.


Perhaps it does until one realizes it may be premised on a flase assumption.But
then you are speaking for Tom here. I thought that wasn't even allowed. Oh
well.


Why, you spoke for Mr. Bromo, no?


And it can be considered a good
rhetorical question, too.


Personally I think good rhetorical question is an oxymoron.


That does not seem to stop you from asking them...

  #282   Report Post  
Chelvam
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
newsaqGc.31138$XM6.12730@attbi_s53...

snip..snip..


If one need to study with the same level of expertise
in any topics mentioned in RAHE before they can put forward their opinion
then I say many must keep out of any discussion.


No problem with putting forward your opinion, but you must *listen* to
the rebuttals if you are to move the debate forward.


haven't I? google and see for yourself.


You have *no* proof that stray light affects lasers in commercially
available CD players. You are taking the authors comments *entirely*
out of context. Since you admit that you know nothing about physics,
please refrain from drawing these incorrect conclusions from technical
papers which you admit that you do not understand.


Mr.Pinkerton, have your read the article? The article was quoted to prove
that stray lights do exist and affect the laser. Is that so difficult to
understand? Prof Sukow said that stray light do affect laser. He also said
the project is useful, among others, music. Read. Sir.

If the technical paper was irrelevant then say so by backing up with some
explanation. You can talk why it is out of contect for the benefit of other
readers.


I have repeatedly emphasized that I know
nothing about Physics.


So why do you keep arguing on technical points with the physicists on
this newsgroup?


Maybe, to provide entertaiment for physicists after a hard day of DBT.

  #283   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 6/28/2004 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung

Date: 6/27/2004 10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: wjDDc.118970$HG.109026@attbi_s53

S888Wheel wrote:

From: chung

Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From:
(Nousaine)
Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bromo
wrote:




On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article
,

"Nousaine"
wrote:

It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case
here
on
both sides.

Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything

that
can
be
heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't
measure
a
difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something

similar.
I
then
asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable
sound
.....
and I don't recall a response.

Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that

we
haven't
already done?

It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10
people
were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor

are
you
the expert on what measurements to make.

So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices?

Are
some
people just lucky?

Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest

you
pose
those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves.

Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think
about the questions.

It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset
with
any eroneous conclusions they may draw.

Really? It seems like some of the people who came up with the erroneous
conclusions get unhappy when it was pointed out to them why those
conclusions were erroneous. I did not sense any objectivists getting
upset over these erroneous conclusions at all.

The question is better answered by the
designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the
designers.



If you would say they "listen" to them for validation
then
I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?




Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate
you
should have already considered this.

Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer,
think. And question.

I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on
consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues.

Wait a minute. Tom was asking some very general questions on the design
process. I would think that someone not being very technical can still
give an educated guess.

What is the point of guessing? I think such guesses are nothing more than

shark
food.

Or start thinking about an answer.

Why? Some of us would really prefer to get at the best sound we can get

without
becoming EEs.


In that case, you probably don't want to know the answer anyway.


If the answers are not simple and easy for the layman to get then I am not that
interestred.

So why
are you even interested in Tom's question?


Because it looked to me like bait for a shell game.


In case you have forgotten, Tom's question was how did the designers
design those products, if, as Mr Bromo suggested, no one knows how to
make measurements that show those products work.


If that was the question then it was based on a false premise. Bromo never
claimed "no one knows how to make measurements that shows those products work."


Please read with more care. Here is what Tom asked:

"Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we
haven't already done?"

To which, Mr Bromo replied:

"It might be that no one knows. "

The question posted by Tom was how did the designers design those
products *if, as Mr. Bromo suggested,* no one knows how to make
measurements that show those products work.

Where is the false premise? Do you see a difference between "claimed"
(your word) and "suggested"?

Seems like a legitimate
and fair question to ask on this forum.


Perhaps it does until one realizes it may be premised on a flase assumption.But
then you are speaking for Tom here. I thought that wasn't even allowed. Oh
well.


Why? You spoke for Mr. Bromo, no?


And it can be considered a good
rhetorical question, too.


Personally I think good rhetorical question is an oxymoron.


That does not seem to stop you from asking them...
  #284   Report Post  
Georg Grosz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

"Chelvam" wrote in message ...
"Georg Grosz" wrote in message
...

snip..snip..


I am an optical engineer. Prof. Sukow is describing a phenomenon that
has been known about lasers since time immemorial. The techniques for
overcoming this problem have also been known from time immemorial, and
are quite simple to implement in a system like a CD player.


Okay, a well known problem addressed since time immemorial. But would you
state the margin of error among different laser pick up is uniform among
different manufacturers. Or could there be in some laser mechanism the
acceptable margin of error is higher than the others and would that affect
audio quality?


In terms of stray light in general, a diode laser is in fact
remarkably insensitive to incoherent stray light for numerous reasons.
The only potential problems occur when the laser has to eat some of
its own output beam.


Has this problem been eliminated or does it still occur? And what are the
best ways to prevent laser eating its own output?


In my experience, simple optical isolation of a laser diode can reduce
the rate of mode hops (small but sudden step-function changes in
output power and wavelength) to a few per hour or even less. At the
same time, the circuitry monitors the laser power and adjusts the
injection current, so the actual effect is just a "blip" or "dip" in
the optical power. Meanwhile, if the detection circuitry is
ratiometric, then it is probably insensitive to power fluctuations --
another technology known since time immoral ;-)

My guess is that the error rate introduced by mode hops is either
zero, or insignificant. This is especially because the errors are
random, and thus can be corrected by various error recovery schemes
used in CD players. But the details of the CD data system are out of
my expertise.

In a CD player, the important reflection is the one that is not
accidental -- it is the full laser power reflected by the aluminized
data surface. In this case, the reflection does not significantly
alter the polarization of the laser, so a "simple isolator" is used.
This is a polarizing beam splitter followed by a quarter-wave retarder
plate. The round trip through the plate, to the CD, and back through
the plate, results in a 90 degree polarization rotation, and the
return beam is deflected by the beamsplitter instead of going back
through to the laser. This has the added benefit of separating the
return beam from the laser beam path so it can be focused onto a
detector.

A more elaborate optical isolator, (google Faraday Isolator) does not
require the reflection to be polarization preserving, but is also much
more bulky and expensive. It is used for things like telecom, high
power lasers, and researchy applications.

There is actually a simpler approach that sometimes works: Deliberate
misalignment, so the reflected beam simply misses the laser. In most
laser optics, surfaces are deliberately tilted in order to eliminate
feedback and cavity resonances. Deliberate defocusing also works, if
the system can tolerate it. Unfortunately, neither of these works when
there is a highly reflective object at a focal plane -- exactly the
situation required for a CD player.
  #285   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

Chelvam wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
...

snip..snip..

Are you interested in audible degradations, or any measureable

degradations?

Neither, just want to know why my player B (if you remember that posting)
sounds better than a more "modern" player. I want to know why I should be
satisfied with a $500 player over ,say a Esoteric.



So you are only interested in the sound differences, which are caused by
audible degradations. Seems like you should be doing controlled
listening tests then to verify that there are audible differences first.


  #286   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

On 6 Jul 2004 16:09:21 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:

Thank you, your explanation is precise and useful. Appreciated.


To clarify one point - oversampling has *nothing* to do with error
cortrection. Data redundancy and error correction are achieved via the
use of a cross-interleaved Reed_Solomon code (CIRC) data structure
which scatters the data around the disc in such a way that even
drilling quite large holes in the disc will not cause any data loss.

It should also be noted that as a result, the data structure on the
disc bears no simple relationship to the analogue output signal, so
the notion that any effect on data reading can translate to such
effects as 'muddy bass', or 'splashy treble' is quite ludicrous.

"Cosworth" wrote in message
...
If they are not read because
of light scattering or any other reason, you get errors which are often
corrected because of redundancy built into the system (oversampling), but if
they're not read you don't get less hi-end or muddy bass--you get skips and
chirps.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #287   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

On 7/7/04 3:07 AM, in article 6jNGc.36270$a24.31089@attbi_s03, "chung"
wrote:

In case you have forgotten, Tom's question was how did the designers
design those products, if, as Mr Bromo suggested, no one knows how to
make measurements that show those products work.


If that was the question then it was based on a false premise. Bromo never
claimed "no one knows how to make measurements that shows those products
work."


Please read with more care. Here is what Tom asked:

"Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we
haven't already done?"

To which, Mr Bromo replied:

"It might be that no one knows. "

The question posted by Tom was how did the designers design those
products *if, as Mr. Bromo suggested,* no one knows how to make
measurements that show those products work.


That would be what I said - to clarify, there may be a listenable difference
in the amp-wire-speaker combination - but based upon the way measurements
are done, it is possible we have missed something. No shame in that.


Where is the false premise? Do you see a difference between "claimed"
(your word) and "suggested"?


  #288   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

chung wrote:
Chelvam wrote:


"chung" wrote in message
...

snip..snip..

Are you interested in audible degradations, or any measureable

degradations?

Neither, just want to know why my player B (if you remember that posting)
sounds better than a more "modern" player. I want to know why I should be
satisfied with a $500 player over ,say a Esoteric.



So you are only interested in the sound differences, which are caused by
audible degradations. Seems like you should be doing controlled
listening tests then to verify that there are audible differences first.


My impression is that at this point he's mainly interested in offering what
he *thinks* is evidence in support for his sighted impressions, without much
understanding of the actual value or applicability of such evidence to his experience.

--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

  #289   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 07:08:11 GMT, "Chelvam"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
newsaqGc.31138$XM6.12730@attbi_s53...

snip..snip..


If one need to study with the same level of expertise
in any topics mentioned in RAHE before they can put forward their opinion
then I say many must keep out of any discussion.


No problem with putting forward your opinion, but you must *listen* to
the rebuttals if you are to move the debate forward.


haven't I? google and see for yourself.


You have not *listened*, you have merely searched for more obscure
quotes which *on the surface*, appear to support your preconceptions.

You have *no* proof that stray light affects lasers in commercially
available CD players. You are taking the authors comments *entirely*
out of context. Since you admit that you know nothing about physics,
please refrain from drawing these incorrect conclusions from technical
papers which you admit that you do not understand.


Mr.Pinkerton, have your read the article?


Yes, I have, and I've also worked in laser labs.

The article was quoted to prove
that stray lights do exist and affect the laser. Is that so difficult to
understand? Prof Sukow said that stray light do affect laser. He also said
the project is useful, among others, music. Read. Sir.


I did read - did you? Where did Sukow say *anything* about commercial
CD players? Hint - nowhere.

If the technical paper was irrelevant then say so by backing up with some
explanation. You can talk why it is out of contect for the benefit of other
readers.


I already did - he was talking about *laboratory* setups to educate
his students how *not* to design laser-based equipment. Surprise,
surprise - Sony/Philips already know how to avoid these problems - and
have done for twenty years.

I have repeatedly emphasized that I know
nothing about Physics.


So why do you keep arguing on technical points with the physicists on
this newsgroup?


Maybe, to provide entertaiment for physicists after a hard day of DBT.


It's not entertaining, just excessively hard work...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #290   Report Post  
Chelvam
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 07:08:11 GMT, "Chelvam"
wrote:


Yes, I have, and I've also worked in laser labs.


I wish with your expertise in laser and electronics and almost in every
High End brand you should come with an excellent budget CD Player of your
own. I will buy them.




  #291   Report Post  
Cosworth
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:fm2Hc.41766$%_6.25609@attbi_s01...
...

To clarify one point - oversampling has *nothing* to do with error
cortrection. Data redundancy and error correction are achieved via the
use of a cross-interleaved Reed_Solomon code (CIRC) data structure
which scatters the data around the disc in such a way that even
drilling quite large holes in the disc will not cause any data loss.


I stand corrected. I must've misinterpreted an article in Mix Magazine 20
years ago.

So what IS the purpose of oversampling???

Keep learning!

Bill Balmer

  #292   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default tweaks and proof

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:58:24 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/7/04 3:07 AM, in article 6jNGc.36270$a24.31089@attbi_s03, "chung"
wrote:

In case you have forgotten, Tom's question was how did the designers
design those products, if, as Mr Bromo suggested, no one knows how to
make measurements that show those products work.

If that was the question then it was based on a false premise. Bromo never
claimed "no one knows how to make measurements that shows those products
work."


Please read with more care. Here is what Tom asked:

"Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we
haven't already done?"

To which, Mr Bromo replied:

"It might be that no one knows. "

The question posted by Tom was how did the designers design those
products *if, as Mr. Bromo suggested,* no one knows how to make
measurements that show those products work.


That would be what I said - to clarify, there may be a listenable difference
in the amp-wire-speaker combination - but based upon the way measurements
are done, it is possible we have missed something. No shame in that.


I's nothing to do with measurements - there is simply *no* evidence
that *anyone* can hear differences among nominally competent cables.
Until the premise of 'cable sound' can be shown to *exist*, why should
we be measuring anything?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #293   Report Post  
Georg Grosz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

"Chelvam" wrote in message news:YTeHc.47164$Oq2.3553@attbi_s52...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 07:08:11 GMT, "Chelvam"
wrote:


Yes, I have, and I've also worked in laser labs.


I wish with your expertise in laser and electronics and almost in every
High End brand you should come with an excellent budget CD Player of your
own. I will buy them.


Why re-invent the wheel? You can already get an excellent budget CD
player of your own at Target for less than $100 AFAIK. A few more
dollars gets you a digital AM/FM tuner in the bargain. That's going to
be my next stereo system -- an AM/FM/CD Discman on the bookshelf with
the power amp hidden in the basement.

  #294   Report Post  
Georg Grosz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

"Cosworth" wrote in message news:%_eHc.47204$Oq2.35597@attbi_s52...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:fm2Hc.41766$%_6.25609@attbi_s01...
..

To clarify one point - oversampling has *nothing* to do with error
cortrection. Data redundancy and error correction are achieved via the
use of a cross-interleaved Reed_Solomon code (CIRC) data structure
which scatters the data around the disc in such a way that even
drilling quite large holes in the disc will not cause any data loss.


I stand corrected. I must've misinterpreted an article in Mix Magazine 20
years ago.

So what IS the purpose of oversampling???

Keep learning!

Bill Balmer


Oversampling simplifies the design of the analog portion of the
anti-aliasing and anti-imaging filters, at the expense of more
complicated digital filtering. But digital filtering is "free" because
it is simply encoded into the control firmware of the recording /
playback devices. Also, digital filters produce no noise of their own.
  #295   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:46:49 GMT, "Chelvam"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 07:08:11 GMT, "Chelvam"
wrote:

Yes, I have, and I've also worked in laser labs.


I wish with your expertise in laser and electronics and almost in every
High End brand you should come with an excellent budget CD Player of your
own. I will buy them.


Don't bother. Sony, Technics and Cambridge have been making excellent
budget players for many years.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



  #296   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:54:19 GMT, "Cosworth"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:fm2Hc.41766$%_6.25609@attbi_s01...
..
To clarify one point - oversampling has *nothing* to do with error
cortrection. Data redundancy and error correction are achieved via the
use of a cross-interleaved Reed_Solomon code (CIRC) data structure
which scatters the data around the disc in such a way that even
drilling quite large holes in the disc will not cause any data loss.

I stand corrected. I must've misinterpreted an article in Mix Magazine 20
years ago.

So what IS the purpose of oversampling???


It allows the use of a gentle low-order analogue reconstruction
filter, leaving the 'brick wall' filter in the digital domain, where
it can be easily (and cheaply) implemented with a very high degree of
accuracy.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #297   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

(Georg Grosz) wrote:

"Chelvam" wrote in message
news:YTeHc.47164$Oq2.3553@attbi_s52...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 07:08:11 GMT, "Chelvam"
wrote:


Yes, I have, and I've also worked in laser labs.


I wish with your expertise in laser and electronics and almost in every
High End brand you should come with an excellent budget CD Player of your
own. I will buy them.


Why re-invent the wheel? You can already get an excellent budget CD
player of your own at Target for less than $100 AFAIK. A few more
dollars gets you a digital AM/FM tuner in the bargain. That's going to
be my next stereo system -- an AM/FM/CD Discman on the bookshelf with
the power amp hidden in the basement.


For what its worth: in the mid- 80s-early90s I used to teach a course on
economics at Bellcore Tech which focused on technological change and
depreciation. Because many of the students were accountants, economists,
regulators, university students (including professors), public service
commission personnel along with others) I used the then-new compact disc player
as a great example of telecommunication technology that could be traced back to
early 1900s that was coming to vision at the user-level in available playback
machines that they had been enjoying in the telephone network for several
decades.

In the function of this course I would purchase at retail cd players and offer
them as a prize in a course-ending technology quiz. Because the course
development and management people wouldn't pay for the devices (not in their
budget) I bought them myself.

I purchased a few dozen cd players (remember that we are in the mid-late 80s)
and never paid more than $100 for a single one (all bought retail in local
stored in Chicago; no mail order devices) and I never found one that sounded
differently from my home reference device in bias controlled listening tests.

So can you find an inexpensive cd-player that won't compromise sound quality
..... you are goddamn right.

Follow-up?

Several years later PSACS conducted a follow-up test. We compared a prototype
Philips 1st Gen cd player and a portable player with a Sony ES (considered top
at that time) and found exactly ONE of ten enthusiasts was able to reliably
identify the Phillips from the Sony in 10 trials. Even then because the
start-up cycles were not closely synch'd even his results may be questionable.
And the 14-bit Philips was a prototype.

More interesting; nobody ....read not one subject was able to reliably identify
the portable (Radio Shack) from the reference.
  #299   Report Post  
normanstrong
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message
news:qoSJc.88064$JR4.50240@attbi_s54...

Nousaine,

Are you asserting that WRT CDPs there is no audible difference

between any
of them or or you saying that low end players sound very much alike?


The chances of 2 CD players sounding bad--and alike--are very poor.
Things that sound bad usually sound bad in different ways. It's sort
of like the clock analogy: A man wants an accurate clock, but he has
no time standard to check them against. So he sets 5 clocks for the
exact same time and comes back a month later. 4 of the clocks read
the same within 5 seconds and the 5th one reads a minute fast. Would
he buy the 5th one on the theory that the other four each lost a
minute?

Norm Strong

  #300   Report Post  
B&D
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

On 7/17/04 10:52 PM, in article IBlKc.106134$%_6.51857@attbi_s01,
"normanstrong" wrote:

"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message
news:qoSJc.88064$JR4.50240@attbi_s54...

Nousaine,

Are you asserting that WRT CDPs there is no audible difference

between any
of them or or you saying that low end players sound very much alike?


The chances of 2 CD players sounding bad--and alike--are very poor.
Things that sound bad usually sound bad in different ways. It's sort
of like the clock analogy: A man wants an accurate clock, but he has
no time standard to check them against. So he sets 5 clocks for the
exact same time and comes back a month later. 4 of the clocks read
the same within 5 seconds and the 5th one reads a minute fast. Would
he buy the 5th one on the theory that the other four each lost a
minute?


Ah, but does he have an accurate standard to be able to know if it is 4
clocks that are acuurate-ish and one really not accurate?

Buy an atomic clock receiver and be done with it! :-)



  #301   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Now we have proof (was tweaks and proof)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:53:10 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/17/04 10:52 PM, in article IBlKc.106134$%_6.51857@attbi_s01,
"normanstrong" wrote:

"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message
news:qoSJc.88064$JR4.50240@attbi_s54...

Nousaine,

Are you asserting that WRT CDPs there is no audible difference

between any
of them or or you saying that low end players sound very much alike?


The chances of 2 CD players sounding bad--and alike--are very poor.
Things that sound bad usually sound bad in different ways. It's sort
of like the clock analogy: A man wants an accurate clock, but he has
no time standard to check them against. So he sets 5 clocks for the
exact same time and comes back a month later. 4 of the clocks read
the same within 5 seconds and the 5th one reads a minute fast. Would
he buy the 5th one on the theory that the other four each lost a
minute?


Ah, but does he have an accurate standard to be able to know if it is 4
clocks that are acuurate-ish and one really not accurate?


If you read the original post again, you'll se that it's a given that
he does *not* have a time standard to check the clocks.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:00 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"