| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
CD Players sound the same?
Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one, agree with
him as I have experienced these differences myself. I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these differences that Roger describes at http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ? Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this. ------------------------------- "Do all CD Players Sound the Same? Tests for response and distortion in CD players all turn out very well. The measurements show that distortion is extremely low and response is ruler flat. CD players have eliminated the differences between phono cartridges. They have also eliminated pops and clicks and those inevitable scratches on the records that seem to appear out of nowhere. They have also eliminated problems of dust, turntable rumble and playback loss. Despite all of these advantages, there are still listening differences. If you have only heard one CD player, you will have enjoyed all of the advantages without being aware that there are still differences. In an A-B comparison, response is the same, even when compared with a steady source such as pink noise. Harmonic and intermodulation distortion are so low that the players all sound very clean. The difference is something new and may require a readjustment to know what to listen for. The difference is in imaging. It is most easily heard using speakers that have exceptional imaging capabilities. It is almost impossible to convey a listening experience in words. However, I will try to describe what I have heard. I have used a McIntosh MCD7005, McIntosh MVP851and a McIntosh MVP851 supplemented with a McIntosh MDA1000 digital to analog converter for the listening tests. I made these tests in late 2004 and early 2005. Imaging using the 7005 appears to be very wide and pleasing with orchestral music. Some new age recordings seem to completely envelop the listener. It’s all very nice. It was only when I began using the 851 that I noticed there was a difference in imaging. Classical music sounded like it had much better coherence, giving it more clarity and sense of aliveness. However, it was more than just imaging. It was a new kind of distortion difference, more like a phase distortion that affected the coherence of the image. The 851 was made in 2004 and the older 7005 was made in 1987. The explanation had a definite physical cause. It was the digital-to-analog filtering. The filtering was significantly improved in the 851. What I was hearing was confirmed by McIntosh engineering. It was also pointed out that some people preferred the sound of the lesser filtering. I was in agreement when it came to new age music. I liked being enveloped in the sound. However, the spaciousness provided in some new age music is all synthesized. There is no real world reference to hearing this music except through loudspeakers or headphones, whereas, classical music has a real world reference and it is that which guided my decision in my search for improved accuracy. I accepted the new age music, with the improved filtering, as it was probably intended to be that way. The experiment went further when I added the 1000 D-to-A converter to the 851. The digital output of the 851 is fed to the D-to-A converter prior to the filtering. The 1000 converts the digital signals to 786 kHz with 24 bit resolution before converting to analog. This is literally the best filtering possible. The kind of listening experience was similar but not as pronounced. There was a further improvement in coherence and a little more loss of separateness between the speakers. The difference was getting to the point that it wasn’t always audible, depending on the program material. Having heard this further improvement, it became my new reference. So what was the problem in the first place? It was the sampling rate of 44.1 kHz. It is the criticism of many who voiced their opinion and complaints. It was too low in frequency. The problem was not that we can’t hear that high or even half that high. It was in the restoration to the analog form and the digital-to-analog filtering that was inadequate. It didn’t cause a response problem, it caused a spatial or imaging problem.. So why don’t all players have better filtering? Better D-to-A filtering is expensive and a separate D-to-A converter is grossly expensive. The MDA1000 sells for $8000. Perhaps decisions are money oriented. The improvements are slight in comparison to what would be a greatly increased cost for CD players. Most consumers would not notice the difference in listening but would notice the higher cost of the players, which would affect the sales of CDs. In fact, the MP3 format goes in the opposite direction and is very popular The SACD format offers a higher sampling rate and avoids the problem. It is said to be much closer to the original analog sound and analog recordings like tape and vinyl. It is also said that using the MDA1000 offers sound as good as analog. Other formats are being tried such as DVD sound." --------------------------------- rich -- |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
R wrote:
Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one, agree with him as I have experienced these differences myself. I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these differences that Roger describes at http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ? Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this. ------------------------------- "Do all CD Players Sound the Same? Tests for response and distortion in CD players all turn out very well. The measurements show that distortion is extremely low and response is ruler flat. CD players have eliminated the differences between phono cartridges. They have also eliminated pops and clicks and those inevitable scratches on the records that seem to appear out of nowhere. They have also eliminated problems of dust, turntable rumble and playback loss. Despite all of these advantages, there are still listening differences. If you have only heard one CD player, you will have enjoyed all of the advantages without being aware that there are still differences. In an A-B comparison, response is the same, even when compared with a steady source such as pink noise. Harmonic and intermodulation distortion are so low that the players all sound very clean. The difference is something new and may require a readjustment to know what to listen for. The difference is in imaging. It is most easily heard using speakers that have exceptional imaging capabilities. It is almost impossible to convey a listening experience in words. However, I will try to describe what I have heard. I have used a McIntosh MCD7005, McIntosh MVP851and a McIntosh MVP851 supplemented with a McIntosh MDA1000 digital to analog converter for the listening tests. I made these tests in late 2004 and early 2005. Roger gets a lot of things right, but this time he's way off base. In fact doing close comparisons of CD players is one of the tougher A/B games there is to play. Level-matching is easy but time-synch is tough because the players always seem to want to wander off. While the playback speed is often controlled by a 0.005% crystal or resonator, even that fine tolerance allows audible delays to built up fairly quickly. IME the most likely source of sonic differences between optical players relates to more prozaic almost non-audio things like error recovery and concealment., and handling of CD-Rs. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:31:22 GMT, R wrote:
Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one, agree with him as I have experienced these differences myself. I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these differences that Roger describes at http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ? No. I have a Pioneer 'Chinky cheapy' DV-575A universal player which in level-matched time-synchronised DBT comparison, is not sonically distinguishable (by three very experienced listeners) from a Meridian 588, an arguably 'state of the art' dedicated CD player which uses the same type of upsampled D/A conversion described by Roger. The Pioneer cost £109, the 588 is more than £2,000. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:30:28 GMT, R wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:zs2dnRa9kLS8ycjfRVn- : R wrote: Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one, agree with him as I have experienced these differences myself. I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these differences that Roger describes at http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ? Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this. ------------------------------- "Do all CD Players Sound the Same? Tests for response and distortion in CD players all turn out very well. The measurements show that distortion is extremely low and response is ruler flat. CD players have eliminated the differences between phono cartridges. They have also eliminated pops and clicks and those inevitable scratches on the records that seem to appear out of nowhere. They have also eliminated problems of dust, turntable rumble and playback loss. Despite all of these advantages, there are still listening differences. If you have only heard one CD player, you will have enjoyed all of the advantages without being aware that there are still differences. In an A-B comparison, response is the same, even when compared with a steady source such as pink noise. Harmonic and intermodulation distortion are so low that the players all sound very clean. The difference is something new and may require a readjustment to know what to listen for. The difference is in imaging. It is most easily heard using speakers that have exceptional imaging capabilities. It is almost impossible to convey a listening experience in words. However, I will try to describe what I have heard. I have used a McIntosh MCD7005, McIntosh MVP851and a McIntosh MVP851 supplemented with a McIntosh MDA1000 digital to analog converter for the listening tests. I made these tests in late 2004 and early 2005. Roger gets a lot of things right, but this time he's way off base. In fact doing close comparisons of CD players is one of the tougher A/B games there is to play. Level-matching is easy but time-synch is tough because the players always seem to want to wander off. While the playback speed is often controlled by a 0.005% crystal or resonator, even that fine tolerance allows audible delays to built up fairly quickly. IME the most likely source of sonic differences between optical players relates to more prozaic almost non-audio things like error recovery and concealment., and handling of CD-Rs. Thanks for your response Arny. I will take it that your answer to my question is "No". I must ask one question if you don't mind. What is the basic design type of your speakers? Flat panel, pont source are possible answers. If point source ae they a MTM, TM, or something else. Just to set the record straight, Roger is using the same optics for his tests. He selects the analog output of the CDP or the analog output of the outboard DAC. That makes synch a doddle, but I hope he matches the output levels. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
R wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:zs2dnRa9kLS8ycjfRVn- : R wrote: Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one, agree with him as I have experienced these differences myself. I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these differences that Roger describes at http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ? Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this. Thanks for your response Arny. I will take it that your answer to my question is "No". Roger! ;-) I must ask one question if you don't mind. What is the basic design type of your speakers? Flat panel, point source are possible answers. If point source ae they a MTM, TM, or something else. My personal speakers are immaterial to this question, since I've ABX'd CD players on so many different systems over the past 20+ years. At least one pair of each, plus assorted earphones and headphones. Just to set the record straight, Roger is using the same optics for his tests. He selects the analog output of the CDP or the analog output of the outboard DAC. That isn't what his article seems to say. He says "If you have only heard one CD player, you will have enjoyed all of the advantages without being aware that there are still differences." Therefore its fair to conclude that at least some of his tests are of different CD players. I seriously doubt that he's *all* hitting basics which a (1) Level-matched (2) Time-synched (within a few mSec) (3) Double Blind Now (2) would seem to be ensured by what appears to be a comparison between a stand-alone DAC and the DAC in his CD player, but that seems to ignore a number of potentially uncontrolled factors. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:3t2dnW5sMIB5D8jfRVn-
: R wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in news:zs2dnRa9kLS8ycjfRVn- : R wrote: Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one, agree with him as I have experienced these differences myself. I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these differences that Roger describes at http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ? Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this. Thanks for your response Arny. I will take it that your answer to my question is "No". Roger! ;-) I must ask one question if you don't mind. What is the basic design type of your speakers? Flat panel, point source are possible answers. If point source ae they a MTM, TM, or something else. My personal speakers are immaterial to this question, since I've ABX'd CD players on so many different systems over the past 20+ years. At least one pair of each, plus assorted earphones and headphones. Thanks for your cooperation. Headphones and speakers is good enough for me. Just to set the record straight, Roger is using the same optics for his tests. He selects the analog output of the CDP or the analog output of the outboard DAC. That isn't what his article seems to say. Bringing up test procedures really is outside of the the scope of this particular discussion but thanks for your concern and advice. rich -- |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
In rec.audio.tech R wrote:
Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one, agree with him as I have experienced these differences myself. I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these differences that Roger describes at http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ? Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this. Interesting stuff. I would agree that not all CD players sound alike, although the differences are small. However when he talks about imaging, I start to get queasy. The beauty of imaging as a measure for audio quality, is that it's an unmeasurable quantity, and thus no one can prove you wrong. I also intuitively like the idea that the biggest problem with the 44.1kHz sampling rate is in the difficulty of converting it back to analog, and filtering it at that point. It certainly seems the most likely point to be introducing distortion to the signal. As for his testing though? Doesn't look particularly comprehensive or conclusive to me. Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent? That would probably do an excellent job of it, and cost a lot less than the $8k DAC he used for testing. Colin |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:39:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: In fact doing close comparisons of CD players is one of the tougher A/B games there is to play. Level-matching is easy but time-synch is tough because the players always seem to want to wander off. While the playback speed is often controlled by a 0.005% crystal or resonator, even that fine tolerance allows audible delays to built up fairly quickly. If this is the case, then, as Howard would say, all bets are off with using A/B comparisons. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Colin B." wrote: Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent? For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble. Stephen |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
All discussions of CD comparisons are a case of the blind leading the
blind because no one builds CD transports sufficiently well calibrated and instrumented to give good data on exactly what they are doing on a real time basis. It's possible but it isn't done. Also, there is little question that a higher sample rate would have beneficial aspects. 44.1 was determined by predetermined edicts of disc size and playing time-it had to fit a drive that would fit a PC drive bay and play Beethoven's Eroica on one disc, one side. 44.1 was the result of being the highest bit density they figured was productionable with the existing process limitations. A serious player-really serious-would have a ovenized clock or a connection for an external reference. However, since CD players are now very much cheaper than ovenized crystal frequency standards-a ridiculous situation on the face of it-it's unlikely. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message Also, there is little question that a higher sample rate would have beneficial aspects. 44.1 was determined by predetermined edicts of disc size and playing time-it had to fit a drive that would fit a PC drive bay and play Beethoven's Eroica on one disc, one side. 44.1 was the result of being the highest bit density they figured was productionable with the existing process limitations. The sampling frequency is also a function of the technology used. For a regular red book CD that is encoded using PCM, you have 16-bit 'words' that are being sampled at 44.1 kHz. If I remember Nyquist's Theorem correctly, if you sample at any rate exceeding double the bandwidth you will reproduce the signal in its entirety. Because the human ear has got an upper limit of 20 kHz, any sampling rate over 40 kHz will be high enough for the law of diminishing returns to become the law of zero returns. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
In rec.audio.tech MINe 109 wrote:
In article , "Colin B." wrote: Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent? For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble. Yes, but which turntable is ideal? I'll grant that a high quality table and cartridge set up properly can sound VERY VERY good, but there are too many factors (some random) that can't be eliminated in picking up minute vibrations while in the air. It's my firm belief that the ideal turntable would sound like a high quality CD player. (or maybe SACD, if you want the extra comfort). Anything "analog" that isn't reproduced in the digital systems are flaws. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , "Colin B." wrote: Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent? For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble. They are part of the reason that some people prefer the *wamth* of vinyl. The warmth is just a perception of hum and rumble. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Colin B. wrote:
It's my firm belief that the ideal turntable would sound like a high quality CD player. Agreed. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Schizoid Man" wrote in
: wrote in message Also, there is little question that a higher sample rate would have beneficial aspects. 44.1 was determined by predetermined edicts of disc size and playing time-it had to fit a drive that would fit a PC drive bay and play Beethoven's Eroica on one disc, one side. 44.1 was the result of being the highest bit density they figured was productionable with the existing process limitations. The sampling frequency is also a function of the technology used. For a regular red book CD that is encoded using PCM, you have 16-bit 'words' that are being sampled at 44.1 kHz. If I remember Nyquist's Theorem correctly, if you sample at any rate exceeding double the bandwidth you will reproduce the signal in its entirety. Because the human ear has got an upper limit of 20 kHz, any sampling rate over 40 kHz will be high enough for the law of diminishing returns to become the law of zero returns. Everything you mentioned above is true and correct. The selection of D-A converters, the circuit topology surrounding the D-As, the number of D-As, the signal filtering, chip decoupling circuitry, and finally the analog section will all make an audible difference. There are a few other things that can affect the sound but I believe those listed above make the biggest differences and coincidentally also comprise of the differences between a low quality player and a high quality player. I assert that these differences, when taken together, are generally audible to the average experienced listener. rich -- |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Colin B." wrote: Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent? For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble. They are part of the reason that some people prefer the *wamth* of vinyl. The warmth is just a perception of hum and rumble. Even so, or people would prefer lesser turntables. Stephen |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Colin B." wrote: In rec.audio.tech MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Colin B." wrote: Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent? For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble. Yes, but which turntable is ideal? I'll grant that a high quality table and cartridge set up properly can sound VERY VERY good, but there are too many factors (some random) that can't be eliminated in picking up minute vibrations while in the air. You could always put the turntable in the next room... It's my firm belief that the ideal turntable would sound like a high quality CD player. (or maybe SACD, if you want the extra comfort). Anything "analog" that isn't reproduced in the digital systems are flaws. I've found having a very good cd player has helped me to better evaluate lp playback. Stephen |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Colin B." wrote: Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent? For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble. They are part of the reason that some people prefer the *wamth* of vinyl. The warmth is just a perception of hum and rumble. No, that has nothing to do with the warmth of vinyl. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote in
: In article , "Colin B." wrote: In rec.audio.tech MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Colin B." wrote: Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent? For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble. Yes, but which turntable is ideal? I'll grant that a high quality table and cartridge set up properly can sound VERY VERY good, but there are too many factors (some random) that can't be eliminated in picking up minute vibrations while in the air. You could always put the turntable in the next room... It's my firm belief that the ideal turntable would sound like a high quality CD player. (or maybe SACD, if you want the extra comfort). Anything "analog" that isn't reproduced in the digital systems are flaws. I've found having a very good cd player has helped me to better evaluate lp playback. Stephen I think it could work the other way as well Stephen. It all depends what your goals are and what characteristic you are trying to evaluate. rich -- |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"R" wrote in message .11... It is also said that using the MDA1000 offers sound as good as analog. Is it really THAT bad? A digital system that only sounded as good as existing analog systems is broken IMO. MrT. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... I seriously doubt that he's *all* hitting basics which a (1) Level-matched (2) Time-synched (within a few mSec) (3) Double Blind Frankly I think the need for time sync, or even level matched, is over-rated. I prefer to let the user just start and stop and change levels however they want. **** Just as they would when using any system at home *** And double blind is only important ***IF*** they can pass a single blind test. Not common IME. MrT. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... A serious player-really serious-would have a ovenized clock or a connection for an external reference. However, since CD players are now very much cheaper than ovenized crystal frequency standards-a ridiculous situation on the face of it-it's unlikely. But since people readily accept speed variations millions of times greater, what is the point? MrT. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble. Nor would the ideal record have large amounts of noise and distortions. Unfortunately in the real world they do. MrT. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Colin B. wrote: It's my firm belief that the ideal turntable would sound like a high quality CD player. Agreed. Only with non existent "ideal" records as well. MrT. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... They are part of the reason that some people prefer the *wamth* of vinyl. The warmth is just a perception of hum and rumble. I disagree with that. IMO the warmth of analog is associated with it's usually rolled off HF response and large amounts of low order harmonic distortions. MrT. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Colin B." wrote in message ... It's my firm belief that the ideal turntable would sound like a high quality CD player. (or maybe SACD, if you want the extra comfort). Anything "analog" that isn't reproduced in the digital systems are flaws. Apart from a lack of around 40dB in the s/n department, and relatively high THD from the rock on the stick, and variations in cartridge characteristics, and variations in performance across the radius of the record, and teh flaws of the vinyl itsef, etc , etc, etc . geoff |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Colin B." wrote: Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent? For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble. They are part of the reason that some people prefer the *wamth* of vinyl. The warmth is just a perception of hum and rumble. I thought it was the hf limitation. geoff |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in news:4256082a$0$5399$afc38c87
@news.optusnet.com.au: "R" wrote in message .11... It is also said that using the MDA1000 offers sound as good as analog. Is it really THAT bad? A digital system that only sounded as good as existing analog systems is broken IMO. MrT. I believe what he means is fine analog which was, and still is, extremely rare. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
"R" wrote in message 1... A digital system that only sounded as good as existing analog systems is broken IMO. I believe what he means is fine analog which was, and still is, extremely rare. And still extremely inferior to good digital. MrT. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:18:16 GMT, MINe 109
wrote: In article , "Colin B." wrote: Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent? For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble. Unfortunately, they all do - and so do the cutting lathes......... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:43:05 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Colin B. wrote: It's my firm belief that the ideal turntable would sound like a high quality CD player. Agreed. Only with non existent "ideal" records as well. That be the real problem. I was once fortunate enough to hear the legendary Rockport Sirius III with a Clearaudio Insider cartridge, all set up by Andy Payor himself. While certainly about the best I'd ever heard from vinyl, it still suffered weak low bass, splashy treble, surface noise, clicks and inner-groove distortion. Why? Because it was playing *vinyl*. Had Andy played some solo piano rather than an acoustic jazz ensemble, there would almost certainly have been some audible wow, not from the turntable but from fractional eccentricity in the record. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:08:50 GMT, R wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:dfOdnfOHn5DufMjfRVn- : MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Colin B." wrote: Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent? For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble. They are part of the reason that some people prefer the *wamth* of vinyl. The warmth is just a perception of hum and rumble. Well, I certainly don't associate hum and rumble with warmth. I maintain that a well desinged, built and installed turntable will have inaudible levels of rumble and hum. Please direct me to the emporium vending such a turntable..... Also, direct me to where I can buy vinyl made from a master entirely free of such defects. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Colin B." wrote in
: In rec.audio.tech R wrote: Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one, agree with him as I have experienced these differences myself. I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these differences that Roger describes at http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ? Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this. Interesting stuff. I would agree that not all CD players sound alike, although the differences are small. However when he talks about imaging, I start to get queasy. The beauty of imaging as a measure for audio quality, is that it's an unmeasurable quantity, and thus no one can prove you wrong. I also intuitively like the idea that the biggest problem with the 44.1kHz sampling rate is in the difficulty of converting it back to analog, and filtering it at that point. It certainly seems the most likely point to be introducing distortion to the signal. As for his testing though? Doesn't look particularly comprehensive or conclusive to me. Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent? That would probably do an excellent job of it, and cost a lot less than the $8k DAC he used for testing. Colin I think you are reading more into what he has written. From his website he says "It is also said that using the MDA1000 offers sound as good as analog." meaning those aren't his words, but someone else's. Let's look at the imaging question. Roger says, "Imaging using the 7005 appears to be very wide with orchestral music but there was separateness of the sound with the left and right speakers. I had always assumed this was the way the recordings were made. On the other hand, some new age recordings seemed to completely envelop the listener. That was very pleasing. It was only when I began using the 851 that I noticed there was a difference in imaging. Classical music sounded like it had much better coherence and less separateness, giving it more clarity and sense of aliveness. However, it was more than just imaging. It was a new kind of distortion difference, more like a phase distortion of some kind that affected the coherence of the image. The 851 was made in 2004 and the older 7005 was made in 1987. The explanation had a definite physical cause. It was the digital-to-analog filtering. The filtering was significantly improved in the 851. What I was hearing was confirmed by McIntosh engineering." Given that what he is hearing is very real as it was confirmed by the engineers at McIntosh, has anyone else experienced similar changes in imaging after upgrading to a better CDP? Why not try to see if you can hear what Roger is hearing. Plug in that old CD player and see if you can or cannot hear what Roger is describing. Try a few different recordings from different labels. r -- |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:55:39 GMT, R wrote:
The selection of D-A converters, the circuit topology surrounding the D-As, the number of D-As, the signal filtering, chip decoupling circuitry, and finally the analog section will all make an audible difference. I believe you mean *can* make a difference. In practice, they seldom do, unless the designer *really* screwed up. Usually, you have to pay several thousand dollars to obtain this degree of incompetence....... There are a few other things that can affect the sound but I believe those listed above make the biggest differences and coincidentally also comprise of the differences between a low quality player and a high quality player. I assert that these differences, when taken together, are generally audible to the average experienced listener. I have *evidence* that this seldom occurs. Do you have any *evidence* to back your assertion? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... I've found having a very good cd player has helped me to better evaluate lp playback. I have found that a very good turntable sa helped me to better evaluate cd playback. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr.T wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... I seriously doubt that he's *all* hitting basics which a (1) Level-matched (2) Time-synched (within a few mSec) (3) Double Blind Frankly I think the need for time sync, or even level matched, is over-rated. I can ace any DBT that is not time synched within maybe 10 milliseconds. I prefer to let the user just start and stop and change levels however they want. I agree with letting the user start and stop and change levels whenevery they want to as long as the three *basics* I list above are kept in force. It is very easy to do DBTs of just about *anything* and let the user start and stop and change levels, and keep the three *basics* in place with the PCABX test methodology. **** Just as they would when using any system at home *** And double blind is only important ***IF*** they can pass a single blind test. All a single blind test is, is a defective double blind test. Again, PCABX methodologies make it all very easy. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| on topic: we need a rec.audio.pro.ot newsgroup! | Pro Audio | |||
| Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
| Some Mixing Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
| Creating Dimension In Mixing- PDF available on Request (112 pages0 | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
