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.

Yes, but the designers of even $39 DVD players have been known to keep
this all under control.

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.

Given that even $39 DVD players have been known to master these
issues, any remaining audible differences have to be coming from
someplace else.

I assert that these differences,
when taken together, are generally audible to the average
experienced
listener.

I think your list is way out of date.

Stewart Pinkerton said:

I have a Pioneer 'Chinky cheapy' DV-575A

Hallelujah! Praise Adolph Hitler and Admiral Tojo!

The Pioneer cost £109, the 588 is more than £2,000.

Hallelujah! Praise Marx and Lenin!

Mr.T 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.

Point well taken, as most of the audible flaws are inherent in the LP
medium.

R wrote:
MINe 109 wrote in
:

In article ,
"Colin B." wrote:

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.

I think it could work the other way as well Stephen.

Pigs could fly with appropriate modifications. Hollow bones, less body
fat, improved lungs...

It all depends
what your goals are and what characteristic you are trying to
evaluate.

The idea of judging CD players with LP playback is terribly backwards.

If you're going to judge CD players use a higher standard, not a
worser standard.

My standard for judging optical players is composed of my own
high-bitrate live recordings. I was at the live performance, I
listened to the live feed. In the lab I have access to what is
arguably an unvarnished higher-quality form of the live performance,
than the form that I am judging.

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.

Maybe, maybe not. I found it terribly revealtory that the "Analog
dither" product

http://www.cranesong.com/products/dither/

In fact takes some really pretty good dither and adds extra low
frequency noise and harmonics of a low-leve 60 Hz sine wave.

I maintain that a well desinged, built and installed turntable will
have inaudible levels of rumble and hum.

Given that you play LPs on it, it's all lost by modern standards.

Mr.T wrote:
"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.

That, too.

Geoff Wood wrote:
"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.

That, too.

R wrote:

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?

Given that they are waving their own flag while beating their own
puds, why should we grant them more credibility than scientific
experiments done by unbiased parties?

Why not try to see if you can hear what Roger is hearing.

Given his age, a lot of what he is hearing is probably old memories.

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.

Yup, let's all sit around and illude ourselves with badly-run
listening evaluations.

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:50:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I've found having a very good cd player has helped me to better
evaluate lp playback.

I think it could work the other way as well Stephen.

Pigs could fly with appropriate modifications. Hollow bones, less body
fat, improved lungs...

It all depends
what your goals are and what characteristic you are trying to
evaluate.

The idea of judging CD players with LP playback is terribly backwards.

No, what's backwards is your thinking that this is what Stephen said.
You might want to read his statement again.

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:50:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If you're going to judge CD players use a higher standard, not a
worser standard.

Sort of like your standard of English, right?

dave weil said to the Krooborg:

worser

Sort of like your standard of English, right?

Mr. Wiel Please proove you never made a typo Mr. Weill. If you search in
Goggle its like there are 100's of 1000's of post's more, with Arnii's
name, on them Mr. Wile, than you dreamed of! LOl!

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:56:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Yup, let's all sit around and illude ourselves

Do you kiss your wife with that mouth?

wrote:
Also, there is little question that a higher sample rate would have
beneficial aspects.

Maybe in the realm of high-end audio magic and myth, their
is little question...

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.

Wrong on almost every point:

"44.1 was determined by predetermined edicts of disc size
and playing time"

The sample rate of 44.1 kHz was determined by the dominant digital
mastering hardware at the time. High-capacity storage was based on
video recording technology, where intergral numbers of sample frames
were stored in video frames. From Rimsey and Watkinson, "The Digital
Interface Handbook," Focal Press 1993, we read:

2.7.6 Choice of audio sampling rate
...
"the necessary bandwidth of about 1 megabit per second per
audio channel was difficult to store. Disk drives had the
bandwidth but not the capacity for long recording time, so
attention turned to video recorders. These were adapted to
store audio samples by creating a pseudo-video waveform
which could convey binary as black and white levels7. The
sampling rate of such a system is constrained to relate
simply to the field rate and field structure of the
television standard used, so that an integer number of
samples can be stored on each usable TV line in the field.
Such a recording can be made on a monochrome recorder, and
these recordings are made in two standards, 525 lines at
60 Hz [NTSC] and 625 lines at 50 Hz [PAL]. Thus it is
possible to find a frequency which is a common multiple of
the two and also suitable for use as a sampling rate.

"The allowable sampling rates in a pseudo-video system can
be deduced by multiplying the field rate by the number of
active lines in a field (blanked lines cannot be used)
and again by the number of samples in a line. By careful
choice of parameters it is possible to use either 525/60
or 625/50 video with a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz.

"In 60 Hz video, there are 35 blanked lines, leaving 490
lines per frame, or 245 lines per field for samples. If
three samples are stored per line, the sampling rate
becomes 60 x 245 x 3 = 44.1 kHz. In 50 Hz video, there
are 37 lines of blanking, leaving 588 active lines per
frame, or 294 per field, so the same sampling rate is
given by 50 x 294 x 3 = 44.1 kHz. The sampling rate of
44.1 kHz came to be that of the Compact Disc. Even though
CD has no video circuitry, the equipment used to make CD
masters is video based abd determines the sampling rate.

Next myth:

"it had to fit a drive that would fit a PC drive bay"

The physical properties of the CD disc were agreed upon by the
major players in the industry by 1979. The PC with its standard
drive bay architecture didn't exist at the time.

Next myth:

"play Beethoven's Eroica on one disc, one side"

There was abosulely no such factor used in determining play
time or disc size. There is ONE unsubstantiated legend, quoted
here from Pohlmann's "Principles of Digital Audio," 1995
McGraw-Hill, ch 9:

"Maximum disc playing time (strictly according to legend)
was determined after Philips consulted conductor Herbert
von Karajan. He advised them that a disc should be able
to hold his performance of the Beethoven Ninth Symphony
without interruption.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is anything
other than legend, as the basic physical properties were determined
well before any such input was solicited, by all accounts.

A difference of 0.005% in playback speed would allow
the accumulation of 0.021 seconds of error over the
entire length of a 70 minute CD. A far bigger problem
is initial synchronization.

wrote:

A difference of 0.005% in playback speed would allow
the accumulation of 0.021 seconds of error over the
entire length of a 70 minute CD.

IME delays some place around 10 mSec, can enable one to reliably hear
echoes during quick switching.

A far bigger problem is initial synchronization.

There's two basic methods.

One is to go the PCABX route.

This requires an ADC and DAC that are so good that you can convince
yourself that they aren't masking audible differences. Not all that
hard these days.

The second is to run the clock of one of the two player's clock with
an external adjustable VFO, and use that to manover them into synch,
and keep them there. The Stereo Review CD player tests of more than
a decade ago used this technique.

In rec.audio.tech MINe 109 wrote:
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...

That will reduce (or eliminate) the cartridge from picking up the music
coming from the speakers, but there are still endless tiny eddies in the
air, not to mention dust landing on the record during playback, and how do
you prevent static buildup.

Hmm. Maybe you could set up the turntable in a cleanroom. 60% RH
(non-condensing), air filtered down to insane levels. Soundproof it and
put the cover on the table, and you'd be well on your way to minimizing a
lot of problems. (note the lack of words "eliminating" and "all problems"
:-)

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.

I agree. When I put on a record, I'm far more aware of the endless
distortions present, and allows me to 'tune' the table setup for optimum
reproduction (i.e. as good as it gets).

Colin

"Colin B." wrote in message
...
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.

A perfect turntable would sound like a quality CD player IF you played a
perfect disc on it. Unfortunately, recording lathes are not all that great.
Most of the flutter and rumble you hear is in the original: no playback
table, regardless of price, can eliminate it.

Norm

In article ,
"Colin B." wrote:

In rec.audio.tech MINe 109 wrote:
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...

That will reduce (or eliminate) the cartridge from picking up the music
coming from the speakers, but there are still endless tiny eddies in the
air, not to mention dust landing on the record during playback, and how do
you prevent static buildup.

My God, what a rigorous exam!

Static gun?

Hum and rumble can be all but eliminated, but some euphonic vinyl
properties remain. We'll all get to hear those as early lps go into
public domain and are transcribed and rereleased.

Hmm. Maybe you could set up the turntable in a cleanroom. 60% RH
(non-condensing), air filtered down to insane levels. Soundproof it and
put the cover on the table, and you'd be well on your way to minimizing a
lot of problems. (note the lack of words "eliminating" and "all problems"
:-)

If your biggest problem can be described as "Gaussian," you may be near
ideal performance. :-)

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.

I agree. When I put on a record, I'm far more aware of the endless
distortions present, and allows me to 'tune' the table setup for optimum
reproduction (i.e. as good as it gets).

When I hear the commonalities between different masterings of the
original source, I feel the turntable is doing its job. Often I find a
bad sounding lp is matched by a bad sounding cd!

My love of cds was renewed with a new player (and new speakers and a new
room) a couple of years ago. Another factor was rediscovering old
masterings. While plenty of twenty-year-old cds aren't so great, some
are preferable to newer masterings due to different mastering styles.

Stephen

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"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.

My good turntable more-or-less forced me to upgrade cd players. The
difference is that when I got to "as good as it gets for me" level for
cd, I felt I could trust cd sound enough to use it as a comparative
reference.

Stephen

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:50:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I've found having a very good cd player has helped me to better
evaluate lp playback.

I think it could work the other way as well Stephen.

Pigs could fly with appropriate modifications. Hollow bones, less body
fat, improved lungs...

It all depends
what your goals are and what characteristic you are trying to
evaluate.

The idea of judging CD players with LP playback is terribly backwards.

No, what's backwards is your thinking that this is what Stephen said.
You might want to read his statement again.

Shoulda read this before I responded to Art! It's fun to see Arny hung
up over truisms.

Stephen

wrote in message
ups.com...
A difference of 0.005% in playback speed would allow
the accumulation of 0.021 seconds of error over the
entire length of a 70 minute CD. A far bigger problem
is initial synchronization.

I get 0.21 seconds.

Norm

wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
A difference of 0.005% in playback speed would allow
the accumulation of 0.021 seconds of error over the
entire length of a 70 minute CD. A far bigger problem
is initial synchronization.

I get 0.21 seconds.

That's because you didn't apply the correct typographical mistakes.

wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
A difference of 0.005% in playback speed would allow
the accumulation of 0.021 seconds of error over the
entire length of a 70 minute CD. A far bigger problem
is initial synchronization.

I get 0.21 seconds.

I got 0.18 seconds for a 60 minute CD.

My tolerance for time-matching PCABC samples is +/- 1 millisecond to
be sure that the echo effects I mentioned elsehwere will be avoided. I
figure that this is about 10 times less than incipient audibility.

The numbers we're coming up with suggest that two CD players with a
standard 0.005% crystals might drift apart up to 0.18 seconds or 180
milliseconds in about 30 minutes. IOW, after only about 3 minutes
there might be a problem. It would take as little as 18 seconds to
drift outside of PCABX specs.

This is one reason why I suggest that very few people have ever
actually done a proper comparison of two CD players, one in which
bias, time synch, and levels were adequately matched.

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:50:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger"

wrote:

I've found having a very good cd player has helped me to better
evaluate lp playback.

I think it could work the other way as well Stephen.

Pigs could fly with appropriate modifications. Hollow bones, less
body fat, improved lungs...

It all depends
what your goals are and what characteristic you are trying to
evaluate.

The idea of judging CD players with LP playback is terribly
backwards.

No, what's backwards is your thinking that this is what Stephen
said.
You might want to read his statement again.

Shoulda read this before I responded to Art! It's fun to see Arny
hung
up over truisms.

It's not funny watching two stoops errr abusing themselves in public.

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:44:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The numbers we're coming up with suggest that two CD players with a
standard 0.005% crystals might drift apart up to 0.18 seconds or 180
milliseconds in about 30 minutes. IOW, after only about 3 minutes
there might be a problem. It would take as little as 18 seconds to
drift outside of PCABX specs.

I guess it wouldn't matter then, considering the length of samples
that you claim are optimum for comparison using PCABX.

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:45:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It's not funny watching two stoops errr abusing themselves in public

In English please.

In rec.audio.tech R wrote:
"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.

Possibly. :-)

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.

Whenever I see someone say "as good as analog," I bite my tongue and
interpret it as meaning, "free from audible digital artifacts."

Let's look at the imaging question.

OK. Can you tell me how precisely you can define (or even better, measure)
imaging?

Roger implies by his choice of adjectives that imaging is related to
stereo separation. OK, I can believe that, and separation is a measurable
quantity.

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."

Well, you'd hardly expect the manufacturer's engineers to say "no, we
really haven't done anything over the last 20 years." At any rate, if
there is a definite physical cause, then there's also a definite measurable
change. I'd like to see what that change is.

Realistically, he's probably quite right about the difference between
the 7005 and the 851. It's hard to imagine (HA!) that a nearly 20-year-old
CD player from just after the dawn of consumer digital audio hasn't been
improved upon. I seem to recall that designing lowpass filters which were
sharp enough to cut off the 22kHz artifacts from the DAC but without
hurting the 20kHz signal was more than a little tricky, and often not
done particularly well.

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.

Done it. My dad's 14-bit store-brand player (1985) sounded horrible
compared to my 20-bit Denon (1990). My friend had one of the brand-new
"1-bit DAC" machines, and it definitely seemed to have more high frequency
than mine, but this was under relatively uncontrolled conditions. At the
time, I was fairly confident that I'd have been able to differentiate
between all three in a proper DB test, but we didn't have the equipment
or the patience. Now, however, I think that you'd be much harder pressed
to tell the difference between two current players.

Imaging? I'm sure they imaged differently, because they did other things
differently. The point I'm getting at is that imaging isn't a measure of
good audio reproduction, it's a _symptom_ of it.

Colin

In rec.audio.tech wrote:

wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
A difference of 0.005% in playback speed would allow
the accumulation of 0.021 seconds of error over the
entire length of a 70 minute CD. A far bigger problem
is initial synchronization.

I get 0.21 seconds.

That's because you didn't apply the correct typographical mistakes.

Now THAT is the funniest thing I've heard in a while!

Colin B. said:

That's because you didn't apply the correct typographical mistakes.

Now THAT is the funniest thing I've heard in a while!

In Nerdville, approximating pi to three digits is considered hilarious.

dave weil said:

It's not funny watching two stoops errr abusing themselves in public

In English please.

"Pass the feces. LOt"S!"

George M. Middius wrote:

"Pass the feces. LOt"S!"

Meaning: Meals on Wheels were late again at the Middius house.

dave weil a écrit :
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:56:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Yup, let's all sit around and illude ourselves


Do you kiss your wife with that mouth?

Do you kiss you absence of wife with that mouth ? ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
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.

What do you mean by "ACE". If I present you with 2 non sync, non level
matched CD players, sure you can say they are different. But I bet you can't
tell me which is which. After I have started and stopped and changed levels
a few times, I bet you can't tell which is which. The trick here is that you
can stop and change levels without switching :-) The person hears a change
of levels sure, but can he say it is the same player or the other one!
All you can say is that one sounds different at each instant because of the
different levels. Since I couldn't give a rats about absolute level, this
proves to me that in normal use where you start and stop and change levels
on an hourly (or less) basis, you will hear no difference, except for some
really crap players.

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.

That works too, but I've never found it necessary. If they can't tell with
my method, I don't bother going any further.

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.

Maybe I wasn't clear, the levels of both players must change independant of
the listener, during a pause while switching.
Why do you just want to test for the ability to detect minute changes at the
instant of switching? Sure that is easier to do, but totally irrelevant to
what is being tested for, ie, actual differences that one could hear from
one day to the next!

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.

Agreed, but people are often sceptical about using computer playback of
files. Hence switching between actual CD players is necessary. It takes more
people and time to do double blind. If they can't pass single blind, no need
to bother. Proof already achieved.

*IF* they can pass single blind, then next step is double blind.

You are welcome to always do it the hard way of course, if that works for
you.

MrT.

"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.

That, too.

But I've heard digital recordings with huge amounts of Hum that don't sound
at all "warm".
In fact it's easy to prove, take your most "digital" sounding recording, add
in as much hum or rumble as you like.
(OK don't get too carried away so you can't hear the music anymore :-)
Does it really sound warm to you, or much the same with hum and rumble.
(The latter IMO)

MrT.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Next myth:

"play Beethoven's Eroica on one disc, one side"

There was abosulely no such factor used in determining play
time or disc size. There is ONE unsubstantiated legend, quoted
here from Pohlmann's "Principles of Digital Audio," 1995
McGraw-Hill, ch 9:

"Maximum disc playing time (strictly according to legend)
was determined after Philips consulted conductor Herbert
von Karajan. He advised them that a disc should be able
to hold his performance of the Beethoven Ninth Symphony
without interruption.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is anything
other than legend, as the basic physical properties were determined
well before any such input was solicited, by all accounts.

I still think it's partly a good legend, by all accounts other had similar
thoughts. And I would have too.
What is not known otherwise is why they chose an odd size for the disk
diameter.
A smaller disk set at 60 minutes capacity would have seemed more logical.
I've never heard anyone mention Eroica in this context before though!
Especially given it's length is only about 50 minutes.

MrT.

In , on 04/09/05
at 12:11 PM, "Mr.T" MrT@home said:

I can ace any DBT that is not time synched within maybe 10
milliseconds.

It would be interesting to test Arny's assertion sometime, but I get to
determine the "when to switch" criteria. (and it would be mechanized in
the spirit of ABX)

What do you mean by "ACE". If I present you with 2 non sync, non level
matched CD players, sure you can say they are different. But I bet you
can't tell me which is which. After I have started and stopped and
changed levels a few times, I bet you can't tell which is which. The
trick here is that you can stop and change levels without switching
:-)

[ ... ]

In the early days of CD's I'd accept the challenge of comparing a CD
player and an LP. We'd use an excellent turntable-cartridge, find a
well produced CD and LP of the same session, synchronize them as best
we could and let the A/B fly. I never took a position as to which might
be better, but I did have control of the switch.

Each of the self proclaimed "audiophiles" who came into one of my
little sessions arrived with a huge chip on their shoulder. They knew
that their champion would win, easily because, after all, it wasn't
much of a contest. (and I had both LP and CD zealots)

There were so many problems: record warps and excentricities, tracking
error distortions, dust, ticks and pops, hum, preamp noise, rumble and
acoustic feedback (yes even on world class turntables), CD players with
obvious distortions at full level, poorly tracking left and right
nonlinear DAC's, less than ideal reconstruction filters, sometimes an
obvious spurious tone or intermodulation products -- an almost endless
list. And of course, we'd quickly lose synchronization because the LP
speed was never as exact as the CD.

The result was always the same. We'd start out A-B-A-B-A ... oops ...
er .. B?, mmm, A? ... By the time we had crossed the first LP tracking
error null point (I knew better than to try this test near the end of
an LP side) I'd have them mixed-up. Eventually, of course, the LP would
tick or pop and identify itself. Unfortunately, they thought it was the
CD when the LP ticked and, on discovering what they had done, they'd
stomp out mumbling how I had tricked them.

And I did trick them, but the real point I was making, that well played
CD's and LP's don't sound as different as most "audiophiles" believe,
was not the point they wanted to hear.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13 (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote:

A difference of 0.005% in playback speed would allow
the accumulation of 0.021 seconds of error over the
entire length of a 70 minute CD.

IME delays some place around 10 mSec, can enable one to reliably hear
echoes during quick switching.

Just why would anyone need to be "quick switching" during a normal music
listening session?

This requires an ADC and DAC that are so good that you can convince
yourself that they aren't masking audible differences. Not all that
hard these days.

Usually impossible though to convince others, so a different method is often
required.

The second is to run the clock of one of the two player's clock with
an external adjustable VFO, and use that to manover them into synch,
and keep them there.

Or accept that one does NOT need to prove instantaneous switching may show
some detectable transient.
What is required is proof of a real day to day difference in normal
listening. Even a ten second gap during switching masks sync errors and
small level errors.

Of course IF that's what you are trying to prove, OK, but why?

MrT.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
This is one reason why I suggest that very few people have ever
actually done a proper comparison of two CD players, one in which
bias, time synch, and levels were adequately matched.

Because many people don't agree on the need, and many others cannot be
convinced by scientific proof anyway.

MrT.

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

--snip--

Actually no, 44.1k was chosen because it fits the frame rate of the
video recorders which were used for early CD production.

Yes. And it explains the "alternate" audio rate of 44.096k, which is
exactly related to the one-part-in-a-thousand reduction in field rate
from 60 Hz for black and white to 59.94 Hz for NTSC color.

If the recorder was line-locked, it ran at 60 Hz (or 44.1); if it was
locked to a good color reference, it ran at 59.94 Hz (44.096).

Isaac

"MINe 109" wrote in message news:smcatut-\

My good turntable more-or-less forced me to upgrade cd players. The
difference is that when I got to "as good as it gets for me" level for
cd, I felt I could trust cd sound enough to use it as a comparative
reference.

Are you sure your CD player wasn't broken ?

geoff