MINe 109 wrote:
In article , wrote:
MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
MINe 109 wrote:
I'd hate to be stuck with unsatisfactory gear because some
engineer
somewhere doesn't think audible consequences possible.
I wouldn't take the word of one engineer either--unless the
alternative
was to take the word of a non-engineer! But every effect has a
cause,
and if you can't find any expert anywhere who can explain the
cause,
it's time to consider the possibility that you're misreading
the
effect.
"Trust me: I'm an EE," that kind of thing?
What is it about, "I wouldn't take the word of one engineer" that
you
did not understand?
Sorry, did I miss a smiley?
Alas, subtlety doesn't work so well on the Internet.
Sounds like arguing from
authority, especially if I'm told I'm not qualified to have an
opinion.
On the subject of audible design differences between CD players, I
think you've already conceded that point.
I'll stick to my ears. I haven't conceded that point.
Your ears can only tell you IF they sound different (and then only if
you take proper precautions in setting up the comparison). Your ears
cannot tell you why. And when I challenged your assertion about why
(i.e. "design differences"), you admitted to a lack of technical
expertise in that area.
I find it more
reassuring when an engineer with a respectable audio track
record
points
out things that can go wrong, like the pro-audio guy who
found
that
cheap dvd players had clipped outputs due to poorly
implemented
DACs.
Missed that. Can you provide a reference?
It was Ken Kantor on rec.audio.pro, about two years ago.
Thanks. As Chung noted, if true it's easily measurable and easily
explainable. No one's ever claimed there aren't some bad machines
out
there, both poor designs and defectives. It's my impression that
they
are uncommon (except at the price extremes). I'll admit that I
don't
have a lot to go on there, but neither has anyone who's argued the
opposite. Absent any better data, I tend to give credence to
engineers
who know something about the actual innards of these machines. Note
that this is not "arguing from authority."
It is when the reference is to engineers in general.
What is it about "engineers who know something about the actual innards
of these machines" that you did not understand? Or did we miss a smiley
again?
I am not saying that I am right because "engineers" agree with me. I am
saying that when engineers who've done or are familiar with actual
listening tests with DACs express skepticism about whether the
different DACs in consumer CD players are audibly distinguishable, I
weight that more heavily than the beliefs and casual subjective
impressions of the non-technical. When people familiar with the parts
found in consumer gear tell me that they almost all use the same few
transports, I tend to discount assertions that transport quality is a
factor in audible differences between players.
To the extent that I trust the expertise of these experts, it is
because I am unfamiliar with any solid counterevidence, such as
controlled listening tests that come to different conclusions. I would
be happy to entertain real countervailing data, but--and this is the
important point--You Haven't Got Any.
One selling point of the Arcam is the RingDAC, which was
sourced
from
dCS, who may be presumed to know something about design.
There are presumably many ways to design DACs. What's debatable
is
whether one way is enough better than another way to have
audible
consequences.
I doubt I could tell an Elgar from my CD23.
I doubt you could tell either from a lot of things.
Stewart could.
We shall let Stewart speak to that.
bob