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


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:



"Harry Lavo" wrote in message



"Jenn" wrote in message
...


I've heard good analogue tapes (two of the 50s and
60s original Mercury master tapes, for example) but
never in a home audio setting. I'd like to try to
borrow a good Revox or similar and hear an excellent
analogue master tape and see if I perceive the
timbre issue to be similar to LP. That would help to
determine if what I like about LP sound is due to
colorations inherent to LPs.


Well assuming you could get the appropriate and
calibrated Dolby A setup, I think you'd be blown away
by how analogue tape takes that "LP sound" and raises
it to six no-trump.


Agreed. The only thing better is CD.

Total nonsense


CD can't *improve* on an analogue master.


Agreed. However it can improve on the system that I was
specifically commenting on, which is a "appropriate and calibrated Dolby
A setup"

Early CDs were often dreadful due to technical
limitations of the then-available equipment and methods
used.


At one point early in the introduction of the CD I owned
every CD title that was sold by any retail outlet in the
midwest US - all 16! They were a mixed bag - some were
dreadful and some are still among the best-sounding
recordings I've ever heard. That tells me that the best
then-available equipment and methods were entirely
adequate, if they were properly used. IOW, it was all
about the human factor, not any limitations of the basic
technology, even as implemented at that time.


Through a quirk of fate, I recently acquired an
operational CDP-101, the first CD player sold widely at
retail in the US, that I still occasionally use. AFAIK
it is 100% origional. It sounds no different from the
best-sounding modern players including my SACD/DVD
player. It even does a credible job of playing CD-Rs.


If you cannot ear any differences between a CDP-101 and
today's best digital player tell us a lot about your
total lack of credibility concerning audio.


Right, since I have crediblity concerning audio, it tells you that part of
having credibility concerning audio involves having one's facts right.


It also tell us that we should not give a damn
about your opinion about hi-fi.


Depends how interested you are in reliable facts.

For example consider that 2 years after you dumped your CDP101, probably
because it was too sonically accurate for your tastes, the following was
published:

Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)

This article found that in level-matched, time-synched and bias-controlled
listening tests, a panel of about 20 audiophiles failed to reliably
sonically differentiate between a humble CDP 101 and Sony's latest-greatest
high end CD player.


I have owned a Sony
CDP-101 in 1984 and I could not stand its harsh high (it was giving me
headaches) so I sold it
after a bit more than a month.


Myabe you got a bad one. Maybe it was the first time you heard audio
reproduced accurately, as opposed to the traditional analog/LP sonic smoked
glass.

So how is that vinyl system, chump? ;-)



My vinyl system is quite Ok for me (Oracle Delphi), also my CD system is
also OK (Moon Equinox) and also the live concert I attend regulary (once
a week) is also OK

By the way here is own I rated what I hear: LIVE Performance- Best, LP-
Better, CD-from not bad to Very Good

I always try to get the sound I listen in the live concert and actually
no CD gave me that kind of sound. Only my Oracle at the moment can bring
me close to the spund I got at the live concert.