wrote:
bob wrote:

MD wrote:


Digital does not make an exact copy. Nor does it playback even what is
on the CD perfectly - jitter - media issues etc (Often a copy of a
problematic CD plays better than the original.

Digital makes a copy that is audibly indistinguishable from the analog.
See:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm


I see a willingness to pick and choose evidence that supports your
preheld beliefs. Nothing more nothing less. The idea that this is proof
of anything is laughable.


The original makers of CDs said the first round of players and media
were perfect. Then we discover jitter,

Oh, you do, do you? I didn't know you had research credentials. I also
didn't know that jitter was an unknown concept in 1983. Today,you can
buy a $50 DVD player with inaudible jitter.


some CDs are not sealed properly
so they develop mold and become useless. If the red book standard was
based on perfect science when it first came out why do CDs and CD
players sound so much better now?

Because science isn't perfect.


You are not making sense now. just above you are claiming that
'digital" is audibly perfect and now you are offering an explination as
to how there has been vast improvements in it. How does one vastly
improve on transparency in your veiw?


And no scientist ever claimed it was.


I'll buy that. they still haven't have they?


A
few marketing guys did, but if you listen to marketing guys, you
deserve the sound you get.


So we shouldn't listen to objectivists when they say "digital" is
perfect? OK.


Because we figured out where they
weren't perfect. Time will go on and we will find more about the
science of CD technology and the ear.

Wishful thinking isn't science.


Researching more about Cd technology and the ear isn't wishful
thinking. It's research.


What comparisons have you done and using what analog gear. If you tell
me the science or math tell you all you need to know then you are not
qualified to have an opinion here

Tell ya what. You start your own newsgroup, and be the moderator, and
you can decide who is and is not qualified to post.


Guess he struck a nerve. he certainly does have the right to disregard
your opinions based on your lack of experience. he has every right to
offer the opinion that you are not qualified to have an opinion on the
matter without the requisit experience he expects from anyone offering
such an opinion.


Meanwhile, stop
acting like you own this one.


Back at you dude.

Scott
My original reply to this was stopped by the moderator for being to harsh

So I'll try again. . .

First Scott - thanks for picking up on the inconsistencies of his
argument.

The reason I questioned his experience was because he failed to mention
what analog comparisons he has done and on what equipment. Additionally
he mentioned a Technics TT to make a point about the problems with analog.

I have stated this before - however - I will say it again. until this
year I believed digital to be superior. It was the purchase of a very
good cartridge (Not even an MC) that changed things. I have almost a
dozen selections where I have LP - (original or half-speed mastered) and
the CD (original or remastered). In every case (specifically when using
the half-speed mastered LP - even against a remastered CD) I like the LP
more. Why? even with the mediums flaws there is more air and the highs
seems to die off naturally not cut off. Additionally there is a
midrange forwardness in digital that seems unnatural. Now I suppose
this could be my digital gear (Denon 1520 with Audio Alchemy DAC and
Jitter box) but I hear the same thing with the Denon straight (worse)
and several hand held players (worse as well).

I don't doubt digital should sound better in theory or that with some
very good systems it does. I'm sure SACD, HDCD, DVD-A and technology
using more bits and high sampling rates sound better too. Redbook
applications fall short.

Several on this sight have challenged that with science ( the same
"science" that produced horrible sounding CDs and equipment years ago.
Strange occurance for a technically sound medium) and by telling me they
like CD sound better. For those who have done comparisons and used good
equipment I accept their opinion. However responses seem to come from
people who haven't put the effort in to doing fair comparisons. Their
opinions must be dismissed out of hand.


--