In article , wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b,
although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money."
Am I
wrong?

You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is
subpar,
and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be audible?

I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of analysis.

In that case, you're on shaky ground ascribing the difference to
"design," aren't you?

I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to
build one.

The
Arcam has a more advanced DAC and a heftier power supply, plus it's
in a
silver box instead of a brown one.

It's the silver that does it, you know!

But of course.

And while we're at it, how do you know you aren't just imaging a
difference between them? Happens all the time.

Frequency response is likely different. Hearing "Elephant Talk" on
the AMC was akin to hearing a completely different mix.

In that case, you should definitely junk it. There's no excuse for FR
problems in a CD player.

I've been using it as a transport in another system instead.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b,
although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more
money."
Am I
wrong?

You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is
subpar,
and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be
audible?

I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of
analysis.

In that case, you're on shaky ground ascribing the difference to
"design," aren't you?

I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to

build one.

Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
differences between CD players tend not to have audible consequences. I
would trust their judgment over yours or mine.

bob

In article , wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b,
although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more
money."
Am I
wrong?

You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is
subpar,
and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be
audible?

I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of
analysis.

In that case, you're on shaky ground ascribing the difference to
"design," aren't you?

I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to

build one.

Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
differences between CD players tend not to have audible consequences. I
would trust their judgment over yours or mine.

I'd hate to be stuck with unsatisfactory gear because some engineer
somewhere doesn't think audible consequences possible. 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.

One selling point of the Arcam is the RingDAC, which was sourced from
dCS, who may be presumed to know something about design.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:


Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
differences between CD players tend not to have audible consequences. I
would trust their judgment over yours or mine.

I'd hate to be stuck with unsatisfactory gear because some engineer
somewhere doesn't think audible consequences possible. 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.

That would show up clearly as THD (total harmonic distortion) in
measurements. If you were to look at measurements of CD players, you
will have a hard time finding any player with significant distortion,
say above 0.05%. The DVD player you mentioned, if indeed your pro-audio
guy was correct, is a very rare exception.


One selling point of the Arcam is the RingDAC, which was sourced from
dCS, who may be presumed to know something about design.

Question, of course, is why would the other CD player(AMC) be noticeably
worse in a listening test. Looking at the specs, there is nothing that
indicates it would not be sonically accurate. Certainly the Burr-Brown
96/24 DAC's are very good performers.

In article , Chung
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:


Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
differences between CD players tend not to have audible consequences. I
would trust their judgment over yours or mine.

I'd hate to be stuck with unsatisfactory gear because some engineer
somewhere doesn't think audible consequences possible. 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.

That would show up clearly as THD (total harmonic distortion) in
measurements. If you were to look at measurements of CD players, you
will have a hard time finding any player with significant distortion,
say above 0.05%. The DVD player you mentioned, if indeed your pro-audio
guy was correct, is a very rare exception.

Apparently it did. However, even Consumer Reports implied some cheap dvd
players sounded different, the "fix" being a twist of the treble knob.

One selling point of the Arcam is the RingDAC, which was sourced from
dCS, who may be presumed to know something about design.

Question, of course, is why would the other CD player(AMC) be noticeably
worse in a listening test. Looking at the specs, there is nothing that
indicates it would not be sonically accurate. Certainly the Burr-Brown
96/24 DAC's are very good performers.

That was my thought when I bought it by mail. I imagine the problem may
be related to poor construction/assembly, but I would expect gross
problems rather than subtle ones from that.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article , Chung
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:


snip

One selling point of the Arcam is the RingDAC, which was sourced from
dCS, who may be presumed to know something about design.

Question, of course, is why would the other CD player(AMC) be noticeably
worse in a listening test. Looking at the specs, there is nothing that
indicates it would not be sonically accurate. Certainly the Burr-Brown
96/24 DAC's are very good performers.

That was my thought when I bought it by mail. I imagine the problem may
be related to poor construction/assembly, but I would expect gross
problems rather than subtle ones from that.


Perhaps Stewart might be asked to reply with his opinion or observations.
IIRC several years ago he was promoting the Arcam with ringdac as superior
to most other CD players that did not have same.

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
differences between CD players tend not to have audible
consequences. I
would trust their judgment over yours or mine.

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.

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?

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.

bob

In article , wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
differences between CD players tend not to have audible
consequences. I
would trust their judgment over yours or mine.

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? Sounds like arguing from
authority, especially if I'm told I'm not qualified to have an opinion.

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.

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.

Stephen

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?

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 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."

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.

bob

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?

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.

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.

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.

Stephen

I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to
build one.

You picked an unfortunate example. Grand pianos reached the zenith of their
design 100 years ago. Since that time, there have been almost no changes
that could be fairly described as important. Indeed, a minor change in the
way the strings are coupled to the bridge was the basis for an entirely new
piano company in Australia. One could swap the entire work force of 2
different piano companies, and manufacturing would resume with scarcely a
missed beat.

Norm Strong

In article ,
wrote:

I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to
build one.

You picked an unfortunate example. Grand pianos reached the zenith of their
design 100 years ago. Since that time, there have been almost no changes
that could be fairly described as important. Indeed, a minor change in the
way the strings are coupled to the bridge was the basis for an entirely new
piano company in Australia. One could swap the entire work force of 2
different piano companies, and manufacturing would resume with scarcely a
missed beat.

100 years ago one could buy an American Steinway (the "zenith" to which
you refer), or a piano with a Viennese action, or a straight-strung
Erard with under-dampers.

Perhaps you are unaware of the piano-copying cottage industry. With
enough money and enough lead time, one can purchase a copy or a
restoration of a piano built in the 19th or 18th centuries.

Unfortunate, indeed.

Stephen