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 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

"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.

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

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

In article , wrote:

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.

Good thing to know.

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 could point you to the dCS web site to read what they say about the
RingDAC and maybe find a Burr-Brown page, but you would rightly say what
you find there is marketing talk. However, I'm not arguing that I'm
completely uninformed.

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?

It was the bit about "engineers vs. non-engineers" earlier in the thread.

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.

Just Stewart's anecdote. And some engineers design stuff that does sound
different for non-magical reasons: different filters, dithers, etc.

Are we at the point where you don't accept any opinions not backed by
the dreaded thread-killer?

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.

On the plus side, I've found a general answer to the question I posed at
the beginning of the thread.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:

Are we at the point where you don't accept any opinions not backed by

the dreaded thread-killer?

No. We are at the point where, if I must choose between opinions not
backed by the dreaded thread-killer and opinions that ARE backed by the
dreaded thread-killer, I will go with the thread-killer, because at
least there's some empirical reasoning behind it. I don't claim to have
the definitive word on anything, and I'm fully open to
empirically-based counterarguments. As a non-technical type, that's the
best way I know how to sort out technical claims.

bob

"MINe 109" wrote in message
Sorry, did I miss a smiley?


I doubt I could tell an Elgar from my CD23.

I doubt you could tell either from a lot of things.

Stewart could.

More importantly, as long as can he tell Elgar from Mozart ;-)

Harry Lavo writes:

As a specific example, I recently bought a used power amp by a manufacturer
based on my satisfaction with another piece of gear from the same range by
that same manufactur. It was hopefully to replace a piece of gear that I
had been relatively happy with, but I felt was slightly lacking in a
specific regard. When I got the unit, I pulled out a few "test" disks and
substitued the units back and forth, playing and replaying sections from the
disks. My overall evaluation was that the units sounded essentially alike
in frequency response and speaker control, and the new unit had the
characteristic I had been looking for (also good). So I was predisposed to
keep/like the unit. I put it in the system and used it as I worked at the
computer for a week...but I noticed that I became tired of listening and
slightly irritated after several hours..that had never happened with the old
unit. Switched it back in, went another week, no problem. Put the "new"
unit back in, another few days...same irritation problem. Back in went the
old...no problem..and it is staying there and I am selling the new unit. If
anything my expectation bias was that I would like the new unit, and the
comparative testing tended to support this. But clearly long term there is
a problem and it is a piece of gear I cannot live with.

What I can't understand is this: what leads you to believe that this
irritation had anything to do with the actual *sound* of the used
power amp? It could surely have been caused by all manner of things.

Andrew.

"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo writes:

As a specific example, I recently bought a used power amp by a
manufacturer
based on my satisfaction with another piece of gear from the same range
by
that same manufactur. It was hopefully to replace a piece of gear that
I
had been relatively happy with, but I felt was slightly lacking in a
specific regard. When I got the unit, I pulled out a few "test" disks
and
substitued the units back and forth, playing and replaying sections
from the
disks. My overall evaluation was that the units sounded essentially
alike
in frequency response and speaker control, and the new unit had the
characteristic I had been looking for (also good). So I was
predisposed to
keep/like the unit. I put it in the system and used it as I worked at
the
computer for a week...but I noticed that I became tired of listening
and
slightly irritated after several hours..that had never happened with
the old
unit. Switched it back in, went another week, no problem. Put the
"new"
unit back in, another few days...same irritation problem. Back in went
the
old...no problem..and it is staying there and I am selling the new
unit. If
anything my expectation bias was that I would like the new unit, and
the
comparative testing tended to support this. But clearly long term
there is
a problem and it is a piece of gear I cannot live with.

What I can't understand is this: what leads you to believe that this
irritation had anything to do with the actual *sound* of the used
power amp? It could surely have been caused by all manner of things.


Cause and effect. When the amp played for long periods, it affected me.
Other amps do not. I've had this happen with other pieces of gear in the
past. It is not a conscious thing initially, but it is definitely related
to the reproduction of the music in some fashion.

"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo writes:

As a specific example, I recently bought a used power amp by a
manufacturer
based on my satisfaction with another piece of gear from the same range
by
that same manufactur. It was hopefully to replace a piece of gear that
I
had been relatively happy with, but I felt was slightly lacking in a
specific regard. When I got the unit, I pulled out a few "test" disks
and
substitued the units back and forth, playing and replaying sections from
the
disks. My overall evaluation was that the units sounded essentially
alike
in frequency response and speaker control, and the new unit had the
characteristic I had been looking for (also good). So I was predisposed
to
keep/like the unit. I put it in the system and used it as I worked at
the
computer for a week...but I noticed that I became tired of listening and
slightly irritated after several hours..that had never happened with the
old
unit. Switched it back in, went another week, no problem. Put the "new"
unit back in, another few days...same irritation problem. Back in went
the
old...no problem..and it is staying there and I am selling the new unit.
If
anything my expectation bias was that I would like the new unit, and
the
comparative testing tended to support this. But clearly long term there
is
a problem and it is a piece of gear I cannot live with.

What I can't understand is this: what leads you to believe that this
irritation had anything to do with the actual *sound* of the used
power amp? It could surely have been caused by all manner of things.

I don't understand it either but the fact of the matter is that my
experience parallels that of Mr. Lavo (exactly). A/B/X.../Y/Z,
blind, etc. mean absolutely nothing to me. I have often been ridiculed for
my belief, having been informed that an instant comparison tells the whole
story. I have to live with a component in my system for at least a week
before I learn whether or not I'm *comfortable* with it. Like most other
things in life, perhaps I have a liking for some characteristic upon first
consideration, but after a longer time a learn it's unlivable. At very least
this long term evaluation rules out minute differences in volume level as
being responsible for one's preferences,

Harry Lavo writes:
"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo writes:

As a specific example, I recently bought a used power amp by a
manufacturer based on my satisfaction with another piece of gear
from the same range by that same manufactur

...but I noticed that I became tired of listening and slightly
irritated after several hours..that had never happened with the
old unit. Switched it back in, went another week, no
problem. Put the "new" unit back in, another few days...same
irritation problem. Back in went the old...no problem..and it is
staying there and I am selling the new unit. If anything my
expectation bias was that I would like the new unit, and the
comparative testing tended to support this. But clearly long
term there is a problem and it is a piece of gear I cannot live
with.

What I can't understand is this: what leads you to believe that this
irritation had anything to do with the actual *sound* of the used
power amp? It could surely have been caused by all manner of things.

Cause and effect. When the amp played for long periods, it affected
me. Other amps do not. I've had this happen with other pieces of
gear in the past. It is not a conscious thing initially, but it is
definitely related to the reproduction of the music in some fashion.

I don't understand why you come to that conclusion. Surely this
"irritation" could be caused by all manner of things. Perhaps you
subconsciously don't like the colour of the front panel, or the name
of the manufacturer. Who knows?

If I had the experience you have described, I'd have to admit that I
didn't know what the source of the problem was. But you conclude it's
definitely something to do with your perception of the sound of that
particular amplifier.

Andrew.

"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo writes:
"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo writes:

As a specific example, I recently bought a used power amp by a
manufacturer based on my satisfaction with another piece of gear
from the same range by that same manufactur

...but I noticed that I became tired of listening and slightly
irritated after several hours..that had never happened with the
old unit. Switched it back in, went another week, no
problem. Put the "new" unit back in, another few days...same
irritation problem. Back in went the old...no problem..and it is
staying there and I am selling the new unit. If anything my
expectation bias was that I would like the new unit, and the
comparative testing tended to support this. But clearly long
term there is a problem and it is a piece of gear I cannot live
with.

What I can't understand is this: what leads you to believe that this
irritation had anything to do with the actual *sound* of the used
power amp? It could surely have been caused by all manner of things.

Cause and effect. When the amp played for long periods, it affected
me. Other amps do not. I've had this happen with other pieces of
gear in the past. It is not a conscious thing initially, but it is
definitely related to the reproduction of the music in some fashion.

I don't understand why you come to that conclusion. Surely this
"irritation" could be caused by all manner of things. Perhaps you
subconsciously don't like the colour of the front panel, or the name
of the manufacturer. Who knows?

If I had the experience you have described, I'd have to admit that I
didn't know what the source of the problem was. But you conclude it's
definitely something to do with your perception of the sound of that
particular amplifier.


In this case, the amps looked very similar, were the same color, and had
approximately the same build quality. Moreover, if you looked at my
equipment you would see a great variety of "looks". The reason I reach the
conclusion is that the thing that creates the irritation is the sound...the
amp sitting quietly does nothing for me one way or the other and I am doing
other things while listening and not focusing on the amp.

This is another case where instead of accepting the obvious, you are
stretching to create fanciful notions as to causes when the probable cause
is obvious and right before your nose. SOMETHING in the way this amp
reproduces music annoys me; whereas my previous amp does not. I suspect I
know what it is, and it is very subtle and not easy to pick up at first. I
won't mention specifics here, as that will only lead to a challenge to blind
test it to be sure it is real, which I have no intention of doing. But it
is real enough that I won't live with that amp.