On 6/6/04 1:10 PM, in article PdIwc.10834$4S5.4985@attbi_s52, "normanstrong"
wrote:

Curious, I opened it up and inventoried the parts. I expected that it
would be highly integrated. Wrong! It had 5 large integrated
circuits, but for the most part it consisted of small components: 82
capacitors, 64 resistors, and 20 switches, jacks and other
electromechanical parts. Even if the small parts were free, it's
difficult to see how this player could be retailed for $12. But that
was the price, and I see the same player this very moment at that
price at the same Fred Meyer.

Having spent time in SE Asia on business, it is surprising to me that the
cost was as low as you founf it - no one was making any money on it. The
BOM cost would likely be around $10, labor, another 50 cents (assuming China
or Vietnam) - leaving an unhealthy GM for the store and manufacturer.

A couple of months ago I bought an Apex DVD player. It was on sale
for $30, although the MSRP was $40. I actually needed this player to
play back CDRWs loaded with WMA audio files. Very few players will do
this, so I didn't hesitate; in fact I bought a spare! I'm about to
open up one of these players and do a parts inventory. Stay tuned.

Norm Strong

Bromo wrote:

On 6/6/04 9:37 AM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

Bromo wrote:
On 6/5/04 2:50 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

Let me remind you of the 'first law of audiophiles' - if you like the
sound,
it passes the test for you. If CD players from the early 1990's sound just
as good as those from today (and many CD players use the same circuits with
newer chips)

OK, so you do not really have any data backing your claim.

I was shedding some perspective to you. If you feel that the CD players c.
1992 are as good and sound as good as they do today (though you neglected to
mention which ones were in your data driven survey), I am making no attempt
to sway you either way. If you are completely satisfied, then my point is:
enjoy your CD's and CD player.

Perspectives, or pure unbacked opinions?

I am not attempting to sway you either way. I said that If you felt that
way and had formed an opinion - then wonderful - enjoy your sonic bliss. If
you feel that your opinions are pur and unabcked - that is not my concern.

Enjoy your c1992 CD player - is all I am saying. If you find no
improvements worth anything - then more power to you. If I felt that way
about my Magnavox c. 1985 player - I would have never upgraded myself.

So -- enjoy yourself.


Question is, of course, how you came to your opinion about algorithms
having been improved by leaps and bounds over the last 10 years. And you
failed to provide a straight answer.

There are many reasons why you prefer your new player over the Magnavox
c. 1985 one. It just strikes me as strange that you can extrapolate from
that preference to claiming huge improvements in upsampling/oversampling
algorithms in the last 10 years.

Bromo wrote:
On 6/6/04 1:24 PM, in article trIwc.48717$pt3.46778@attbi_s03, "chung"
wrote:

Bromo wrote:

On 6/5/04 2:50 PM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

Even with a good CD player - the ability of CD's to do well and approach
the
'Hi Resolution' promise of the technology rests upon the studios ability to
produce good software.

And your point is?

Point is that you can have the best DAC in the universe and it won't matter
if the only CD's or digital sources available are recorded and mastered
poorly.


That point is neither here nor there, regarding the question of whether
there were huge improvements in algorithms in the last 10 years.


Ah, but it is. If you listen to poorly mastered CD's and all I have are
CD's that are mastered well - it is unlikely we would come to the same
conclusion about a CD player that would be capable of extracting good sound.

'nuff said.


If you want to compare two CD players, of course you would use the same
material and at the same level. In any event, you were saying that there
were "leaps and bounds" improvements in algorithms. Even if you conclude
that the new CD players are *much* better than those a decade older, how
would you know that the improvement is from upsampling/oversampling
algorithms? How about jitter (design of clock and oscillator circuitry),
analog output stages, power supply, etc? Aren't those just as likely, if
not more likely, to contribute to better sound?

On 6/6/04 8:46 PM, in article 5WOwc.52950$3x.37955@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

Question is, of course, how you came to your opinion about algorithms
having been improved by leaps and bounds over the last 10 years. And you
failed to provide a straight answer.

I work in electronics.

On 6/6/04 8:46 PM, in article 5WOwc.52950$3x.37955@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

There are many reasons why you prefer your new player over the Magnavox
c. 1985 one. It just strikes me as strange that you can extrapolate from
that preference to claiming huge improvements in upsampling/oversampling
algorithms in the last 10 years.

You don't get what I was trying to tell you. You came out guns blazing
saying that you didn't hear *any* differences between mid 1990's and now.
My reply was not to argue - but to tell you to enjoy your sonic bliss with
vintage equipment.

There is not use continuing this conversation.

Bromo wrote:
On 6/6/04 8:46 PM, in article 5WOwc.52950$3x.37955@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

There are many reasons why you prefer your new player over the Magnavox
c. 1985 one. It just strikes me as strange that you can extrapolate from
that preference to claiming huge improvements in upsampling/oversampling
algorithms in the last 10 years.

You don't get what I was trying to tell you. You came out guns blazing
saying that you didn't hear *any* differences between mid 1990's and now.
My reply was not to argue - but to tell you to enjoy your sonic bliss with
vintage equipment.

That was never the argument, since it is subjective whether I like the
CD players from 10 years ago or not. Just like I wouldn't tell you that
you were mistaken in preferring the newer CD players.

The interesting thing that I wanted you to explain was how you arrived
at your conclusion about the algorithms. And other than saying that you
work in electronics, you fail to provide any explanation.


There is not use continuing this conversation.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:35:47 GMT, Tat Chan
wrote:


Hmmm, a local dealer has a Meridian 203 DAC for £150 and a Meridian 566
DAC for about £555.

I still miss my 203, which I only recently sold to a fellow UK
enthusiast. He thinks it's terrific!

I saw your comments about the Benchmark DAC1 in another thread and
decided to dig up some info on the DAC1.

Over here in Oz, the DAC1 is about the same price as the second hand
Meridian 566 that was listed by the dealer!

I would like an opinion please (I posted this before but it never
appeared). How does the MSB link DAC compare with the others. I start
with a Marantz 67SE into a DIP MK II "jitter buster" then to the MSB.
When I compare the sound to the analog output of the Marantz, I can't
hear any difference. I am using good cables (although I really don't
believe this makes any difference).


-MIKE

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 01:02:54 GMT, Bromo wrote:

On 6/6/04 8:46 PM, in article 5WOwc.52950$3x.37955@attbi_s54, "chung"
wrote:

Question is, of course, how you came to your opinion about algorithms
having been improved by leaps and bounds over the last 10 years. And
you
failed to provide a straight answer.

I work in electronics.

So do I. Did you have any intention of actually answering Chung's
question?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

MIKE wrote:

I would like an opinion please (I posted this before but it never
appeared).Â* How does the MSB link DAC compare with the others.Â* I start
with a Marantz 67SE into a DIP MK II "jitter buster" then to the MSB.
When I compare the sound to the analog output of the Marantz, I can't
hear any difference.Â* I am using good cables (although I really don't
believe this makes any difference).

All right, you want an opinion, here's an opinion. (And it's only an
opinion, because I have never heard any of the three components you've
mentioned.) It is my opinion that there are a lot of DACs out there that
reconstruct the analog signal in pretty much the same way, with pretty much
the same results. So I'm not remotely surprised that the MSB DAC and the
Marantz DAC would be indistinguishable. As for that anti-jitter thingy, it's
probably fixing a problem that isn't there, at least as far as the Marantz
is concerned.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Looking to buy a house? Get informed with the Home Buying Guide from MSN
House & Home. http://coldwellbanker.msn.com/

normanstrong wrote:
"Bromo" wrote in message
...
On 6/5/04 2:50 PM, in article , "chung"

Additionally, it might be added that one of the nice things in the
last 10
years is that you can get a CD player that sounds great for a
fraction of
the cost of the previous generation. The chips have gotten much
cheaper.

Indeed. Last year I purchased a portable CD player for $12. This was
the regular price, not some B stock price. Comparing the sound with
that of my more pretentious players that actually cost real money, I
could not detect any reduction in sound quality; neither could my
audiophile neighbors or my wife, all of whose hearing is better than
mine.

Curious, I opened it up and inventoried the parts. I expected that it
would be highly integrated. Wrong! It had 5 large integrated
circuits, but for the most part it consisted of small components: 82
capacitors, 64 resistors, and 20 switches, jacks and other
electromechanical parts. Even if the small parts were free, it's
difficult to see how this player could be retailed for $12. But that
was the price, and I see the same player this very moment at that
price at the same Fred Meyer.

A couple of months ago I bought an Apex DVD player. It was on sale
for $30, although the MSRP was $40. I actually needed this player to
play back CDRWs loaded with WMA audio files. Very few players will do
this, so I didn't hesitate; in fact I bought a spare! I'm about to
open up one of these players and do a parts inventory. Stay tuned.

Norm Strong



It really strikes me that there is no justice when it comes to price of
electronics (sometimes cutting-edge electronics, too). I can get a 256MB
USB-2 flash memory dongle for about $50 today. That's really high-tech
stuff, containing billions of transistors, stuff that requires hundreds
of millions of dollars to design and manufacture. I can also get a set
of *cheap* video component cables from Radio Shack for about $50. The
latter costs less than $1 in manufacturing cost, is based on 50-year-old
technology, and can be made in your typical garage.

And the comparison is even more totally ridiculous if, heaven forbid,
you want a videophile grade set of cables. And I wouldn't start talking
about audiophile boutique stuff...

Opinion please. I am using a MSB link DAC fed from a Marantz 67SE
digital output through a DIP MKII "jitter buster". What do you think of
the MSB? When I compare the sound with that from the analog output from
the Marantz, I can't hear any difference.

-MIKE

MIKE wrote:

Opinion please.Â* I am using a MSB link DAC fed from a Marantz 67SE
digital output through a DIP MKII "jitter buster".Â* What do you think of
the MSB?Â* When I compare the sound with that from the analog output from
the Marantz, I can't hear any difference.

My opinion is that the MSB is a perfectly fine DAC. My other opinion is that
the Marantz contains a perfectly fine DAC. And my third opinion is that all
perfectly fine DACs should and do sound the same.

But that's just my opinion.

Jitter buster???

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Planning a family vacation? Check out the MSN Family Travel guide!
http://dollar.msn.com