Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CD Players sound the same?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 7:31:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one, agree with
him as I have experienced these differences myself.

I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these differences that
Roger describes at http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ?

Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this.

-------------------------------
"Do all CD Players Sound the Same?

Tests for response and distortion in CD players all turn out very well. The
measurements show that distortion is extremely low and response is ruler
flat. CD players have eliminated the differences between phono cartridges.
They have also eliminated pops and clicks and those inevitable scratches on
the records that seem to appear out of nowhere. They have also eliminated
problems of dust, turntable rumble and playback loss. Despite all of these
advantages, there are still listening differences.

If you have only heard one CD player, you will have enjoyed all of the
advantages without being aware that there are still differences. In an A-B
comparison, response is the same, even when compared with a steady source
such as pink noise. Harmonic and intermodulation distortion are so low that
the players all sound very clean.

The difference is something new and may require a readjustment to know what
to listen for. The difference is in imaging. It is most easily heard using
speakers that have exceptional imaging capabilities. It is almost
impossible to convey a listening experience in words. However, I will try
to describe what I have heard. I have used a McIntosh MCD7005, McIntosh
MVP851and a McIntosh MVP851 supplemented with a McIntosh MDA1000 digital to
analog converter for the listening tests. I made these tests in late 2004
and early 2005.

Imaging using the 7005 appears to be very wide and pleasing with orchestral
music. Some new age recordings seem to completely envelop the listener.
It’s all very nice. It was only when I began using the 851 that I noticed
there was a difference in imaging. Classical music sounded like it had much
better coherence, giving it more clarity and sense of aliveness. However,
it was more than just imaging. It was a new kind of distortion difference,
more like a phase distortion that affected the coherence of the image. The
851 was made in 2004 and the older 7005 was made in 1987.

The explanation had a definite physical cause. It was the digital-to-analog
filtering. The filtering was significantly improved in the 851. What I was
hearing was confirmed by McIntosh engineering. It was also pointed out that
some people preferred the sound of the lesser filtering. I was in agreement
when it came to new age music. I liked being enveloped in the sound.
However, the spaciousness provided in some new age music is all
synthesized. There is no real world reference to hearing this music except
through loudspeakers or headphones, whereas, classical music has a real
world reference and it is that which guided my decision in my search for
improved accuracy. I accepted the new age music, with the improved
filtering, as it was probably intended to be that way.

The experiment went further when I added the 1000 D-to-A converter to the
851. The digital output of the 851 is fed to the D-to-A converter prior to
the filtering. The 1000 converts the digital signals to 786 kHz with 24 bit
resolution before converting to analog. This is literally the best
filtering possible. The kind of listening experience was similar but not as
pronounced. There was a further improvement in coherence and a little more
loss of separateness between the speakers. The difference was getting to
the point that it wasn’t always audible, depending on the program material.
Having heard this further improvement, it became my new reference.

So what was the problem in the first place? It was the sampling rate of
44.1 kHz. It is the criticism of many who voiced their opinion and
complaints. It was too low in frequency. The problem was not that we can’t
hear that high or even half that high. It was in the restoration to the
analog form and the digital-to-analog filtering that was inadequate. It
didn’t cause a response problem, it caused a spatial or imaging problem..
So why don’t all players have better filtering? Better D-to-A filtering is
expensive and a separate D-to-A converter is grossly expensive. The MDA1000
sells for $8000.

Perhaps decisions are money oriented. The improvements are slight in
comparison to what would be a greatly increased cost for CD players. Most
consumers would not notice the difference in listening but would notice the
higher cost of the players, which would affect the sales of CDs. In fact,
the MP3 format goes in the opposite direction and is very popular

The SACD format offers a higher sampling rate and avoids the problem. It is
said to be much closer to the original analog sound and analog recordings
like tape and vinyl. It is also said that using the MDA1000 offers sound as
good as analog. Other formats are being tried such as DVD sound."
---------------------------------

rich

--

More about : players sound

Anonymous
April 7, 2005 7:31:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

R wrote:
> Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one,
> agree with him as I have experienced these differences myself.
>
> I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these
> differences that Roger describes at
> http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ?
>
> Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this.
>
> -------------------------------
> "Do all CD Players Sound the Same?
>
> Tests for response and distortion in CD players all turn out very
> well. The measurements show that distortion is extremely low and
> response is ruler flat. CD players have eliminated the differences
> between phono cartridges. They have also eliminated pops and clicks
> and those inevitable scratches on the records that seem to appear
out
> of nowhere. They have also eliminated problems of dust, turntable
> rumble and playback loss. Despite all of these advantages, there are
> still listening differences.
>
> If you have only heard one CD player, you will have enjoyed all of
the
> advantages without being aware that there are still differences. In
> an A-B comparison, response is the same, even when compared with a
> steady source such as pink noise. Harmonic and intermodulation
> distortion are so low that the players all sound very clean.
>
> The difference is something new and may require a readjustment to
> know what to listen for. The difference is in imaging. It is most
> easily heard using speakers that have exceptional imaging
> capabilities. It is almost impossible to convey a listening
> experience in words. However, I will try to describe what I have
> heard. I have used a McIntosh MCD7005, McIntosh MVP851and a McIntosh
> MVP851 supplemented with a McIntosh MDA1000 digital to analog
> converter for the listening tests. I made these tests in late 2004
> and early 2005.

Roger gets a lot of things right, but this time he's way off base.

In fact doing close comparisons of CD players is one of the tougher
A/B games there is to play. Level-matching is easy but time-synch is
tough because the players always seem to want to wander off. While the
playback speed is often controlled by a 0.005% crystal or resonator,
even that fine tolerance allows audible delays to built up fairly
quickly.

IME the most likely source of sonic differences between optical
players relates to more prozaic almost non-audio things like error
recovery and concealment., and handling of CD-Rs.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 8:28:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

All discussions of CD comparisons are a case of the blind leading the
blind because no one builds CD transports sufficiently well calibrated
and instrumented to give good data on exactly what they are doing on a
real time basis. It's possible but it isn't done.

Also, there is little question that a higher sample rate would have
beneficial aspects. 44.1 was determined by predetermined edicts of
disc size and playing time-it had to fit a drive that would fit a PC
drive bay and play Beethoven's Eroica on one disc, one side. 44.1 was
the result of being the highest bit density they figured was
productionable with the existing process limitations.

A serious player-really serious-would have a ovenized clock or a
connection for an external reference. However, since CD players are now
very much cheaper than ovenized crystal frequency standards-a
ridiculous situation on the face of it-it's unlikely.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 8:37:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

<calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> Also, there is little question that a higher sample rate would have
> beneficial aspects. 44.1 was determined by predetermined edicts of
> disc size and playing time-it had to fit a drive that would fit a PC
> drive bay and play Beethoven's Eroica on one disc, one side. 44.1 was
> the result of being the highest bit density they figured was
> productionable with the existing process limitations.

The sampling frequency is also a function of the technology used. For a
regular red book CD that is encoded using PCM, you have 16-bit 'words' that
are being sampled at 44.1 kHz.

If I remember Nyquist's Theorem correctly, if you sample at any rate
exceeding double the bandwidth you will reproduce the signal in its
entirety.

Because the human ear has got an upper limit of 20 kHz, any sampling rate
over 40 kHz will be high enough for the law of diminishing returns to
become the law of zero returns.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 9:04:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:31:22 GMT, R <spmaway@ylhoo.com> wrote:

>Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one, agree with
>him as I have experienced these differences myself.
>
>I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these differences that
>Roger describes at http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ?

No.

I have a Pioneer 'Chinky cheapy' DV-575A universal player which in
level-matched time-synchronised DBT comparison, is not sonically
distinguishable (by three very experienced listeners) from a Meridian
588, an arguably 'state of the art' dedicated CD player which uses the
same type of upsampled D/A conversion described by Roger. The Pioneer
cost £109, the 588 is more than £2,000.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 9:30:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in news:zs2dnRa9kLS8ycjfRVn-
hQ@comcast.com:

> R wrote:
>> Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one,
>> agree with him as I have experienced these differences myself.
>>
>> I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these
>> differences that Roger describes at
>> http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ?
>>
>> Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this.
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> "Do all CD Players Sound the Same?
>>
>> Tests for response and distortion in CD players all turn out very
>> well. The measurements show that distortion is extremely low and
>> response is ruler flat. CD players have eliminated the differences
>> between phono cartridges. They have also eliminated pops and clicks
>> and those inevitable scratches on the records that seem to appear
> out
>> of nowhere. They have also eliminated problems of dust, turntable
>> rumble and playback loss. Despite all of these advantages, there are
>> still listening differences.
>>
>> If you have only heard one CD player, you will have enjoyed all of
> the
>> advantages without being aware that there are still differences. In
>> an A-B comparison, response is the same, even when compared with a
>> steady source such as pink noise. Harmonic and intermodulation
>> distortion are so low that the players all sound very clean.
>>
>> The difference is something new and may require a readjustment to
>> know what to listen for. The difference is in imaging. It is most
>> easily heard using speakers that have exceptional imaging
>> capabilities. It is almost impossible to convey a listening
>> experience in words. However, I will try to describe what I have
>> heard. I have used a McIntosh MCD7005, McIntosh MVP851and a McIntosh
>> MVP851 supplemented with a McIntosh MDA1000 digital to analog
>> converter for the listening tests. I made these tests in late 2004
>> and early 2005.
>
> Roger gets a lot of things right, but this time he's way off base.
>
> In fact doing close comparisons of CD players is one of the tougher
> A/B games there is to play. Level-matching is easy but time-synch is
> tough because the players always seem to want to wander off. While the
> playback speed is often controlled by a 0.005% crystal or resonator,
> even that fine tolerance allows audible delays to built up fairly
> quickly.
>
> IME the most likely source of sonic differences between optical
> players relates to more prozaic almost non-audio things like error
> recovery and concealment., and handling of CD-Rs.
>
>
>

Thanks for your response Arny. I will take it that your answer to my
question is "No".

I must ask one question if you don't mind. What is the basic design type
of your speakers? Flat panel, pont source are possible answers. If point
source ae they a MTM, TM, or something else.

Just to set the record straight, Roger is using the same optics for his
tests. He selects the analog output of the CDP or the analog output of the
outboard DAC.

rich


--
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 9:30:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

R wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in news:zs2dnRa9kLS8ycjfRVn-
> hQ@comcast.com:
>
>> R wrote:
>>> Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one,
>>> agree with him as I have experienced these differences myself.
>>>
>>> I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these
>>> differences that Roger describes at
>>> http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ?
>>>
>>> Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this.
>>>

> Thanks for your response Arny. I will take it that your answer to
my
> question is "No".

Roger! ;-)

> I must ask one question if you don't mind. What is the basic design
> type of your speakers? Flat panel, point source are possible
answers.
> If point source ae they a MTM, TM, or something else.

My personal speakers are immaterial to this question, since I've ABX'd
CD players on so many different systems over the past 20+ years. At
least one pair of each, plus assorted earphones and headphones.

> Just to set the record straight, Roger is using the same optics for
> his tests. He selects the analog output of the CDP or the analog
> output of the outboard DAC.

That isn't what his article seems to say. He says

"If you have only heard one CD player, you will have enjoyed all of
the
advantages without being aware that there are still differences."

Therefore its fair to conclude that at least some of his tests are of
different CD players.

I seriously doubt that he's *all* hitting basics which are:

(1) Level-matched
(2) Time-synched (within a few mSec)
(3) Double Blind

Now (2) would seem to be ensured by what appears to be a comparison
between a stand-alone DAC and the DAC in his CD player, but that seems
to ignore a number of potentially uncontrolled factors.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 9:45:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:39:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>In fact doing close comparisons of CD players is one of the tougher
>A/B games there is to play. Level-matching is easy but time-synch is
>tough because the players always seem to want to wander off. While the
>playback speed is often controlled by a 0.005% crystal or resonator,
>even that fine tolerance allows audible delays to built up fairly
>quickly.

If this is the case, then, as Howard would say, all bets are off with
using A/B comparisons.
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 10:34:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:30:28 GMT, R <spmaway@ylhoo.com> wrote:

>"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in news:zs2dnRa9kLS8ycjfRVn-
>hQ@comcast.com:
>
>> R wrote:
>>> Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one,
>>> agree with him as I have experienced these differences myself.
>>>
>>> I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these
>>> differences that Roger describes at
>>> http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ?
>>>
>>> Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this.
>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>> "Do all CD Players Sound the Same?
>>>
>>> Tests for response and distortion in CD players all turn out very
>>> well. The measurements show that distortion is extremely low and
>>> response is ruler flat. CD players have eliminated the differences
>>> between phono cartridges. They have also eliminated pops and clicks
>>> and those inevitable scratches on the records that seem to appear
>> out
>>> of nowhere. They have also eliminated problems of dust, turntable
>>> rumble and playback loss. Despite all of these advantages, there are
>>> still listening differences.
>>>
>>> If you have only heard one CD player, you will have enjoyed all of
>> the
>>> advantages without being aware that there are still differences. In
>>> an A-B comparison, response is the same, even when compared with a
>>> steady source such as pink noise. Harmonic and intermodulation
>>> distortion are so low that the players all sound very clean.
>>>
>>> The difference is something new and may require a readjustment to
>>> know what to listen for. The difference is in imaging. It is most
>>> easily heard using speakers that have exceptional imaging
>>> capabilities. It is almost impossible to convey a listening
>>> experience in words. However, I will try to describe what I have
>>> heard. I have used a McIntosh MCD7005, McIntosh MVP851and a McIntosh
>>> MVP851 supplemented with a McIntosh MDA1000 digital to analog
>>> converter for the listening tests. I made these tests in late 2004
>>> and early 2005.
>>
>> Roger gets a lot of things right, but this time he's way off base.
>>
>> In fact doing close comparisons of CD players is one of the tougher
>> A/B games there is to play. Level-matching is easy but time-synch is
>> tough because the players always seem to want to wander off. While the
>> playback speed is often controlled by a 0.005% crystal or resonator,
>> even that fine tolerance allows audible delays to built up fairly
>> quickly.
>>
>> IME the most likely source of sonic differences between optical
>> players relates to more prozaic almost non-audio things like error
>> recovery and concealment., and handling of CD-Rs.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Thanks for your response Arny. I will take it that your answer to my
>question is "No".
>
>I must ask one question if you don't mind. What is the basic design type
>of your speakers? Flat panel, pont source are possible answers. If point
>source ae they a MTM, TM, or something else.
>
>Just to set the record straight, Roger is using the same optics for his
>tests. He selects the analog output of the CDP or the analog output of the
>outboard DAC.

That makes synch a doddle, but I hope he matches the output levels.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:21:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in news:3t2dnW5sMIB5D8jfRVn-
3Q@comcast.com:

> R wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in news:zs2dnRa9kLS8ycjfRVn-
>> hQ@comcast.com:
>>
>>> R wrote:
>>>> Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one,
>>>> agree with him as I have experienced these differences myself.
>>>>
>>>> I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these
>>>> differences that Roger describes at
>>>> http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ?
>>>>
>>>> Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this.
>>>>
>
>> Thanks for your response Arny. I will take it that your answer to
> my
>> question is "No".
>
> Roger! ;-)
>
>> I must ask one question if you don't mind. What is the basic design
>> type of your speakers? Flat panel, point source are possible
> answers.
>> If point source ae they a MTM, TM, or something else.
>
> My personal speakers are immaterial to this question, since I've ABX'd
> CD players on so many different systems over the past 20+ years. At
> least one pair of each, plus assorted earphones and headphones.

Thanks for your cooperation. Headphones and speakers is good enough for
me.


>
>> Just to set the record straight, Roger is using the same optics for
>> his tests. He selects the analog output of the CDP or the analog
>> output of the outboard DAC.
>
> That isn't what his article seems to say.
>

Bringing up test procedures really is outside of the the scope of this
particular discussion but thanks for your concern and advice.


rich

--
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:41:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:

> All discussions of CD comparisons are a case of the blind leading
the
> blind because no one builds CD transports sufficiently well
calibrated
> and instrumented to give good data on exactly what they are doing on
a
> real time basis.

That's because its unecessary, even irrelevant.

>It's possible but it isn't done.

It isn't needed because its all about the sound quality, stupid.

> Also, there is little question that a higher sample rate would have
> beneficial aspects.

That's right - no question at all. Higher bit rates have no audible
benefits. They are a clear case of numbers for the sake of numbers.
This does impress some dilentantes, though it seems.


> A serious player-really serious-would have a ovenized clock

Ovens are for long-term stability. The human ear isn't *that*
sensitive to pitch. Besides ovens have been kind of passe' ever since
they invented TXCOs more than 20 years ago.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:57:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In rec.audio.tech R <spmaway@ylhoo.com> wrote:
> Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one, agree with
> him as I have experienced these differences myself.
>
> I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these differences that
> Roger describes at http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd ?
>
> Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this.

Interesting stuff. I would agree that not all CD players sound alike,
although the differences are small. However when he talks about imaging,
I start to get queasy. The beauty of imaging as a measure for audio quality,
is that it's an unmeasurable quantity, and thus no one can prove you wrong.

I also intuitively like the idea that the biggest problem with the 44.1kHz
sampling rate is in the difficulty of converting it back to analog, and
filtering it at that point. It certainly seems the most likely point to
be introducing distortion to the signal.

As for his testing though? Doesn't look particularly comprehensive or
conclusive to me. Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the
sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level
hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent? That would
probably do an excellent job of it, and cost a lot less than the $8k DAC
he used for testing.

Colin
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 3:18:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <4255ac92@news.nucleus.com>,
"Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:

> Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the
> sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level
> hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent?

For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble.

Stephen
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 3:18:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article <4255ac92@news.nucleus.com>,
> "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
>
>> Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the
>> sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low
>> level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely
phase-independent?
>
> For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble.

They are part of the reason that some people prefer the *wamth* of
vinyl. The warmth is just a perception of hum and rumble.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 3:24:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:D fOdnfOHn5DufMjfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> MINe 109 wrote:
>> In article <4255ac92@news.nucleus.com>,
>> "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the
>>> sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low
>>> level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely
> phase-independent?
>>
>> For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble.
>
> They are part of the reason that some people prefer the *wamth* of
> vinyl. The warmth is just a perception of hum and rumble.
>
>

No, that has nothing to do with the warmth of vinyl.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 4:18:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In rec.audio.tech MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> In article <4255ac92@news.nucleus.com>,
> "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
>
>> Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the
>> sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level
>> hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent?
>
> For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble.

Yes, but which turntable is ideal? I'll grant that a high quality table
and cartridge set up properly can sound VERY VERY good, but there are too
many factors (some random) that can't be eliminated in picking up minute
vibrations while in the air.

It's my firm belief that the ideal turntable would sound like a high
quality CD player. (or maybe SACD, if you want the extra comfort). Anything
"analog" that isn't reproduced in the digital systems are flaws.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 4:18:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Colin B. wrote:

> It's my firm belief that the ideal turntable would sound like a high
> quality CD player.

Agreed.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 5:55:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Schizoid Man" <schiz@sf.com> wrote in
news:D 34g7l$f9r$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:

>
> <calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> Also, there is little question that a higher sample rate would have
>> beneficial aspects. 44.1 was determined by predetermined edicts of
>> disc size and playing time-it had to fit a drive that would fit a PC
>> drive bay and play Beethoven's Eroica on one disc, one side. 44.1 was
>> the result of being the highest bit density they figured was
>> productionable with the existing process limitations.
>
> The sampling frequency is also a function of the technology used. For a
> regular red book CD that is encoded using PCM, you have 16-bit 'words'
> that are being sampled at 44.1 kHz.
>
> If I remember Nyquist's Theorem correctly, if you sample at any rate
> exceeding double the bandwidth you will reproduce the signal in its
> entirety.
>
> Because the human ear has got an upper limit of 20 kHz, any sampling
> rate over 40 kHz will be high enough for the law of diminishing returns
> to become the law of zero returns.
>
>
>

Everything you mentioned above is true and correct.

The selection of D-A converters, the circuit topology surrounding the D-As,
the number of D-As, the signal filtering, chip decoupling circuitry, and
finally the analog section will all make an audible difference. There are
a few other things that can affect the sound but I believe those listed
above make the biggest differences and coincidentally also comprise of the
differences between a low quality player and a high quality player. I
assert that these differences, when taken together, are generally audible
to the average experienced listener.

rich


--
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:08:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in news:D fOdnfOHn5DufMjfRVn-
iQ@comcast.com:

> MINe 109 wrote:
>> In article <4255ac92@news.nucleus.com>,
>> "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the
>>> sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low
>>> level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely
> phase-independent?
>>
>> For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble.
>
> They are part of the reason that some people prefer the *wamth* of
> vinyl. The warmth is just a perception of hum and rumble.

Well, I certainly don't associate hum and rumble with warmth. I maintain
that a well desinged, built and installed turntable will have inaudible
levels of rumble and hum.



rich



--
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 7:16:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <dfOdnfOHn5DufMjfRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article <4255ac92@news.nucleus.com>,
> > "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the
> >> sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low
> >> level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely
> phase-independent?
> >
> > For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble.
>
> They are part of the reason that some people prefer the *wamth* of
> vinyl. The warmth is just a perception of hum and rumble.

Even so, or people would prefer lesser turntables.

Stephen
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 7:24:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

In article <4255cdb6@news.nucleus.com>,
"Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:

> In rec.audio.tech MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > In article <4255ac92@news.nucleus.com>,
> > "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the
> >> sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level
> >> hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent?
> >
> > For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble.
>
> Yes, but which turntable is ideal? I'll grant that a high quality table
> and cartridge set up properly can sound VERY VERY good, but there are too
> many factors (some random) that can't be eliminated in picking up minute
> vibrations while in the air.

You could always put the turntable in the next room...

> It's my firm belief that the ideal turntable would sound like a high
> quality CD player. (or maybe SACD, if you want the extra comfort). Anything
> "analog" that isn't reproduced in the digital systems are flaws.

I've found having a very good cd player has helped me to better evaluate
lp playback.

Stephen
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 7:51:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in
news:smcatut-2B3CC7.22240507042005@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com:

> In article <4255cdb6@news.nucleus.com>,
> "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
>
>> In rec.audio.tech MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> > In article <4255ac92@news.nucleus.com>,
>> > "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the
>> >> sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low
>> >> level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely
>> >> phase-independent?
>> >
>> > For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble.
>>
>> Yes, but which turntable is ideal? I'll grant that a high quality table
>> and cartridge set up properly can sound VERY VERY good, but there are
>> too many factors (some random) that can't be eliminated in picking up
>> minute vibrations while in the air.
>
> You could always put the turntable in the next room...
>
>> It's my firm belief that the ideal turntable would sound like a high
>> quality CD player. (or maybe SACD, if you want the extra comfort).
>> Anything "analog" that isn't reproduced in the digital systems are
>> flaws.
>
> I've found having a very good cd player has helped me to better evaluate
> lp playback.
>
> Stephen
>

I think it could work the other way as well Stephen. It all depends what
your goals are and what characteristic you are trying to evaluate.

rich

--
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 10:41:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:18:16 GMT, MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu>
wrote:

>In article <4255ac92@news.nucleus.com>,
> "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
>
>> Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the
>> sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level
>> hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent?
>
>For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble.

Unfortunately, they all do - and so do the cutting lathes.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 10:47:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 02:08:50 GMT, R <spmaway@ylhoo.com> wrote:

>"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in news:D fOdnfOHn5DufMjfRVn-
>iQ@comcast.com:
>
>> MINe 109 wrote:
>>> In article <4255ac92@news.nucleus.com>,
>>> "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the
>>>> sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low
>>>> level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely
>> phase-independent?
>>>
>>> For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble.
>>
>> They are part of the reason that some people prefer the *wamth* of
>> vinyl. The warmth is just a perception of hum and rumble.
>
>Well, I certainly don't associate hum and rumble with warmth. I maintain
>that a well desinged, built and installed turntable will have inaudible
>levels of rumble and hum.

Please direct me to the emporium vending such a turntable.....

Also, direct me to where I can buy vinyl made from a master entirely
free of such defects.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 10:51:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote in
news:4255ac92@news.nucleus.com:

> In rec.audio.tech R <spmaway@ylhoo.com> wrote:
>> Roger Russell says that not all CDP sound the same. I, for one, agree
>> with him as I have experienced these differences myself.
>>
>> I do have one question. Has anyone else experienced these differences
>> that Roger describes at http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#cd
>> ?
>>
>> Below is an excerpt from his webpage regarding this.
>
> Interesting stuff. I would agree that not all CD players sound alike,
> although the differences are small. However when he talks about imaging,
> I start to get queasy. The beauty of imaging as a measure for audio
> quality, is that it's an unmeasurable quantity, and thus no one can
> prove you wrong.
>
> I also intuitively like the idea that the biggest problem with the
> 44.1kHz sampling rate is in the difficulty of converting it back to
> analog, and filtering it at that point. It certainly seems the most
> likely point to be introducing distortion to the signal.
>
> As for his testing though? Doesn't look particularly comprehensive or
> conclusive to me. Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the
> sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level
> hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent? That
> would probably do an excellent job of it, and cost a lot less than the
> $8k DAC he used for testing.
>
> Colin

I think you are reading more into what he has written.

From his website he says "It is also said that using the MDA1000 offers
sound as good as analog." meaning those aren't his words, but someone
else's.

Let's look at the imaging question.

Roger says, "Imaging using the 7005 appears to be very wide with orchestral
music but there was separateness of the sound with the left and right
speakers. I had always assumed this was the way the recordings were made.
On the other hand, some new age recordings seemed to completely envelop the
listener. That was very pleasing. It was only when I began using the 851
that I noticed there was a difference in imaging. Classical music sounded
like it had much better coherence and less separateness, giving it more
clarity and sense of aliveness. However, it was more than just imaging. It
was a new kind of distortion difference, more like a phase distortion of
some kind that affected the coherence of the image. The 851 was made in
2004 and the older 7005 was made in 1987.

The explanation had a definite physical cause. It was the digital-to-analog
filtering. The filtering was significantly improved in the 851. What I was
hearing was confirmed by McIntosh engineering."

Given that what he is hearing is very real as it was confirmed by the
engineers at McIntosh, has anyone else experienced similar changes in
imaging after upgrading to a better CDP?

Why not try to see if you can hear what Roger is hearing. Plug in that old
CD player and see if you can or cannot hear what Roger is describing. Try
a few different recordings from different labels.

r

--
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:02:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 7 Apr 2005 16:28:42 -0700, calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:

> All discussions of CD comparisons are a case of the blind leading the
>blind because no one builds CD transports sufficiently well calibrated
>and instrumented to give good data on exactly what they are doing on a
>real time basis. It's possible but it isn't done.

Exactly what they are doing, is reading with an uncorrected but
concealed error rate of less than one in ten *million* samples. That's
one sub-millisecond 'best guess' about every five minutes. Do you
suppose that anyone cares about error rates that low? Do you believe
that there's *any* chance of such errors being audible?

> Also, there is little question that a higher sample rate would have
>beneficial aspects.

Actually, there's a great deal of question that there's any *audible*
difference.

> 44.1 was determined by predetermined edicts of
>disc size and playing time-it had to fit a drive that would fit a PC
>drive bay and play Beethoven's Eroica on one disc, one side. 44.1 was
>the result of being the highest bit density they figured was
>productionable with the existing process limitations.

Actually no, 44.1k was chosen because it fits the frame rate of the
video recorders which were used for early CD production.

Furthermore, CD drives for PCs did not appear until many years after
CD took off. CD was launched in the same year as the IBM PC, which
used 160KB 5.25 inch floppy disks for 'mass storage'. A CD of that
diameter could contain more than 100 minutes of music, and close to
1GB of data - utterly pointless for personal computer use in 1982!

> A serious player-really serious-would have a ovenized clock or a
>connection for an external reference.

Why? With the clocks currently used in an average player, accuracy is
better than 100ppm, which is *way* below what even someone with
'perfect pitch' can discriminate.

> However, since CD players are now
>very much cheaper than ovenized crystal frequency standards-a
>ridiculous situation on the face of it-it's unlikely.

And utterly unnecessary. Akin to putting a V-8 on a bicycle........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:05:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:55:39 GMT, R <spmaway@ylhoo.com> wrote:

>The selection of D-A converters, the circuit topology surrounding the D-As,
>the number of D-As, the signal filtering, chip decoupling circuitry, and
>finally the analog section will all make an audible difference.

I believe you mean *can* make a difference. In practice, they seldom
do, unless the designer *really* screwed up. Usually, you have to pay
several thousand dollars to obtain this degree of incompetence.......

> There are
>a few other things that can affect the sound but I believe those listed
>above make the biggest differences and coincidentally also comprise of the
>differences between a low quality player and a high quality player. I
>assert that these differences, when taken together, are generally audible
>to the average experienced listener.

I have *evidence* that this seldom occurs. Do you have any *evidence*
to back your assertion?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:27:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

calcerise@hotmail.com wrote:
> Also, there is little question that a higher sample rate would have
> beneficial aspects.

Maybe in the realm of high-end audio magic and myth, their
is little question...

> 44.1 was determined by predetermined edicts of disc size and
> playing time-it had to fit a drive that would fit a PC
> drive bay and play Beethoven's Eroica on one disc, one side.
> 44.1 was the result of being the highest bit density they
> figured was productionable with the existing process
> limitations.

Wrong on almost every point:

"44.1 was determined by predetermined edicts of disc size
and playing time"

The sample rate of 44.1 kHz was determined by the dominant digital
mastering hardware at the time. High-capacity storage was based on
video recording technology, where intergral numbers of sample frames
were stored in video frames. From Rimsey and Watkinson, "The Digital
Interface Handbook," Focal Press 1993, we read:

2.7.6 Choice of audio sampling rate
...
"the necessary bandwidth of about 1 megabit per second per
audio channel was difficult to store. Disk drives had the
bandwidth but not the capacity for long recording time, so
attention turned to video recorders. These were adapted to
store audio samples by creating a pseudo-video waveform
which could convey binary as black and white levels7. The
sampling rate of such a system is constrained to relate
simply to the field rate and field structure of the
television standard used, so that an integer number of
samples can be stored on each usable TV line in the field.
Such a recording can be made on a monochrome recorder, and
these recordings are made in two standards, 525 lines at
60 Hz [NTSC] and 625 lines at 50 Hz [PAL]. Thus it is
possible to find a frequency which is a common multiple of
the two and also suitable for use as a sampling rate.

"The allowable sampling rates in a pseudo-video system can
be deduced by multiplying the field rate by the number of
active lines in a field (blanked lines cannot be used)
and again by the number of samples in a line. By careful
choice of parameters it is possible to use either 525/60
or 625/50 video with a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz.

"In 60 Hz video, there are 35 blanked lines, leaving 490
lines per frame, or 245 lines per field for samples. If
three samples are stored per line, the sampling rate
becomes 60 x 245 x 3 = 44.1 kHz. In 50 Hz video, there
are 37 lines of blanking, leaving 588 active lines per
frame, or 294 per field, so the same sampling rate is
given by 50 x 294 x 3 = 44.1 kHz. The sampling rate of
44.1 kHz came to be that of the Compact Disc. Even though
CD has no video circuitry, the equipment used to make CD
masters is video based abd determines the sampling rate.

Next myth:

"it had to fit a drive that would fit a PC drive bay"

The physical properties of the CD disc were agreed upon by the
major players in the industry by 1979. The PC with its standard
drive bay architecture didn't exist at the time.

Next myth:

"play Beethoven's Eroica on one disc, one side"

There was abosulely no such factor used in determining play
time or disc size. There is ONE unsubstantiated legend, quoted
here from Pohlmann's "Principles of Digital Audio," 1995
McGraw-Hill, ch 9:

"Maximum disc playing time (strictly according to legend)
was determined after Philips consulted conductor Herbert
von Karajan. He advised them that a disc should be able
to hold his performance of the Beethoven Ninth Symphony
without interruption.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is anything
other than legend, as the basic physical properties were determined
well before any such input was solicited, by all accounts.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:30:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:smcatut-2B3CC7.22240507042005@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com...

>
> I've found having a very good cd player has helped me to better evaluate
> lp playback.
>


I have found that a very good turntable sa helped me to better
evaluate cd playback.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:36:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

A difference of 0.005% in playback speed would allow
the accumulation of 0.021 seconds of error over the
entire length of a 70 minute CD. A far bigger problem
is initial synchronization.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:44:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

R wrote:

> The selection of D-A converters, the circuit topology surrounding
the
> D-As, the number of D-As, the signal filtering, chip decoupling
> circuitry, and finally the analog section will all make an audible
> difference.

Yes, but the designers of even $39 DVD players have been known to keep
this all under control.

> There are a few other things that can affect the sound
> but I believe those listed above make the biggest differences and
> coincidentally also comprise of the differences between a low
quality
> player and a high quality player.

Given that even $39 DVD players have been known to master these
issues, any remaining audible differences have to be coming from
someplace else.

> I assert that these differences,
> when taken together, are generally audible to the average
experienced
> listener.

I think your list is way out of date.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:50:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

R wrote:
> MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in
> news:smcatut-2B3CC7.22240507042005@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com:
>
>> In article <4255cdb6@news.nucleus.com>,
>> "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:

>>> It's my firm belief that the ideal turntable would sound like a
high
>>> quality CD player. (or maybe SACD, if you want the extra comfort).
>>> Anything "analog" that isn't reproduced in the digital systems are
>>> flaws.

>> I've found having a very good cd player has helped me to better
>> evaluate lp playback.

> I think it could work the other way as well Stephen.

Pigs could fly with appropriate modifications. Hollow bones, less body
fat, improved lungs...

> It all depends
> what your goals are and what characteristic you are trying to
> evaluate.

The idea of judging CD players with LP playback is terribly backwards.

If you're going to judge CD players use a higher standard, not a
worser standard.

My standard for judging optical players is composed of my own
high-bitrate live recordings. I was at the live performance, I
listened to the live feed. In the lab I have access to what is
arguably an unvarnished higher-quality form of the live performance,
than the form that I am judging.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:50:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:50:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>>> I've found having a very good cd player has helped me to better
>>> evaluate lp playback.
>
>> I think it could work the other way as well Stephen.
>
>Pigs could fly with appropriate modifications. Hollow bones, less body
>fat, improved lungs...
>
>> It all depends
>> what your goals are and what characteristic you are trying to
>> evaluate.
>
>The idea of judging CD players with LP playback is terribly backwards.

No, what's backwards is your thinking that this is what Stephen said.
You might want to read his statement again.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:50:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:50:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

> If you're going to judge CD players use a higher standard, not a
>worser standard.

Sort of like your standard of English, right?
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:53:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

R wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in news:D fOdnfOHn5DufMjfRVn-
> iQ@comcast.com:
>
>> MINe 109 wrote:
>>> In article <4255ac92@news.nucleus.com>,
>>> "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the
>>>> sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low
>>>> level hum, rumble, and random noise all completely
>>>> phase-independent?
>>>
>>> For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble.
>>
>> They are part of the reason that some people prefer the *wamth* of
>> vinyl. The warmth is just a perception of hum and rumble.

> Well, I certainly don't associate hum and rumble with warmth.

Maybe, maybe not. I found it terribly revealtory that the "Analog
dither" product

http://www.cranesong.com/products/dither/

In fact takes some really pretty good dither and adds extra low
frequency noise and harmonics of a low-leve 60 Hz sine wave.

> I maintain that a well desinged, built and installed turntable will
> have inaudible levels of rumble and hum.

Given that you play LPs on it, it's all lost by modern standards.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:56:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

R wrote:

> Let's look at the imaging question.

> Roger says, "Imaging using the 7005 appears to be very wide with
> orchestral music but there was separateness of the sound with the
> left and right speakers. I had always assumed this was the way the
> recordings were made. On the other hand, some new age recordings
> seemed to completely envelop the listener. That was very pleasing.
It
> was only when I began using the 851 that I noticed there was a
> difference in imaging. Classical music sounded like it had much
> better coherence and less separateness, giving it more clarity and
> sense of aliveness. However, it was more than just imaging. It was a
> new kind of distortion difference, more like a phase distortion of
> some kind that affected the coherence of the image. The 851 was made
> in 2004 and the older 7005 was made in 1987.
>
> The explanation had a definite physical cause. It was the
> digital-to-analog filtering. The filtering was significantly
improved
> in the 851. What I was hearing was confirmed by McIntosh
engineering."
>
> Given that what he is hearing is very real as it was confirmed by
the
> engineers at McIntosh, has anyone else experienced similar changes
in
> imaging after upgrading to a better CDP?

Given that they are waving their own flag while beating their own
puds, why should we grant them more credibility than scientific
experiments done by unbiased parties?

> Why not try to see if you can hear what Roger is hearing.

Given his age, a lot of what he is hearing is probably old memories.

> Plug in
> that old CD player and see if you can or cannot hear what Roger is
> describing. Try a few different recordings from different labels.

Yup, let's all sit around and illude ourselves with badly-run
listening evaluations.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:32:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

dave weil said to the Krooborg:

> >worser

> Sort of like your standard of English, right?

Mr. Wiel Please proove you never made a typo Mr. Weill. If you search in
Goggle its like there are 100's of 1000's of post's more, with Arnii's
name, on them Mr. Wile, than you dreamed of! LOl!
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:40:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote in message
news:4255cdb6@news.nucleus.com...
> In rec.audio.tech MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> In article <4255ac92@news.nucleus.com>,
>> "Colin B." <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyways, if someone REALLY wanted to reproduce the
>>> sound of a turntable, why don't they create a box to add very low level
>>> hum, rumble, and random noise all completely phase-independent?
>>
>> For one thing, the ideal turntable wouldn't have hum and rumble.
>
> Yes, but which turntable is ideal? I'll grant that a high quality table
> and cartridge set up properly can sound VERY VERY good, but there are too
> many factors (some random) that can't be eliminated in picking up minute
> vibrations while in the air.
>
> It's my firm belief that the ideal turntable would sound like a high
> quality CD player. (or maybe SACD, if you want the extra comfort).
> Anything
> "analog" that isn't reproduced in the digital systems are flaws.

A perfect turntable would sound like a quality CD player IF you played a
perfect disc on it. Unfortunately, recording lathes are not all that great.
Most of the flutter and rumble you hear is in the original: no playback
table, regardless of price, can eliminate it.

Norm
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 12:44:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:56:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>
>Yup, let's all sit around and illude ourselves

Do you kiss your wife with that mouth?
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:20:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

<dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
news:1112971001.389841.16090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>A difference of 0.005% in playback speed would allow
> the accumulation of 0.021 seconds of error over the
> entire length of a 70 minute CD. A far bigger problem
> is initial synchronization.

I get 0.21 seconds.

Norm
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:39:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

<normanstr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
> news:1112971001.389841.16090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >A difference of 0.005% in playback speed would allow
> > the accumulation of 0.021 seconds of error over the
> > entire length of a 70 minute CD. A far bigger problem
> > is initial synchronization.
>
> I get 0.21 seconds.

That's because you didn't apply the correct typographical mistakes.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 2:52:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

dpierce@cartchunk.org wrote:

> A difference of 0.005% in playback speed would allow
> the accumulation of 0.021 seconds of error over the
> entire length of a 70 minute CD.

IME delays some place around 10 mSec, can enable one to reliably hear
echoes during quick switching.

> A far bigger problem is initial synchronization.

There's two basic methods.

One is to go the PCABX route.

This requires an ADC and DAC that are so good that you can convince
yourself that they aren't masking audible differences. Not all that
hard these days.

The second is to run the clock of one of the two player's clock with
an external adjustable VFO, and use that to manover them into synch,
and keep them there. The Stereo Review CD player tests of more than
a decade ago used this technique.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 3:55:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:45:34 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>It's not funny watching two stoops errr abusing themselves in public

In English please.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 4:44:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> <dpierce@cartchunk.org> wrote in message
> news:1112971001.389841.16090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> A difference of 0.005% in playback speed would allow
>> the accumulation of 0.021 seconds of error over the
>> entire length of a 70 minute CD. A far bigger problem
>> is initial synchronization.
>
> I get 0.21 seconds.

I got 0.18 seconds for a 60 minute CD.

My tolerance for time-matching PCABC samples is +/- 1 millisecond to
be sure that the echo effects I mentioned elsehwere will be avoided. I
figure that this is about 10 times less than incipient audibility.

The numbers we're coming up with suggest that two CD players with a
standard 0.005% crystals might drift apart up to 0.18 seconds or 180
milliseconds in about 30 minutes. IOW, after only about 3 minutes
there might be a problem. It would take as little as 18 seconds to
drift outside of PCABX specs.

This is one reason why I suggest that very few people have ever
actually done a proper comparison of two CD players, one in which
bias, time synch, and levels were adequately matched.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 4:44:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:44:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>The numbers we're coming up with suggest that two CD players with a
>standard 0.005% crystals might drift apart up to 0.18 seconds or 180
>milliseconds in about 30 minutes. IOW, after only about 3 minutes
>there might be a problem. It would take as little as 18 seconds to
>drift outside of PCABX specs.

I guess it wouldn't matter then, considering the length of samples
that you claim are optimum for comparison using PCABX.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:27:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"R" <spmaway@ylhoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96316B0B7EB88mc2500183316chgoill@199.45.49.11...
> It is also said that using the MDA1000 offers sound as
> good as analog.

Is it really THAT bad?

A digital system that only sounded as good as existing analog systems is
broken IMO.

MrT.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:27:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in news:4256082a$0$5399$afc38c87
@news.optusnet.com.au:

>
> "R" <spmaway@ylhoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96316B0B7EB88mc2500183316chgoill@199.45.49.11...
>> It is also said that using the MDA1000 offers sound as
>> good as analog.
>
> Is it really THAT bad?
>
> A digital system that only sounded as good as existing analog systems is
> broken IMO.
>
> MrT.
>

I believe what he means is fine analog which was, and still is, extremely
rare.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:33:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:3t2dnW5sMIB5D8jfRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
> I seriously doubt that he's *all* hitting basics which are:
>
> (1) Level-matched
> (2) Time-synched (within a few mSec)
> (3) Double Blind

Frankly I think the need for time sync, or even level matched, is
over-rated.
I prefer to let the user just start and stop and change levels however they
want.
**** Just as they would when using any system at home ***

And double blind is only important ***IF*** they can pass a single blind
test.
Not common IME.

MrT.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:33:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Mr.T wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:3t2dnW5sMIB5D8jfRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>> I seriously doubt that he's *all* hitting basics which are:
>>
>> (1) Level-matched
>> (2) Time-synched (within a few mSec)
>> (3) Double Blind
>
> Frankly I think the need for time sync, or even level matched, is
> over-rated.

I can ace any DBT that is not time synched within maybe 10
milliseconds.

> I prefer to let the user just start and stop and change levels
> however they want.

I agree with letting the user start and stop and change levels
whenevery they want to as long as the three *basics* I list above are
kept in force.

It is very easy to do DBTs of just about *anything* and let the user
start and stop and change levels, and keep the three *basics* in place
with the PCABX test methodology.

> **** Just as they would when using any system at home ***
>
> And double blind is only important ***IF*** they can pass a single
> blind test.

All a single blind test is, is a defective double blind test. Again,
PCABX methodologies make it all very easy.
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:36:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech (More info?)

<calcerise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112916522.398686.207080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> A serious player-really serious-would have a ovenized clock or a
> connection for an external reference. However, since CD players are now
> very much cheaper than ovenized crystal frequency standards-a
> ridiculous situation on the face of it-it's unlikely.

But since people readily accept speed variations millions of times greater,
what is the point?

MrT.
!