[Table of Contents]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators



More importantly, Bruce, I don't want to throw a big bucket of facts on the audiophillic fire here, but "de-gaussing, polishing, trimming, etc" is HOOEY, JUNK "SCIENCE", P. T. BARNUMESQUE HOKUM!!! This is why I can't take those "high end audio" magazines seriously -- they will sell advertising and write articles about this junk!

-- Tom Fine


----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Hamilton" <ahamilton@xxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators



On 1/22/08 1:42 PM, "Bruce Kinch" <bckinch@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


One problem with the "bits iz bits" argument is that all sorts of
tweaks (not just better players/DACS) change (often subjectively
improving) the sound of CDs - de-gaussing, polishing, trimming, etc.
One of the nice things a good DAC can do is demonstrate how a
"bit-perfect" CD-R copy can sound better than the original CD, and that
is truly weird.


This is truly weird.  I thought that Dr. Dunn's/Prism Sound AES paper on
bit-identical CDs sounding different stated that the differences all
disappeared when using an external DAC.  It's the internal (to the CD
player) DAC which he surmised gets its quartz timing futz'd by the servo
arm's tracking fluctuations caused by a hard-to-read (less reflective) disc.
So a slow burn on compatible media might make a better reference disc than a
fast burn on compatible media (which might make for fewer errors but sound
worse (on a CD player that is using its built-in DACs) and is, ironically,
the better master disc!).

_andrew



[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]