Konnichiwa,
Why? The player gave stelar service on all other CD's and on the "problem disk" too, if I lowered the volume a little.
How do you know? Have you actually experiemented with the stated recording played at high volume through speakers near the Sony Diskman, or are you merely putting blind faith into the "fact" taht a Sony Diskman would behave better?
My wives Boom-Box is very "jumpy" at higher levels with VOCALS (not boom, boom bass), but there of course it is expected.
The Marantz CD-67 was stamped out by the hundertthousands at least. It was a pretty decent mass-market "Mid-Fi" Player, in case you are ingnorant of it.
Sayonara
sam9 said:
Why? The player gave stelar service on all other CD's and on the "problem disk" too, if I lowered the volume a little.
sam9 said:
How do you know? Have you actually experiemented with the stated recording played at high volume through speakers near the Sony Diskman, or are you merely putting blind faith into the "fact" taht a Sony Diskman would behave better?
sam9 said:
My wives Boom-Box is very "jumpy" at higher levels with VOCALS (not boom, boom bass), but there of course it is expected.
sam9 said:
The Marantz CD-67 was stamped out by the hundertthousands at least. It was a pretty decent mass-market "Mid-Fi" Player, in case you are ingnorant of it.
Sayonara
That particular problem disk no. Telacs 1812 with live cannon fire, yes. Also, when subjected to rather worse abuse than proximaty to a loadspeaker. Actually, the comparrison may not be fair since it is likeley that the Discman's design goals probably included a higher tolerance to mechanical shock than a a unit that just sits on a shelf. Under more normal conditions the Discman is limited sonicly. To me it sounds like limited headroom probably imposed on the analog section by the limited voltage swing you can get from a couple of AA batteries.
See above, especially 1812 reference. Please don't get excited and think I'm praising a Discman as an audiophile source.
Well I guess my boombox is better than your boombox in this regard. <Shrug.> Point of curiosity: in the case of the vocals, is there any chance you are hearing a problem with the analog parts or the speakers? Mine clips and distorts like mad byond a certain point, but that wouldn't indicate anything amiss in the digital payback.
I'm not directly familiar with the CD-67, they all look a like after a while. Still whether mid-, low- or hi- fidelity, I think you should have a reasonable expectation that the problem you describe should not occur. I don't think you shouls be obligated to buy feet, pads or whatever to have the product perform correctly under circumstances that are one could reasonably expect to be encountered.
Folks, I just have to say that these comments and arguments are really basic, primitive, and elementary. How many of you have any experience about what you are talking about?
For example, in a college physics lab, I 'proved' that the 'area' of contact between two frictional blocks did NOT make any difference. This implies that auto tires should be skinny, as they have lower air resistance. They happen to be cheaper too! Have you tried this? Would you recommend it?
For example, in a college physics lab, I 'proved' that the 'area' of contact between two frictional blocks did NOT make any difference. This implies that auto tires should be skinny, as they have lower air resistance. They happen to be cheaper too! Have you tried this? Would you recommend it?
Emma and the Marantz player
If you've ever stood next to a really hot singer in their "near field" when thy're singing out you will know that they can produce some very high SPLs in very narrow bands at @ 3000 Hz.
The lady probably nailed the exact resonant frequency of some small part or a defective connection to a small part
Hardly seems worth trying to find such a unique thing. Did you ever get another player of the same model and try the disc in it?
If you've ever stood next to a really hot singer in their "near field" when thy're singing out you will know that they can produce some very high SPLs in very narrow bands at @ 3000 Hz.
The lady probably nailed the exact resonant frequency of some small part or a defective connection to a small part
Hardly seems worth trying to find such a unique thing. Did you ever get another player of the same model and try the disc in it?
Konnichiwa,
The 1812 I have never skipped, but as said, the problem was not a big shock, but a fairly high note sung at full tilt by a soprano (Emma Kirkby). The disk skipped reliably if the volume was above a certain point and failed to do so reliably below a certain point, the disk was absolutely pristine. I do admit to listening at high relaistic levels (front rows rather than stalls)
Maybe, may also be related to music selection and volume levels....
On my current system the disk plays fine (different player though similar Philips CD Mechanism) and no, it was nothing of the like. You could see the display blink on that point, just as normally if the CD Player looses focus on a bad disk and starts "hunting"....
I do think the conditions where extreme. When it comes to vibration insulation I still find that often using suspoensions as described works well. Note that this suspension was not required to make the player play reliably (except that one CD) but it did appear to improve the sound to my ears and quite significantly for three 3/4" tick 19" X 15" MDF pieces, two layers of self adheasive bitumen pads and a bit of glue plus a bicycle inner tube. Agreed, the same thing under my Kenwood KD-500 made a much bigger improvement, but that as they say is another story.
Sayonara
sam9 said:
The 1812 I have never skipped, but as said, the problem was not a big shock, but a fairly high note sung at full tilt by a soprano (Emma Kirkby). The disk skipped reliably if the volume was above a certain point and failed to do so reliably below a certain point, the disk was absolutely pristine. I do admit to listening at high relaistic levels (front rows rather than stalls)
sam9 said:
Maybe, may also be related to music selection and volume levels....
sam9 said:
On my current system the disk plays fine (different player though similar Philips CD Mechanism) and no, it was nothing of the like. You could see the display blink on that point, just as normally if the CD Player looses focus on a bad disk and starts "hunting"....
sam9 said:
I do think the conditions where extreme. When it comes to vibration insulation I still find that often using suspoensions as described works well. Note that this suspension was not required to make the player play reliably (except that one CD) but it did appear to improve the sound to my ears and quite significantly for three 3/4" tick 19" X 15" MDF pieces, two layers of self adheasive bitumen pads and a bit of glue plus a bicycle inner tube. Agreed, the same thing under my Kenwood KD-500 made a much bigger improvement, but that as they say is another story.
Sayonara
Re: Emma and the Marantz player
Konnichiwa,
No, but my Philips CD720 (modified, but same transport mechanism and servo IC et al around the drive as Marantz) did exactly the thing. My Pioneer DVD player never did it.
Now I'm using a Shanling CD Player, it is also happy, despite using a similar Philips drive as the other two, but a different Servo IC.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
FrankWW said:
No, but my Philips CD720 (modified, but same transport mechanism and servo IC et al around the drive as Marantz) did exactly the thing. My Pioneer DVD player never did it.
Now I'm using a Shanling CD Player, it is also happy, despite using a similar Philips drive as the other two, but a different Servo IC.
Sayonara
The issue this thread keeps returning to is the relation between the device processes and how they are perceived by the listener.
And, relatedly, what's good reproduced sound?
We aren't the only ones circling around this. I don't want to copy the whole thing here because it's no doubt copyright and doesn't probably reflect the participants' exact positions today and I'd prefer they AES doesn't get incensed and take the thing private. Scroll down to AES-X129:
___________________________________________
http://www.aes.org/standards/b_repo...ting-reports-archv/aes113-sc-04-03-report.cfm
AES-X129. Loudspeaker Distortion Perception and Measurement
_____________________________________________
This article by Michael Gerzon, from 1990, illustrates and makes a good case, that remarkably small artifacts can have a large effect on perceived sound. He avoids generalizing but I don't have to and I'm left with the feeling the whole audio field probably is behind its engineering capabilites with regard to their application to psychoacoustic phenomenae. Except for the folk developing codecs.
http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Why do equalisers sound different.html
Reproduced from
Studio Sound, July 1990
Why do equalisers
sound different?
J
And, relatedly, what's good reproduced sound?
We aren't the only ones circling around this. I don't want to copy the whole thing here because it's no doubt copyright and doesn't probably reflect the participants' exact positions today and I'd prefer they AES doesn't get incensed and take the thing private. Scroll down to AES-X129:
___________________________________________
http://www.aes.org/standards/b_repo...ting-reports-archv/aes113-sc-04-03-report.cfm
AES-X129. Loudspeaker Distortion Perception and Measurement
_____________________________________________
This article by Michael Gerzon, from 1990, illustrates and makes a good case, that remarkably small artifacts can have a large effect on perceived sound. He avoids generalizing but I don't have to and I'm left with the feeling the whole audio field probably is behind its engineering capabilites with regard to their application to psychoacoustic phenomenae. Except for the folk developing codecs.
http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Why do equalisers sound different.html
Reproduced from
Studio Sound, July 1990
Why do equalisers
sound different?
J
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Aha! You were referring to error concealment rather than error correction! OK, I read you.
But we should all understand that error concealment is NOT a subtle process. It is immediately audible even during casual listening. It is a completely different thing than the subtle audible effects you, Thorsten, were suggesting that could be heard when error correction was caused (or cleaned up) by subtle changes in equipment.
Not only do these subtle effects not exist (as error correction is indeed 100% effective), if the manure hits the ventilator the effects are so gross that you are no longer talking about subtle effects due to subtle equipment changes.
So, far off the mark I'm afraid.
Jan Didden
(Where's my coffee again?)
Well, I'm out of the country, moving from internet-cafe to internet-cafe, just because I enjoy the company of you guys so much, but yes, it involves what some scientist (help me here SY) called 'punctured equilibrium' .
My point is, and you would know it if you had read Thorstens original post I commented on that (repeat mode on) error correction corrects errors 100%. If that fails, the player switches to concealment mode, fro instance repeating a section and plugging that in the place of the corrupted section. It sounds often very similar to one of those primitive LP-players skipping and thereby repating a track.
His (Thorstens) point was IIRC, but I am sure he will correct me if necessary, that subtle equipmen changes, I think he mentioned acoutic/mechanical feedback, would activate error correction which would lead to subtle audible differences. Which, of course, is utter hogwash. If you have such gross acoustical/mechanical feedback that servo tracking is completely destroyed to the point that error concealment has to come to the rescue, you are way beond ' subtle changes'. But, I must say, his post, as most of them, superficially looked impressive.
Jan Didden
My point is, and you would know it if you had read Thorstens original post I commented on that (repeat mode on) error correction corrects errors 100%. If that fails, the player switches to concealment mode, fro instance repeating a section and plugging that in the place of the corrupted section. It sounds often very similar to one of those primitive LP-players skipping and thereby repating a track.
His (Thorstens) point was IIRC, but I am sure he will correct me if necessary, that subtle equipmen changes, I think he mentioned acoutic/mechanical feedback, would activate error correction which would lead to subtle audible differences. Which, of course, is utter hogwash. If you have such gross acoustical/mechanical feedback that servo tracking is completely destroyed to the point that error concealment has to come to the rescue, you are way beond ' subtle changes'. But, I must say, his post, as most of them, superficially looked impressive.
Jan Didden
john curl said:
Lucky guy! I have to make do with Coke light...
john curl said:
Of course that is important! If influences your perception big time!
john curl said:
Err... Ahum... Who are you addressing? I mean, YOU are the guy in the know, if not the scientist here, saying, I've done this for 30 years, I KNOW what's real and what's not. Or do I misunderstand you?
Jan Didden
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Wrong again! Error correction has NOTHING to do with interpolation. You're really off your rocker here Thorsten. Error correction uses redundant data to EXACTLY correct errors. If THAT fails, error concealment tries to best guess and fill in the blanks. But that's a whole different ball game. For futher explanation, please scroll back a few posts.
Jan Didden
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.