I have my 80's CD's ??
The "geek" who ripped them to 256K mp3's gave me a 20 gig HDD and CD
backup in exchange for my 300+ original collection (2 military footlockers full).
I was moving south and had to get rid of a lot , anyways.
Edit - I have a sata/pata card in my PC , I have 2 pata's and 5 sata's , 1 SSD.
4 TB total. They still sell PCI/PCI-E adaptors .. even inline pata-sata ones.
Last edited:
My wife just "found " U2 in her 40's. She actually bought CD's
.But , her phone and mp3 players have no drive
.Please , she said - rip these ....
PS - the new U2 had 70+ C2's and many C1's , I'm sure a 20'th century
CD player would have seen many more ... my BR drive re-reads errors
many times and buffers all of it before it "feeds" the encoder.
OS
Thats fine Jan....... to clarify my understanding is not that it doesnt get 'corrected'... which it does. It is what it does to correct it that I am interested in.... 'corrected' it so that you dont notice there had been an error.
But still not sure how much it matters. But, I will find a better and newer player in any case and compare. I wont be throwing away my CD collection any time soon... nor copy all of them to PC files. I just wont be buying any more of them.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
But corrected is corrected, isn't it? No matter how it happens. And for correctable errors the way that works is fully documented in the Red Book, because it also specifies what you need to write on the CD, in addition to the raw audio, to make the ec work on read. I know that there can be lots of differences in how a bit-perfect stream gets converted into analog, and I know that there are audible differences in that area.
Another area that can cause audible differences is through the power supply. If the servoes have to work hard (like in a bumping car) that can cause current pulses drawn from the servo supply. It is then very much depending on how good that supply is, and whether it is shared with other parts of the system (which all have their own PSRR), whether it will impact the final output.
Jan
I had a older used "classical thunder" , ripped it. heard it.
Found a untouched new one at a local library , the resulting FLAC's
were more detailed. This is with the far more advanced buffered
correction of the PC.
I could only speculate on what a 20'th century CD player would of done
with those two sets of errors.
PS - I wonder what the purchased FLAC would sound like at 200W ?
https://us.7digital.com/artist/global-journey/release/classical-thunder?origin=www
they want $10.32 for it .... hmmmm ??
OS
Found a untouched new one at a local library , the resulting FLAC's
were more detailed. This is with the far more advanced buffered
correction of the PC.
I could only speculate on what a 20'th century CD player would of done
with those two sets of errors.
PS - I wonder what the purchased FLAC would sound like at 200W ?
https://us.7digital.com/artist/global-journey/release/classical-thunder?origin=www
they want $10.32 for it .... hmmmm ??
OS
That could get 'corrected' much closer to or exactly like the original data. Nice.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Who do you think makes a perfect player.... no Hi-End.... dont want to invest in much for CD. best transport, best DSP, best in the digital portion..... I can fix short-comings of the analog.
-RNM
Last edited:
I don't know, don't keep track of that. But I would think a separate player and DAC would give the best chances to keep mutual influence to a minimum.
Jan
Since it is just "feeding the encoder" it will read it "over and over" ,
with a better stronger laser (that can burn) , then it will either
skip it ( 100's of C2's) , normalize it , or ignore it.
all is determined - by me
What is cool , on a bad CD section the PC processor really becomes active ,
the coding for this must be far more advanced than simple firmware in a CD
reader ??
The downloadable FLAC's are master files right from a studio -
spend the $$$.
OS
Two Questions:
Question 1: Does anyone have a good 12 inch video disk player that works that they
can loan me for about a month or two so that I can properly put that to a hard drive
and program it. The hard drive video. The high end at the time would be componant
output. Then I've got to find a digitial recording mechinism.
It should be something like one of the Pioneer players. I'm hoping to archive some
original content that soon will be non recoverable as the old laser disk players are
going the way of tubes and solid state ICs....
Question 2: I can't remember any longer but when I do I will.
Anatech/Chris: OH, Yes now I remember, I have a Carver 17CT pre amp interfacing to the
UVerse....but I would like to use Carver 17 for sound and know what codes
I can use to program the aux Uverse, so I can turn up or trun down the volume.
guidance would be appreciated.
Question 1: Does anyone have a good 12 inch video disk player that works that they
can loan me for about a month or two so that I can properly put that to a hard drive
and program it. The hard drive video. The high end at the time would be componant
output. Then I've got to find a digitial recording mechinism.
It should be something like one of the Pioneer players. I'm hoping to archive some
original content that soon will be non recoverable as the old laser disk players are
going the way of tubes and solid state ICs....
Question 2: I can't remember any longer but when I do I will.
Anatech/Chris: OH, Yes now I remember, I have a Carver 17CT pre amp interfacing to the
UVerse....but I would like to use Carver 17 for sound and know what codes
I can use to program the aux Uverse, so I can turn up or trun down the volume.
guidance would be appreciated.
A player that impressed me back in the 80's with its ideas was the Stax CDP Quattro - they used the best of both worlds: a standard, off the shelf player, disabled all of the DAC circuitry inside, and then slung a proper, completely independent DAC assembly tightly under the belly, with its own power supply, etc. The cases interfaced in a minimal way at the adjoining faces, and the DAC clock was the master for the player - a single box player, no S/PDIF headaches, yet with the advantages of dual box isolation ... nice, .
.
No, this only triggered for grossly damaged discs. Jan saw the same thing. If memory serves, the author of the HFNRR article (can't remember whether it was Atkinson or Keith Howard) also reported a similar result. Jan got the same result. None of this is surprising, the standard is quite robust.
edit: Stereophile also reported the same result (monitoring E32) more than 20 years ago.
I am sure this was also discussed here a few months! ago with some excellent input from someone who has worked closely with the likes of Phillips....
Same with the bit perfect/linear supply difference that was discussed about 3 years ago I believe, SandyK and others were involved in that discussion, I also believe Martin Colloms got involved...
For further info search:
Linear Powered Rips & flash drives sound better - Alex was right !
And round we go again...
Same with the bit perfect/linear supply difference that was discussed about 3 years ago I believe, SandyK and others were involved in that discussion, I also believe Martin Colloms got involved...
For further info search:
Linear Powered Rips & flash drives sound better - Alex was right !
And round we go again...
Well seen, abraxalito. Relatively high value for a CFA, and perfect for audio (it works OK at 10K too). Allowing direct replacement for most of the VFA OPAs.
This characteristic, all along with its current drive capability was the reason of my choice between all the other CFAs available at this time.
It is still my prefered OPA today that i use everywhere i could in my home system.
It is a pity AD decided of its obsolescence.
+1
But there is some very valuable and very nice guys here too. Like you. So we can continue to learn or discover things.
Last edited:
Christophe, how do you feel about "half way" houses, I am referring to GNFB values?
Specifically, while it is customary to use the same value resistor at the input also in the series with the GNFB, followed by a dividing resistor to the grund, this does not HAVE to be so. For example, I use a 27k resistor to set the input impedance, while my GNFB series resistor is 8.2K, with a 470 Ohm divider resistor. This is not quite the value low enough for curent NFB, but it's a lot smaller that the usual, which would be also 27k.
I got those values by pure experiment, try-and-see, with these values in the GNFB I got the least distortion. No egalite, no lberte, no fraternite, but it works and works well. An anti-Robespierre coalition, but it works.
Specifically, while it is customary to use the same value resistor at the input also in the series with the GNFB, followed by a dividing resistor to the grund, this does not HAVE to be so. For example, I use a 27k resistor to set the input impedance, while my GNFB series resistor is 8.2K, with a 470 Ohm divider resistor. This is not quite the value low enough for curent NFB, but it's a lot smaller that the usual, which would be also 27k.
I got those values by pure experiment, try-and-see, with these values in the GNFB I got the least distortion. No egalite, no lberte, no fraternite, but it works and works well. An anti-Robespierre coalition, but it works.
Fascinating ... one can get a sweatmeter for electronics, it seems
... unfortunately, reality does break through one's beliefs about what matters, and you might notice that I did use the word "if" - it was conjecture on my part. The sad truth is that "dumb" things can matter, and insisting that good engineering will make it all go away is only true if in fact good engineering has always been applied, at every point where there are weaknesses ...
That it is better than no house at all, or longer way ? ;-)
I consider-it as simple than this: Whatever the point you apply feedback in your input stage, you will have to deal with parasitic capacitances of the active device (emitter for a CFA, base for a VFA). Non linear (distortions).
This will create an unwanted low pass filter for the feedback signal.
The level at HF of the feedback signal is not such a concern than its phase (a lot more sensitive). Because, when we subtract two (supposed) identical signals not exactly in phase, you know what happens.
Well, there is a phase turn due to the VAS and power stages poles. But, here it has a positive action: As the two signals are not absolutely in phase, it increase the final signal applied to the VAS when the open loop bandwidth begins to decrease. That is what allow our final (closed loop) high enough bandwidth.
Now, if for some reasons (like symetry of an LTP) you have to set your Feedback impedance higher than the value where it is far enough in the landscape, chose your poison ;-).
Life is a series of compromises.
It is an advantage of CFAs. As long as your output stage is able to deal with the feedback low impedance, and that you can afford the price, heat and volume of a non inductive power resistance for the feedback bridge, you can set-it as low as you want.
Not to forget that low impedance of the feedback means better immunity to RFI and lower noise.
As this minimal value of the feedback impedance depends of the active device configuration in the input stage, you method of try and see is the one i use too on my side ;-)
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.