Hi Tony,
YGM
I'm having trouble getting Centos 5.4 to live with XP (and Vista). I'll have to get my mind focused in that direction before I can even ask for suggestions.
I'm running NT4 SP6 now. It's always had print queue issues, and Microsoft says they are aware but had no plans to fix it. (nice) That was way back then and under warranty.
So much for customer support I guess. If I knew more, I could strip it down and make it reliable. I don't.
Note that I didn't ask about switching off machines.
-Chris
YGM
I'm having trouble getting Centos 5.4 to live with XP (and Vista). I'll have to get my mind focused in that direction before I can even ask for suggestions.
I'm running NT4 SP6 now. It's always had print queue issues, and Microsoft says they are aware but had no plans to fix it. (nice) That was way back then and under warranty.
So much for customer support I guess. If I knew more, I could strip it down and make it reliable. I don't.Well, consider this ... the OS is more secure that way. That fits Mil and critical services, don't you think? There has been a lot of talk about disabling USB services in a corporate environment. Makes sense to me.
Note that I didn't ask about switching off machines.
-Chris
Hi wakibaki
"As completely unpopular as giving a price range is (and I would normally be agreeing with you) this really is the cold, hard truth in this case. I have seen supposed "excellent, top rated" machines that were the equal of a $3K unit (or whatever), but these have always turned out to be poor performers by comparison. It is romantic to think a real deal has been found, but this is a pipe dream"
So what used (or stolen) CD player I should keep my eye on
Hi limono,
There are plenty of various models. Nothing new I know of except maybe the new Cyrus model. They designed their own transport after the last Philips fiasco.
High end Denon units (believe it or not!). A DCD-S10, or any of that series for example. Too bad Marantz uses Philips transports, they aren't very good, variable quality and such. Their electronics are very good.
You don't want the older NEC OEM transports, although they were among the very best out there at the time. Revox have some issues that can be CD Player killers. The later Nakamichi machines had some amazing D/A sections, MB-1s and 7 stackers high end models. Flexible transports on the later models (scary).
Some Tascam machines are really good, but avoid the "stable platter" nonsense from any manufacturer. That runs counter to good performance. Generally the transports using the Sony KSS-151 heads are very good. The KSS-210A and KSS-240A were terrible transports, but now rate as really high end these days. They can be serviced, and they can perform well.
Avoid Pioneer. Technics has a nice linear tracking motor type transport, but D/A is MASH (yuk)
I'm not sure if anyone builds a great CD player any more. But, Thorens is building excellent turntables again. I just can't afford what I like - so nothing has changed there either.
Anything you buy used will need service by now. This can make a dramatic improvement in sound quality.
-Chris
There are plenty of various models. Nothing new I know of except maybe the new Cyrus model. They designed their own transport after the last Philips fiasco.
High end Denon units (believe it or not!). A DCD-S10, or any of that series for example. Too bad Marantz uses Philips transports, they aren't very good, variable quality and such. Their electronics are very good.
You don't want the older NEC OEM transports, although they were among the very best out there at the time. Revox have some issues that can be CD Player killers. The later Nakamichi machines had some amazing D/A sections, MB-1s and 7 stackers high end models. Flexible transports on the later models (scary).
Some Tascam machines are really good, but avoid the "stable platter" nonsense from any manufacturer. That runs counter to good performance. Generally the transports using the Sony KSS-151 heads are very good. The KSS-210A and KSS-240A were terrible transports, but now rate as really high end these days.
They can be serviced, and they can perform well.Avoid Pioneer. Technics has a nice linear tracking motor type transport, but D/A is MASH (yuk)
I'm not sure if anyone builds a great CD player any more. But, Thorens is building excellent turntables again. I just can't afford what I like - so nothing has changed there either.
Anything you buy used will need service by now. This can make a dramatic improvement in sound quality.
-Chris
Hi suntechnik,
Actually, you don't need atomic accuracy for the clock. The one and only thing that is important is short term stability - and crystals are renowned for that trait.
I'm using a GPS discipled clock in the lab. The actual GPS output has noise, so it controls a crystal clock in an oven (or two, or double oven). This runs the 10 MHz reference clock for the lab where absolute accuracy is important. The GPS system transfers the accuracy of the orbiting atomic (Cesium or Rubidium) clocks to the receiver. Now if everything is running okay and settled, you can have 10 MHz to the 10^-12 accuracy. Best case and there are other things you need to do to obtain that.
A normal crystal will be accurate to about 1 X 10^-6 or so. That's more than enough accuracy, and the short term accuracy should be much better. So the only one thing you need to worry about is bad designs where they add jitter to an otherwise good clock. Long term accuracy beyond a crystal is complete and total waste that won't help one iota. I do know of a place on the web where you can order an ovenized oscillator for your digital system. He loves these "improved clock" guys! His product easily outperforms everything else out there, and follows all the laws of physics. These are even documented and accepted in test situations (different frequency of course).
If the VRDS has the large platter, it isn't the best. I used to perform warranty for Teac and Tascam. The CD must speed up and down rapidly some times, it isn't a record player. The more rotating mass you have, the worse the tracking will be. It's just plain physics at work. At least they beefed up the motor. Pioneer started this silliness, but their platter was plastic (lighter). Teac's idea isn't new or unique, but their advertising is good. All they are is a bit different.
The power supplies and mechanicals are very good though, D/A converters run mid-pack with the better ones.
-Chris
Actually, you don't need atomic accuracy for the clock. The one and only thing that is important is short term stability - and crystals are renowned for that trait.
I'm using a GPS discipled clock in the lab. The actual GPS output has noise, so it controls a crystal clock in an oven (or two, or double oven). This runs the 10 MHz reference clock for the lab where absolute accuracy is important. The GPS system transfers the accuracy of the orbiting atomic (Cesium or Rubidium) clocks to the receiver. Now if everything is running okay and settled, you can have 10 MHz to the 10^-12 accuracy. Best case and there are other things you need to do to obtain that.
A normal crystal will be accurate to about 1 X 10^-6 or so. That's more than enough accuracy, and the short term accuracy should be much better. So the only one thing you need to worry about is bad designs where they add jitter to an otherwise good clock. Long term accuracy beyond a crystal is complete and total waste that won't help one iota. I do know of a place on the web where you can order an ovenized oscillator for your digital system. He loves these "improved clock" guys! His product easily outperforms everything else out there, and follows all the laws of physics. These are even documented and accepted in test situations (different frequency of course).
If the VRDS has the large platter, it isn't the best. I used to perform warranty for Teac and Tascam. The CD must speed up and down rapidly some times, it isn't a record player. The more rotating mass you have, the worse the tracking will be. It's just plain physics at work. At least they beefed up the motor. Pioneer started this silliness, but their platter was plastic (lighter). Teac's idea isn't new or unique, but their advertising is good. All they are is a bit different.
The power supplies and mechanicals are very good though, D/A converters run mid-pack with the better ones.
-Chris
Absolutely agreed atomic clock is overkill. Esoteric says the external clock that synchronizes both transport & DAC what is the most important for sonic improvements.
Teac VRDS are top notch transports however. For RedBook CD playback constant speed is important because music reproduction it real time process in contra to CD ROMs where track can be re-read.
Honestly I prefer WADIA transport for playback. Computer does not sounds as good - I am using M Audio Audiophile for coaxial SPDF output via ASIO. Transport is better.
SACD best imho.
Teac VRDS are top notch transports however. For RedBook CD playback constant speed is important because music reproduction it real time process in contra to CD ROMs where track can be re-read.
Honestly I prefer WADIA transport for playback. Computer does not sounds as good - I am using M Audio Audiophile for coaxial SPDF output via ASIO. Transport is better.
SACD best imho.
Hi suntechnik,
Now, when you say constant speed, what do you really mean? Do you mean constant linear velocity? That's great if this is the case and in a perfect world. The world is anything but perfect. Anything that causes a CD to run off center slightly will require angular speed variations twice per rotation. This can mean the CD has been punched off center, the information tracks may not be centered even though the disc itself is, or the disc table may be off center or the shaft bent. You can determine this by looking at the tracking error signal. Near the hole, the disc is spinning at approximately 500 rpm. Near the outside edge of the track, it may be only running closer to 200 rpm for a full disc. Therefore the worst case is a 500 Hz error that the motor has to remain locked to. Think about this for a second. The rotational speed is varied twice per revolution for one period per revolution. Spin something around 500 rpm, then try to vary it's rotational speed back and forth once per revolution. Think that's difficult? Add weight and try it again.
I say again, the rotating mass should be reduced, not increased! The larger the disc clamper is, the more of a flywheel effect it will have. This reality runs counter to what the advertising department has said, doesn't it? This means that the smaller disc clampers are actually the right way to go about rotating the CD. Also, a magnetic clamp that completely disconnects from the clamp arm will reduce the amount of vibration coupled to the CD. The Teac clamp is a large, multi sleeve bearing thing. So you have more mechanical coupling to the CD, as well as more windage and bearing drag acting on the motor. Imagine how much more mass is now involved here.
Now, the mechanism of reading a music CDROM is the same whether you are using a computer drive that simply copies everything to memory, or a CD player that also copies the information to ram (buffer), but only has one shot at the process. The computer type approach does require multiple tries to read the same data, but in the event of disc damage, it doesn't pull out any more information than the one go type process pulls out. The CD player does have a more stable platform, and generally does a better job of getting the information. The CDROM drive will spin the CD faster, which duplicates what the large clamper type CD players do, except they do it by running faster. However, this makes any CD that is eccentric much more difficult to read. Slow and steady wins that race. Where the CDROM drive comes ahead is with transient errors (like dirt, hair and moisture) that may affect the read on a few passes, but not all. With this, the one chance at it type approach is at a disadvantage.
The only other factor that can improve a transport is the digital signal processor used to correct errors, control the servos (if it contains the RF amp also) and output valid data (notice I did not say the information was correct, it's just valid as a data packet). The quality of the servos will improve the eye pattern, as will the optical alignment of the CDM itself.
-Chris
Anyone with an oscilloscope that has a horizontal resolution of at least 0.5 uS / division will be fine. That means almost all the new cheap analog 'scopes, and the better older ones. Don;t even try looking at the eye pattern with an inexpensive DSO. You probably need to spend at least $8K for a passable display (Agilent DSO-6000 series). An analog 'scope will surpass the image quality available with a DSO unless you are roughly $20K or more.
That is over emphasized. As long as the buffers do not over or under run, you'll be fine. It doesn't really matter which way the clock runs in reality, as long as both pieces sync up. One will chase and lock to the other.
I really hate the term "RedBook" these days due to the abuse marketing departments have enjoyed by trying to sound technical when it's a bent message they deliver. "White papers" are also simply another advertising format.
Now, when you say constant speed, what do you really mean? Do you mean constant linear velocity? That's great if this is the case and in a perfect world. The world is anything but perfect. Anything that causes a CD to run off center slightly will require angular speed variations twice per rotation. This can mean the CD has been punched off center, the information tracks may not be centered even though the disc itself is, or the disc table may be off center or the shaft bent. You can determine this by looking at the tracking error signal. Near the hole, the disc is spinning at approximately 500 rpm. Near the outside edge of the track, it may be only running closer to 200 rpm for a full disc. Therefore the worst case is a 500 Hz error that the motor has to remain locked to. Think about this for a second. The rotational speed is varied twice per revolution for one period per revolution. Spin something around 500 rpm, then try to vary it's rotational speed back and forth once per revolution. Think that's difficult? Add weight and try it again.
I say again, the rotating mass should be reduced, not increased! The larger the disc clamper is, the more of a flywheel effect it will have. This reality runs counter to what the advertising department has said, doesn't it? This means that the smaller disc clampers are actually the right way to go about rotating the CD. Also, a magnetic clamp that completely disconnects from the clamp arm will reduce the amount of vibration coupled to the CD. The Teac clamp is a large, multi sleeve bearing thing. So you have more mechanical coupling to the CD, as well as more windage and bearing drag acting on the motor. Imagine how much more mass is now involved here.
Now, the mechanism of reading a music CDROM is the same whether you are using a computer drive that simply copies everything to memory, or a CD player that also copies the information to ram (buffer), but only has one shot at the process. The computer type approach does require multiple tries to read the same data, but in the event of disc damage, it doesn't pull out any more information than the one go type process pulls out. The CD player does have a more stable platform, and generally does a better job of getting the information. The CDROM drive will spin the CD faster, which duplicates what the large clamper type CD players do, except they do it by running faster. However, this makes any CD that is eccentric much more difficult to read. Slow and steady wins that race. Where the CDROM drive comes ahead is with transient errors (like dirt, hair and moisture) that may affect the read on a few passes, but not all. With this, the one chance at it type approach is at a disadvantage.
That's fine. But the real indicator of performance is the quality of the "eye pattern" and block error rate. Those are the only metrics that matter unless there is something wrong with the transport. At that point, you will not continue to listen to it.
The only other factor that can improve a transport is the digital signal processor used to correct errors, control the servos (if it contains the RF amp also) and output valid data (notice I did not say the information was correct, it's just valid as a data packet). The quality of the servos will improve the eye pattern, as will the optical alignment of the CDM itself.
-Chris
Anyone with an oscilloscope that has a horizontal resolution of at least 0.5 uS / division will be fine. That means almost all the new cheap analog 'scopes, and the better older ones. Don;t even try looking at the eye pattern with an inexpensive DSO. You probably need to spend at least $8K for a passable display (Agilent DSO-6000 series). An analog 'scope will surpass the image quality available with a DSO unless you are roughly $20K or more.
Another computer in my face to do things?? No thanks!
In my life I like variety and interacting with things, people etc etc that/who are different from each other.
By homogenising everything life becomes boring. Your brain starts to become used to the same interactions and, although it may hone in on and become more and more proficient at that same thing, it slowly looses the ability to do things differently.
I like to keep my brain active by changing scene, by doing things differently, by approaching things in different ways - keeping all those neural pathways open and opening up new ones.
Our different experiences also allow us to create analogies to help us understand new things. I mean, if all you are interested in is DIY audio for example then using both a record player and a CD player will teach you the difference between constant angular velocity and the other one that CDs do. If all your music is on a computer then all you will learn about is how to pull down different menus or move list up and down. A silly example I know but you can see what I'm getting at.
Further more, I find screens very intrusive in music listening, even between listening - a massive wake-up, face full of light as you go turn on the screen and jolting you out of that relaxed frame of mind you sunk into while enjoying the music. It'll take me a whole track to get it back..
Your relation to the music changes with the different formats too.
With cassette you end up listening to a whole album as it was intended form start to finish, even the tracks you at first didn't like but have slowly warmed to because of that necesity to listen the whole way through - something that wouldn't happen if you could easily skip tracks.
CDs allow you to hop back and forth and even re-live small phrases that catch you every now and then, especially if you have a studio machine or simple A-B repeat. I do that all the time, something musical catches my attention and I play it over and over a few times to understand what made it special. Can't do that with vinyl without standing at the deck, or on a computer without that screen in your face again and infront of the computer nor with cassette without a screaming rewind.
Then what about how it effects what music you choose? When I have vinyl or CDs or cassette, it's ALL there in front of my eyes. On the computer it's like looking at my music collection through a keyhole. It relies on me actually plucking the music from my head rather than actually being reminded visually that it exists by being infront of my eyes on the shelf. On the computer I either resort to habitual listening that re-inforces things over and over (so I listen to the same things) or it picks for me, sometimes revealing some hidden gem but also risking pulling something out that is either terrible or such a contrast to the last track that it's uncomfortable. Of course you can spend eons sorting and catagorising etc but life's too short.
I say, if you are truely into music and all its depths then you need ALL formats and methods of playing them. Picking one method is just a massive compromise. Choosing one on convenience is a compromise, choosing on sound quality alone is a compromise..
I use CD players, PC, cassette and vinyl and enjoy it all for different reasons.
In my life I like variety and interacting with things, people etc etc that/who are different from each other.
By homogenising everything life becomes boring. Your brain starts to become used to the same interactions and, although it may hone in on and become more and more proficient at that same thing, it slowly looses the ability to do things differently.
I like to keep my brain active by changing scene, by doing things differently, by approaching things in different ways - keeping all those neural pathways open and opening up new ones.
Our different experiences also allow us to create analogies to help us understand new things. I mean, if all you are interested in is DIY audio for example then using both a record player and a CD player will teach you the difference between constant angular velocity and the other one that CDs do. If all your music is on a computer then all you will learn about is how to pull down different menus or move list up and down. A silly example I know but you can see what I'm getting at.
Further more, I find screens very intrusive in music listening, even between listening - a massive wake-up, face full of light as you go turn on the screen and jolting you out of that relaxed frame of mind you sunk into while enjoying the music. It'll take me a whole track to get it back..
Your relation to the music changes with the different formats too.
With cassette you end up listening to a whole album as it was intended form start to finish, even the tracks you at first didn't like but have slowly warmed to because of that necesity to listen the whole way through - something that wouldn't happen if you could easily skip tracks.
CDs allow you to hop back and forth and even re-live small phrases that catch you every now and then, especially if you have a studio machine or simple A-B repeat. I do that all the time, something musical catches my attention and I play it over and over a few times to understand what made it special. Can't do that with vinyl without standing at the deck, or on a computer without that screen in your face again and infront of the computer nor with cassette without a screaming rewind.
Then what about how it effects what music you choose? When I have vinyl or CDs or cassette, it's ALL there in front of my eyes. On the computer it's like looking at my music collection through a keyhole. It relies on me actually plucking the music from my head rather than actually being reminded visually that it exists by being infront of my eyes on the shelf. On the computer I either resort to habitual listening that re-inforces things over and over (so I listen to the same things) or it picks for me, sometimes revealing some hidden gem but also risking pulling something out that is either terrible or such a contrast to the last track that it's uncomfortable. Of course you can spend eons sorting and catagorising etc but life's too short.
I say, if you are truely into music and all its depths then you need ALL formats and methods of playing them. Picking one method is just a massive compromise. Choosing one on convenience is a compromise, choosing on sound quality alone is a compromise..
I use CD players, PC, cassette and vinyl and enjoy it all for different reasons.
There used to be loads of it up to about 25 years ago, and cheap. Not so much any more. ;(
I certainly understand about not wanting the computer screen, tho it doesn't really bother me. And with my player (JRiver) it gives me a view of all the album covers. Well, not all at one time, but a screen full, anyway. Other players do, too - I think.
I certainly understand about not wanting the computer screen, tho it doesn't really bother me. And with my player (JRiver) it gives me a view of all the album covers. Well, not all at one time, but a screen full, anyway. Other players do, too - I think.
Experience leads me to agree with this.
My media server consists of a 3rd generation iPod
I initially purchased it as a PMP and as a more sensible alternative to an in boot CD jukebox for use in my car.
Stuck it on my main system for a laugh and compared it to my CD player and stopped laughing. I then retired the CD player, since I could not auditorily distinguish between the two sources and the utility and convenience of the iPod over the CDP was immense.
A nice way of re-discovering parts of my collection is to use a smart playlist set up through iTunes. Where playcount ≤ 3...
I get more pleasure these days from my iPod than I did when stuck in the rut dictated by CD's
Whatever the rights and wrongs of performance differences between current high end CD players and all other forms of playback source, the quality of cheap sources improves constantly.
The cost of flash memory falls daily.
There is no doubt that it is entirely impossible to construct a CD based device which will exceed the performance of a flash-based device at any price, and the falling price of flash memory means that the discrepancy in the price-performance ratio can only grow. This is evidenced by the discontinuation of the Walkman by Sony. Add to this the proliferation of data formats (24-bit systems, 192k sampling for example) and it becomes clear that the days of disk-based systems are limited in the extreme. No-one should consider the purchase of such a system if they have a view to compatibility with emerging data formats.
The ultimate fidelity performance of any digital reproduction system depends on the quality of the DAC and the clock that drives it.
It is entirely possible to construct a DAC with an internal clock as good as any obtainable at any price, and to make the playback dependent only on that clock and not the clock which drives the storage device, although there is no reason why this should not be one and the same clock in the case of a flash based player.
Solid state storage is inherently less problematic than CD, and players based on computers have very large amounts of memory available to them in which to buffer data. This means that even now the performance of PC based systems with an SPDIF clocked DAC is dependent only on the quality of the SPDIF peripheral fitted to the computer, so to suggest that a high-end CD player is necessary because of any concerns regarding mechanical precision of the disk rotating system or any other concern is disingenuous. It is obviously cheaper to fit a high quality SPDIF transmitter to an existing computer than to buy a stand-alone CD player including a high quality SPDIF transmitter.
USB 3 is here already. This simplifies the construction of DACs with an onboard clock still further. The very high bandwidth means that data will be downloaded to the DAC in a bursty fashion. The DAC will buffer a block of data and demand a new block before this runs out. This is already possible with USB 2 but operating systems (and DACs) do not yet support it (AFAIK). There is little doubt that they will do so in the near future.
It is understandable that people who have skills and money invested in the high-end CD systems of the past should seek to defend them, but they are just that, the systems of the past. No one should consider the purchase of such a system nowadays any more than they should seek out a CRT monitor in preference to a LCD one.
w
The cost of flash memory falls daily.
There is no doubt that it is entirely impossible to construct a CD based device which will exceed the performance of a flash-based device at any price, and the falling price of flash memory means that the discrepancy in the price-performance ratio can only grow. This is evidenced by the discontinuation of the Walkman by Sony. Add to this the proliferation of data formats (24-bit systems, 192k sampling for example) and it becomes clear that the days of disk-based systems are limited in the extreme. No-one should consider the purchase of such a system if they have a view to compatibility with emerging data formats.
The ultimate fidelity performance of any digital reproduction system depends on the quality of the DAC and the clock that drives it.
It is entirely possible to construct a DAC with an internal clock as good as any obtainable at any price, and to make the playback dependent only on that clock and not the clock which drives the storage device, although there is no reason why this should not be one and the same clock in the case of a flash based player.
Solid state storage is inherently less problematic than CD, and players based on computers have very large amounts of memory available to them in which to buffer data. This means that even now the performance of PC based systems with an SPDIF clocked DAC is dependent only on the quality of the SPDIF peripheral fitted to the computer, so to suggest that a high-end CD player is necessary because of any concerns regarding mechanical precision of the disk rotating system or any other concern is disingenuous. It is obviously cheaper to fit a high quality SPDIF transmitter to an existing computer than to buy a stand-alone CD player including a high quality SPDIF transmitter.
USB 3 is here already. This simplifies the construction of DACs with an onboard clock still further. The very high bandwidth means that data will be downloaded to the DAC in a bursty fashion. The DAC will buffer a block of data and demand a new block before this runs out. This is already possible with USB 2 but operating systems (and DACs) do not yet support it (AFAIK). There is little doubt that they will do so in the near future.
It is understandable that people who have skills and money invested in the high-end CD systems of the past should seek to defend them, but they are just that, the systems of the past. No one should consider the purchase of such a system nowadays any more than they should seek out a CRT monitor in preference to a LCD one.
w
I'm interested in putting your claim to the test here on the forum waki. I've bought several DVD players here in China for 99RMB (that corresponds to $14.93 at today's exchange rate). Is anyone here aware of a lossless SD card player at under $15 including remote control?
Perhaps I use crap SD cards then because I have problems with both, about equal I'd say. I certainly use cheap players in both cases, almost the cheapest CD-Rs but the DVD players are in the region of 20% of the price of my lossless SD card players. The latter don't include D/A conversion.
I don't mind playing the contrarian here waki - there still are a limited number of applications where CRTs best LCDs. I'll leave it to you to discover what they might be
I don't mind playing the contrarian here waki - there still are a limited number of applications where CRTs best LCDs. I'll leave it to you to discover what they might be
Indeed there is, anything that needs to be entirely colour accurate for pre press/ photographic compositing/graphic design. I have both, but I still find that my sony CRT is more consistently accurate wrt print ready artwork. Same with film compositing systems, you still find high quality crts prevale there
That being said, you won't find me buying a cd spinner anytime soon, I'm with waki there
I made two recordings, one of the output from my iPod and another of the output from my CD player playing the same track.
The file played on the iPod was ripped from the original CD in Apple lossless format.
I then spliced parts from the two recordings into a single track. So far, no one has been able to distinguish between the two playback devices by listening to the combined track.
Would you like to give it a try?
The question of compressed audio is another matter, I have a file for that as well
but think it is a separate topic not germane to this threadI made two recordings, one of the output from my iPod and another of the output from my CD player playing the same track.
The file played on the iPod was ripped from the original CD in Apple lossless format.
I then spliced parts from the two recordings into a single track. So far, no one has been able to distinguish between the two playback devices by listening to the combined track.
Would you like to give it a try?
The question of compressed audio is another matter, I have a file for that as well
Just curious .... what was the recording process? I guess the analog outputs going into an A/D converter of the sound card ... Where is it played back from? The PC? What is the CD player model?
What I want to say is that if my assumption is true your result might tell us more about the quality of the A/D conversion of your sound card than on the playback quality ...
@qusp
If you take a look at Michael Reichmann's site - luminous-landscape.com - you will see that he discusses monitor profiling with both the Apple Cinemadisplay and the Eizo Nanao L66, both LCD displays. He is the most authoritative writer on photography on the web that I have been able to discover. If he finds these displays acceptable, so do I. Obviously there is room for disagreement about this, but not sufficient to invalidate the general point that I am making.
Monitor Profiling
@abraxalito
I never intended to suggest that a lossless flash player could be obtained or built for less than a CD player.
'it is entirely impossible to construct a CD based device which will exceed the performance of a flash-based device at any price'
I don't know how you construed this as such.
What I am saying, abraxalito, is that I can scratchbuild a flash-based player including DAC which will meet or exceed the performance of ANY CD based system at any price for less than $1000. Considerably less. I first mooted the construction of such a device in May of 2008 on this forum, but there was only slight interest.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/122685-unimpeachable-reference-quality-digital-source.html
Since the project as I originally conceived it also involved an open-source FPGA-based PWM DAC, which I came to consider NOT feasable at audiophile resolution with current technology, I let it drop. This does not mean that such a player cannot be constructed with an off-the-shelf (TI) DAC and I believe there is more than one such project ongoing on the forum currently.
w
If you take a look at Michael Reichmann's site - luminous-landscape.com - you will see that he discusses monitor profiling with both the Apple Cinemadisplay and the Eizo Nanao L66, both LCD displays. He is the most authoritative writer on photography on the web that I have been able to discover. If he finds these displays acceptable, so do I. Obviously there is room for disagreement about this, but not sufficient to invalidate the general point that I am making.
Monitor Profiling
@abraxalito
I never intended to suggest that a lossless flash player could be obtained or built for less than a CD player.
'it is entirely impossible to construct a CD based device which will exceed the performance of a flash-based device at any price'
I don't know how you construed this as such.
What I am saying, abraxalito, is that I can scratchbuild a flash-based player including DAC which will meet or exceed the performance of ANY CD based system at any price for less than $1000. Considerably less. I first mooted the construction of such a device in May of 2008 on this forum, but there was only slight interest.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/122685-unimpeachable-reference-quality-digital-source.html
Since the project as I originally conceived it also involved an open-source FPGA-based PWM DAC, which I came to consider NOT feasable at audiophile resolution with current technology, I let it drop. This does not mean that such a player cannot be constructed with an off-the-shelf (TI) DAC and I believe there is more than one such project ongoing on the forum currently.
w
OTOH, another pretty 'authoritative writer on photography on the web' says that everything new sucks: Everything New Sucks
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.