My point was that product (CD) error c1 and c2 where much higher in a mass produced cd than a corrected version on burned a less x4 speed. This was a statement of quality not one of the required process to convert it back to analog . The less that the software is taxed to work the closer the output should be to what was put in .
I don't know that there is an "it." No one's been able to demonstrate that there is one beyond simply declaring that there is.
se
Thank you Ed.
Let’s zoom in.
I can see a good linearity up to ~40% of max current.
I can’t understand the change in slope sign around 20%.
Do you have any explanation for this? (I see jacco is offering his services 😀 )
Can you take some more closely spaced measurement at the low part of ma range?
George
Attachments
Aren't you comparing two different media here? Unless CDs now days are just "burned" and are no longer made from a stamper, then we're talking two different types of media.
I don't know that the one necessarily follows the other.
se
What it is, is that the electronics, which are always fundamentally analogue, that are retrieving the data are working in different patterns to achieve the end result ...
Let's take a crude car analogy: need to get from bottom of a steep hill to top in a precise period of time, that's the 'digital' goal; one car has a huge, lazy, V8 engine, with slick auto gearbox, the other a hotted up, 4 cylinder unit, with open exhausts, with close ratio 6 speed manual box. The chap in the V8 cruises up with barely a murmur from the exhaust, listening to pleasant music while doing it; the other fellow hammers it with every thing he's got, takes it to max rev's in every gear, the vibration of the engine ripples through the vehicle constantly, perspiration on his face from the concentration. And ... you're a passenger with both parties ...
The digital man says, "See, equivalent journeys - you got from the bottom of the hill to the top in a precise timeframe: they are identical!" ... and, you say ...??!
Last edited:
Richard
If you have a master tape, you have the opportunity to draw your own conclusions regarding some aspects of CD performance.
Use your sound card to make a 16/44.1 recording on your PC. Compare (by listening) this digital recording to the analog master tape.
Then burn this digital recording to a CD. Compare (by listening) the CD with the digital recording and with the master tape.
George
>Edit: I missed it, sorry. You have the downloads. Convert them to 16/44.1
Compare this to the download.
Then burn the 16/44.1 recording to a CD and do the comparisons.
George
Last edited:
I'm not sure you addressed my point his Redbook CD's are hard to fault, much better than most LP's.
Bringing in master tape listening alienates most of the community. Unless the opinions are backed up in some verifiable manner, they are just opinions.
Not opinion, I tried this a few times when I got into transferring music onto a hard drive. It works perfectly, as advertised. But then, I'm aware of what "error correction" means.
It doesn't alienate me, unless it's something for which he has no data, no reference, no real listening tests. Steve asked about that quite pointedly, and I notice that his question was unfortunately ignored. I hope Richard can supplement his statement by explaining how this was demonstrated to be true.
Level-matched to within 0.1dB, of course, and ears-only. Otherwise, it's just fashion nonsense, not actual data.
It is the thermal properties. As the fuse element heats up the resistance rises. As this is a current device the power goes by I squared R. So as R increases the heating increases. So the R rises more. That is why at higher values of current you have to time the 10 seconds to get a reading. At low currents there really is enough heat dissipation to sort of keep an even slope. That is why you really want to see I max at 40% or less.
SY
There is a simple experiment anyone can do. Rip a wav file to your hard drive. Burn a CD from it. Then rip the copy to the hard drive. Do that 16 times. Then you can do an accurate same level comparison of the original vs the final copy.
There is a simple experiment anyone can do. Rip a wav file to your hard drive. Burn a CD from it. Then rip the copy to the hard drive. Do that 16 times. Then you can do an accurate same level comparison of the original vs the final copy.
Why repeat 16 times ..?
I have a test cd that do have copies of first generation , 10th, 100th generation , specifically for such a test ...
I have a test cd that do have copies of first generation , 10th, 100th generation , specifically for such a test ...
Johns good Buddy .....🙂
Mark Levinson: For the Love of Music - Part 1 - Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
Mark Levinson: For the Love of Music - Part 2 - Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
Speaking of amps, Levinson prefers solid-state over tube-based designs. "One of my biggest mistakes was getting involved with vacuum tubes. Some of the things people like about tubes are actually frequency-response changes that can be measured. Put a sine wave into the amp and measure the frequency response at the input terminals of the speaker. You'll find that it isn't flat at all due to the output impedance of the amp interacting with the load impedance of the speaker. That doesn't happen with solid state so much due to the low output impedance; tube amps tend to have a high output impedance. If you like that sound, what you're really liking is the EQ curve.
"The worst thing is that modern vacuum tubes are often unreliable. You don't make a tube amp, you make a holder for a tube amp. The tube itself is the amp, and it's made by someone else in a third-world country with no quality control. In the old days, tubes were made in Holland, America, and England, but now, they are made in Mongolia or wherever and you don't know what you're going to get. And there is no way to guarantee customer satisfaction.
"I see no advantage in tube amps except for people who want to look at glowing tubes. But that is not my job; my job is making people happy by providing long-term satisfaction, and I would not attempt to do that with tube equipment today.
"As far as I'm concerned, tube equipment is mostly about euphonics, nostalgia, and wishful thinking. I focus on good engineering, long-term reliability and stability, and excellent specifications, none of which I felt could be achieved with tubes, but could definitely be achieved with solid state. There are products I've designed that are still meeting factory specs 35 years later."
- Mark Levinson
Mark Levinson: For the Love of Music - Part 1 - Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
Mark Levinson: For the Love of Music - Part 2 - Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
Speaking of amps, Levinson prefers solid-state over tube-based designs. "One of my biggest mistakes was getting involved with vacuum tubes. Some of the things people like about tubes are actually frequency-response changes that can be measured. Put a sine wave into the amp and measure the frequency response at the input terminals of the speaker. You'll find that it isn't flat at all due to the output impedance of the amp interacting with the load impedance of the speaker. That doesn't happen with solid state so much due to the low output impedance; tube amps tend to have a high output impedance. If you like that sound, what you're really liking is the EQ curve.
"The worst thing is that modern vacuum tubes are often unreliable. You don't make a tube amp, you make a holder for a tube amp. The tube itself is the amp, and it's made by someone else in a third-world country with no quality control. In the old days, tubes were made in Holland, America, and England, but now, they are made in Mongolia or wherever and you don't know what you're going to get. And there is no way to guarantee customer satisfaction.
"I see no advantage in tube amps except for people who want to look at glowing tubes. But that is not my job; my job is making people happy by providing long-term satisfaction, and I would not attempt to do that with tube equipment today.
"As far as I'm concerned, tube equipment is mostly about euphonics, nostalgia, and wishful thinking. I focus on good engineering, long-term reliability and stability, and excellent specifications, none of which I felt could be achieved with tubes, but could definitely be achieved with solid state. There are products I've designed that are still meeting factory specs 35 years later."
- Mark Levinson
They are just my listening experience and thus opinions that masters sound not only different but better and am curious as to why.
-RM
Last edited:
If someone has a master tape, or a good copy of the material from one, and they also have a mass-produced CD that was made from that master tape's material (especially if it "doesn't sound as good" as the master tape material), it might be interesting if they would BURN a CD (at a low rate?), directly from the master tape material, and compare the sound of its material to the sound of the same material from the mass-produced CD, and compare the sound of each of them to the sound of the master tape material played "directly" (whatever that means). And if there is a way to then make WAV files from each of those, so they could be compared with something like diffmaker, maybe that would be interesting or useful. Sorry if none of that makes sense.
Then it would seem that the first order of business would be to establish that there is in fact an audible difference between the two, all else being equal. But that's a step that you seem to have no interest in taking.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.