The Parasound CD does similar. IIRC reads 4 times (at 4x) then decides if more action is needed.
The perceived height thing is interesting. As far as I'm aware high frequency content as Bill mentioned is used in mixing, don't know of anything else. Pinna transfer function can be used, but it is personal. Some members here who design and sell amplifiers say that their amplifiers can reproduce vertical information better than others but are unwilling to enter into a discussion as to why. I do not expect any answers.
It started afair with Jens Blauert´s publications about the (later so-called) "Blauert´s directional bands" around ~1969. (at least the first article from
Blauert about this topic was from that time)
Different effects are at play.
Placement of loudspeakers in a traditional two channel stereophonic setup is an example; placing the loudspeakers farther apart (wider basis) than in the equal sided triangle leads to the perception of more elevated virtual sound sources that are placed in the frontal median plane.
Further you should keep in mind that this said two channel stereophony represents a quite lossy version of reality and the (while listening to a reproduction of music or other sound events) our brain constantly tries to construct something from this informations (often called cues) that is consistent to our experience from real world sound events.
If you add the information that we (the listeners) are nonlinear systems it might give a hint why sometimes quite small differences can lead to very different perceptions.
First of all i think it is important to remind to the facts and logic basis in these (as i often sense it as) more belief driven discussion/statements.
If it´s "pathological" is a good question, as we could find some effects in a fairly random sample of different cd players it could be more common than one would have expected. Otoh in this sample more players were typical for the more "high end segment" so it could be less representative for lower priced consumer models.
I have to look for some lab notes (as it was roughly 22 years ago), but i have ruled out uncorrected errors as reasons for percepted sound differences which was the same results as in the mid to end 1980s where we counted this kind of errors on normal replay. On clean CDs without scratches (and even with light scratches and fingerprints) the number of uncorrected errors was way to low and to far apart (in times) to have an impact on the perceived audio quality.
But we noticed (in the experiments from the 1990s) that in case of scratches (or other defects like holes in the data layer) the different strategies of chip sets led to different servo reactions and to dependent reactions in the audio outputs, although the errors were corrected.
It seemed that higher integration of the various function blocks could be the reason for this behaviou (reminds to the LIM effect from Meitner/Gendron) and as that led in the end to one chip solutions i wouldn´t be surprised if such problems were even in the later days more common.
Last edited:
Hi Jakob,
I do remember reading reports from the time that some implementations certainly handled the gap tests on CDs a lot better than others. I never noticed any problems with my only domestic CD player (marantz CD80) other than a skip in case of bad damage. Hmm I need to check some things
I also remember some magazines claiming that CDR copies of CDs sounded better as the sinusoidal pit pattern made it easier for the servo to track. Never saw any measurements so wrote that off at the time. Did you test this?
I do remember reading reports from the time that some implementations certainly handled the gap tests on CDs a lot better than others. I never noticed any problems with my only domestic CD player (marantz CD80) other than a skip in case of bad damage. Hmm I need to check some things
I also remember some magazines claiming that CDR copies of CDs sounded better as the sinusoidal pit pattern made it easier for the servo to track. Never saw any measurements so wrote that off at the time. Did you test this?
Seems as if i must search for the old lab notes. Afair (weak memory) players using the philips chip sets did not exhibit this analog output problem (not meant in a statistical sense but more like that the few cd-players that we had checked and that used the Philips chip sets did not have...).
No, we did not look into the CDRs case and i think i haven´t heard about this "sinsusoidal pattern" hypothesis before.
Just for fun looked up some results on stereophile for various CD players. The Marantz CD5004 (cheap and good). Parasound Halo CD1 (over engineered) and YBA blue (bonkers) all tested on the Pierre Verany test CD with precision holes in it.
Marantz CD5004
The error correction was excellent, the CD5004 playing, without audible glitches, all tracks on the Pierre Verany Test CD up to track 34, which has 2mm gaps in the data spiral. However, monitoring the error flags in the digital output with RME's DIGICheck program revealed that there were occasional interpolated errors from track 31, which has 1mm gaps, onward.
Halo CD1
As it reads the CD data more than once before sending it into memory, I shouldn't have been surprised that the CD 1 was the best-performing player I have encountered when tested for error correction/concealment with the Pierre Verany Test CD. It played all the tracks on this CD without muting or audible glitches, even the ones that have combinations of gaps in the data spiral with minimum track pitch. RME's DIGICheck program confirmed that there weren't even any errors flagged in the CD 1's digital output. Color me impressed! This is the only CD player I've tested ever to have done this.
YBA blue
When playing the Pierre Verany Test CD, the YBA mistracked at track 31.
So the Parasound approach does have benefits for the player of CDs. A little moot now most of us rip to server of course 🙂
Marantz CD5004
The error correction was excellent, the CD5004 playing, without audible glitches, all tracks on the Pierre Verany Test CD up to track 34, which has 2mm gaps in the data spiral. However, monitoring the error flags in the digital output with RME's DIGICheck program revealed that there were occasional interpolated errors from track 31, which has 1mm gaps, onward.
Halo CD1
As it reads the CD data more than once before sending it into memory, I shouldn't have been surprised that the CD 1 was the best-performing player I have encountered when tested for error correction/concealment with the Pierre Verany Test CD. It played all the tracks on this CD without muting or audible glitches, even the ones that have combinations of gaps in the data spiral with minimum track pitch. RME's DIGICheck program confirmed that there weren't even any errors flagged in the CD 1's digital output. Color me impressed! This is the only CD player I've tested ever to have done this.
YBA blue
When playing the Pierre Verany Test CD, the YBA mistracked at track 31.
So the Parasound approach does have benefits for the player of CDs. A little moot now most of us rip to server of course 🙂
Just for clarification; the analog output problems i was referring to weren´t audible glitches, but identifiable artefacts popping up when monitoring the THD+N residuals, rate of occurence obiously depending on the defect position on the CD ......
Yes I understood that, just noting that different CD transports do behave differently in the case of major errors.
SD DAC NF modulation is a low level signal in itself and useful to me as a dynamic noise signal source.
What I am seeing is changes in dynamic NF more especially at low and subsonic frequencies of signal outputting from the amplifier.
Right now I do not have explanation for particular subjective observations, that will follow in due course.
Dan.
It was a very amusing moment, typical of the behavior (I'm polite) of this brunch of so called "objectivists" on this forum.
I shared a personal recipe of apple pie:
"Long time ago, I had glued lead sheets into my CD player with double-sided tape on the CD mechanic assembly. Measuring the voltage on the tracking motor of the head was enough to see a VERY noticeable improvement."
That you could translate like: "I used to add a little pinch of baking soda to the sugar and found the pastry lighter".
Note that i took care to do not claim anything like "better" taste, only saying that I could measure more volume for the same weight."
The guru of the academic cook comes here immediately, sayin' that there where nothing to improve in the original recipe of his grand mother.
One of his faithful came behind to explain to me that he can repeat the traditional recipe ten times and get the same cake.
Another questioned me about the number of air bubbles per cubic centimeter of cooked pasta.
One Another came to *order* me to have physico-chemical analyzes of my recipe carried out by a laboratory.
Oh Lord !!!!
Reading the list of the people I suspected to belong to this strange and ridiculous academy (My personal ignore list), it happened that they were all listed in it. I added the stamp "confirmed".
N.B, as the guru often provide highly valuable inputs and I learn sometimes interesting things reading his posts, despite the fact that he does not always behave with the elegance of a gentleman, he is not part of it.
As well, i'm jut bored to assist in this thread to this permanent firework of "Claim", "Provide datas", "show evidence", "bring proofs" and other requests to provide a demonstration work asking the week of work that requires an AES print, when it is so easy to make an idea by oneself that requires three minutes of DIY. Or simply ignore-it when no harm expected.
Most of us, here, have enough of inteliability, technical knowledge and experience in sorting between the wheat and the chaff. Who of us need a court of pseudo-politically correct experts to tell us what to think at each moment ?
Let-me conclude sayin that, tasting dishes in a restaurant does not make you a wizard "subjectivist" practicing black magic and selling poisons on the nights of full moon. As far as I can see, most of us are graduated from a cooking school or/and spent their lives behind the stoves... and restaurant tables.
A little intelligence, a little weighting and respect for others, a little less preconceived ideas about other contributors value would be very welcome. And even so, Douanier Rousseau has its place in museums.
Have fun.
I shared a personal recipe of apple pie:
"Long time ago, I had glued lead sheets into my CD player with double-sided tape on the CD mechanic assembly. Measuring the voltage on the tracking motor of the head was enough to see a VERY noticeable improvement."
That you could translate like: "I used to add a little pinch of baking soda to the sugar and found the pastry lighter".
Note that i took care to do not claim anything like "better" taste, only saying that I could measure more volume for the same weight."
The guru of the academic cook comes here immediately, sayin' that there where nothing to improve in the original recipe of his grand mother.
One of his faithful came behind to explain to me that he can repeat the traditional recipe ten times and get the same cake.
Another questioned me about the number of air bubbles per cubic centimeter of cooked pasta.
One Another came to *order* me to have physico-chemical analyzes of my recipe carried out by a laboratory.
Oh Lord !!!!
Reading the list of the people I suspected to belong to this strange and ridiculous academy (My personal ignore list), it happened that they were all listed in it. I added the stamp "confirmed".
N.B, as the guru often provide highly valuable inputs and I learn sometimes interesting things reading his posts, despite the fact that he does not always behave with the elegance of a gentleman, he is not part of it.
As well, i'm jut bored to assist in this thread to this permanent firework of "Claim", "Provide datas", "show evidence", "bring proofs" and other requests to provide a demonstration work asking the week of work that requires an AES print, when it is so easy to make an idea by oneself that requires three minutes of DIY. Or simply ignore-it when no harm expected.
Most of us, here, have enough of inteliability, technical knowledge and experience in sorting between the wheat and the chaff. Who of us need a court of pseudo-politically correct experts to tell us what to think at each moment ?
Let-me conclude sayin that, tasting dishes in a restaurant does not make you a wizard "subjectivist" practicing black magic and selling poisons on the nights of full moon. As far as I can see, most of us are graduated from a cooking school or/and spent their lives behind the stoves... and restaurant tables.
A little intelligence, a little weighting and respect for others, a little less preconceived ideas about other contributors value would be very welcome. And even so, Douanier Rousseau has its place in museums.
Have fun.
Last edited:
Did he just insult our intelligence with that long winded fireside chat? Or at least call us fick?
Last edited:
Any idiot knows that changing tracking motor/tracking coil currents will cause a bunch of associated effects like altered power supply rail noise, altered earth reference noise, altered clock noise, altered data slicing points etc etc etc in the typical cd player.
Anybody with understandings of the details of system implementation and operation would assume or know typical CDP vulnerabilities and would not question the initial statement.
T, yes I know the same responses from the same 'types' gets boring.
Dan.
If you make a subjective claim, that's ok but at least have the intellectual rigour and probity to explain why in terms that will stand up to scrutiny. Too many subjective claims are enshrined as fact in audio.
Claims about the noise floor, or about what ferrites do and don't do are exceedingly easy to verify. I clamped a ferrite over my preamp power cable about a year ago and got absolutely NO change on anything - measured distortion or noise floor - using a QA401. So how can I just accept statements like 'ferrites make the sound worse because I heard it' or similar about the noise floor when the effect of these things are entirely quantifiable. Your ears are not a scientific instrument.
Simple. No drama, no unreasonable hurdles to negotiate.
Claims about the noise floor, or about what ferrites do and don't do are exceedingly easy to verify. I clamped a ferrite over my preamp power cable about a year ago and got absolutely NO change on anything - measured distortion or noise floor - using a QA401. So how can I just accept statements like 'ferrites make the sound worse because I heard it' or similar about the noise floor when the effect of these things are entirely quantifiable. Your ears are not a scientific instrument.
Simple. No drama, no unreasonable hurdles to negotiate.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.