Pano, they are not interested in knowing how the world functions. It just scares them shitless to think they may be wrong in their assumptions!
I provided some examples, not too hard, on how we form opinions and convictions, two times. Not ONE reaction.
Jan
Yes. To get slightly off track, it's been my experience that power supplies can make a significant difference in audio. An great example of some exceptional engineering can be found here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/power-supplies/243100-simple-no-math-transformer-snubber-using-quasimodo-test-jig.html
Regards,
Dan
Bill, exactly, they're antique. It's not a surprise that an antique form wouldn't be bit perfect. But as stated the error rate is low these days, typically, and no one would probably know a handful of bits were missing out of 700mb. Obviously tech has improved since early have streaming Blu-ray, hi def video and 7 channel audio from a disc.
The error rate was low in 1983 is the point. Certainly on anything other than very broken the error rate would not have been enough to actually change the waveform.
A fine example of shifting the goal posts and changing the subject. You should go into politics
Jan
But that's just it, the protocols for error correction/parity were designed with the hardware of the time to be robust enough to handle the misreads. As time moved on, both error rate (because it had to) and data density/read speed improved. Neither of which are much use to an audio CD designed around ~74 minutes of recording time.
And my experience with EAC is the same as others, only a couple discs required hashing out in very specific sectors, and those were rather abused discs. Most everything just flies through. Still a nice bit of software!
I have no way of knowing what your intend is of course I can only read your post.
Anyway, calling a simple snubber 'exceptional engineering' is, shall we say, unusual?
Jan
My intent, as always, was to try and make some sort of positive contribution. I had a very positive experience with Mark Johnson's test jig so in my humble opinion the word 'exceptional' was well deserved.
Regards,
Dan 🙂
That's nice, but you claimed "I have one of the original Shigaclones and while I can offer no technical explanation the difference in the listening experience is dramatic." Then the question was, what did you compare it to and how did you do the comparison.
Which you have avoided.
Which you have avoided.
I have two other digital players I use as transports. The first being a very modified CD67SE as described in a popular thread here. The second is an OPPO 105. IMHO neither comes close to the Shigaclone is soundstaging, warmth and naturalness of vocals, and smooth and grain free treble, etc. Slightly off topic again, everything of Peter Daniel's that I've tried has hit the mark perfectly. He has an uncanny knack for designing stuff that just plain works!
Regards,
Dan 🙂
Power supplies surprisingly make a difference in any electronics, what is your point.
A power supply should be engineered to do the job required, there are now power integrity software add-ons for most professional CAD packages used mainly for complex high speed digital designs where power integrity is paramount.
What I cant understand is people doing a sub standard supply especially if its a DIY project.
So we already know power supplies are critical to any electronics but thanks for reminding us.....
So what are the different transports doing to the bit-streem to make such a change in sound one wonders....?
Any data.
No,... I’m not assuming anything. I know it to be a fact.
Demonstrate it is real?
You live in Chicago I live in a city just northwest of Des Moines Iowa. Do you ever travel to the Des Moines area?
I would be more than happy to prove to you What I hear.
The transports that will be used:
Arcam Alpha 9 CDP (My reference CDP/CDT)
Pioneer PDR-609
Marantz UD7007 Blu-ray player
All with Digital coax outputs.
DAC is a Cambridge Audio azur DAC Magic.
I’ll let you switch the digital inputs on the Cambridge azur DAC Magic from digital 1 or 2. If you don't feel comfortable using the digital switch you can unplug the digital coax cable from one CDT and plug into the other. A screen will separate you from my view so I will not be able to see which transport you are selecting. You will have total control of which transport will be spinning.
First listening test will be between the Arcam and the Pioneer.
Second listening test will be between the Arcam and the Marantz.
CDs that will be used? Only need one. It will be “The Girl in The Other Room”, By Diana Krall.
Track #4 “Almost Blue”. I will only need to listen to the piano intro and about 20 seconds of Krall’s voice. All total 50 to 60 seconds. You can switch back and forth 5, 10, 15 times what ever you like per listening secession.
I will have 2 Krall CDs so you won’t have to switch the same CD from one transport to the other. Before we start you can listen to both CDs to verify in your mind they sound identical.
Jim
.
dantwomey expressed in his first post to this thread that he can´t offer any technical explanation, just his listening experience (which he described as striking different).
OK, I'll take this one on, as it is special, managing to be condescending while still demonstrating ignorance of the technology under discussion.
Does your computer actually execute programs stored on a CD? No, of course it doesn't. That would be painfully slow and limit you to relatively small programs. They run from a hard drive typically.
Well, if the executables have to get to the hard drive, and I have to get them onto it, I have to use a CD or DVD, right? Since the executables are on the CD or DVD, I guess to run, the copy would have to be bit perfect, right? I mean if even 1 bit is out of place, the program could crash right?
Guess what, take a look at a software distribution CD or DVD from a major software publisher. Why there's hardly any executables on it? A lot of big files with the same extension. I guess these are archive files. Hmm, I wonder if during the hours it takes to install software on a computer that would take minutes to copy, while the installation program extracts these executables from their archive files, and seems to take an unreasonable amount of time to do it, if maybe the publisher put some elaborate checksum system in it to fix damaged archive files? You know that ancient stuff from the 60's.
The irony is that I'm a skeptic and don't believe CD transports are audible. I had accepted that CD transfer is bit perfect long ago, this thread is actually making me wonder if it is, because the arguments being made are getting embarassing.
If you don't have the mental acuity to distinguish between some of what is argued, that this hypothesis has been directly tested by Pano and others, and the balance of what is argued, that "Oh look Windows installed from a copy of the CD, it must be bit perfect", then maybe you shouldn't be so condescending.
Apparently the burden of scientific rigour is only on the other guys, if you're not an audiofool you can just say whatever **** you want.
The majority of CD's I've run through EAC go just fine. But not all, and it hasn't always been related to scratches. But we're talking over a ten year span where I've used Plextors, Lite-Ons, and whatever comes in laptops. The important thing to note is at the end it gives a percentage of accuracy, which is often a little under 100%, anything below 96% was damaged IIRR, and typically not lower than 97~%.
I go to Clinton, IA pretty regularly. If you'll permit me to set up the test blinded, I'd be happy to go out of my way to visit. I'll bring beer.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.