You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 14, 6:28*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
On Jul 13, 11:32 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
I said;
"You seem to have been claiming that standard
measurements predict that all CDPs sound the same"
There are goodly number of CD players, whether by design
or due to partial failure, produce signals that are so
degraded that they will even sound different.
So they don't all sound the same.
Right, the defective ones either sound different or are so defective that
they don't make a signal at all.
So perhaps you could tell us what sort of defects in the burner at tha
plant would lead a CD to sound thinner on certain CDPs and not others?
Of course to me the big question is how does this "defect" go
undetected at a major CD producing plant and how many "defective" CDs
have entered the market place due to this one type of defect thatthe
plant missed when they knew the quality of their product was being
scrutinized? Then we have to ask how many other sorts of defects have
been missed over the years of commercial CD and CDP production? I mean
if different sound means there are defects that would suggest that all
but one A/D converter tested by Dennis Drake was "defective." My god
how many of those converters were routinely used in the mastering of
commercial CDs? For all we know the rate of thse so called "defects"
may have been nothing short of pandemic in the production of
commercial CDs and CDPs. It's no wonder so many audiophiles that
didn't buy into perfect sound forever found fault with so many CDs and
CDPs and were always looking for improvement.
No argument there.
Well, its common sense that broken things don't work right, and working
right for a CD player means sounding exactly like every other CD player that
is working right, all other things being equal which they frequently aren't.
Well that raises a big question. Given that the plant that supplied
the "defective" disc to dennis to scrutinize did so with the on the
line burner one has to wonder just how many CDs and CDPs weren't
"defective" over the years.
I have heard differences.
Without more reliable data, that means nothing.
No. It has meaning.
Heck it was the common claim that
there were no differences that lead me to buy an inferior
product the first time out.
If the product was actually inferior...
Sounded worse to me so that makes it inferior to me.
Oh well. Lesson learned.
I'm unsure of that.
Don't pay attention to nonsense like "Audiophiles
routinely claim audible difference among classes of
devices whose typical measured performance does not
predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for
example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of
course). " Clearly alleged typical meausred performance"
doesn't tell us jack about any given product's actual
sound.
I don't see any reliable evidence that supports any of those conclusions.
And yet you have confirmed variations in sound between CDs and CDPs.
You simply like to call inferior product defective for whatever
reason.
"Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among
classes of devices whose typical measured performance
does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables,
for example. (assuming level-matching for output
devices, of course). "
Agreed.
OK........
But, the reasons are generally trivial.
Some folks in our hobby don't consider sound quality to be trivial.
Furthermore, audiophiles routinely claim audible
superiority for equipment that has audible faults, some
of which even they admit that they hear.
One person's 'fault" is another person's virtue.
However, there is something like 99% agreement about certain old-technology
audible colorations and distortions being faults.
Do show us the controlled listening tests that confirm this assertion.
I think in this case the hidden reference would have to be live music.
you might want to talk to james Boyk when gather ing this data since
he is the only one I know of who has done such tests. I don;t think
you are going to like the results though.
*Depends
on your aesthetic priorities, goals and references.
....or like totally tasteless, garish cheap paintings of nudes or Elvis on
velvet, a lack of taste.
How does an afinity for velvet Elvis paintings say anything about
one's aesthetic goals, priorities and references in audio?
Ultimately that which is "superior" is entirely
subjective when talking about the aesthetic values of our
human perceptions.
Human perceptions in many areas seem to converge to a general area.
perhaps it may "seem" that way to you. It matters not. If one is not
part of that convergence they are no less a human being and deserve no
less in seeking satisfaction in audio.
So what are you saying now Steve that you were not
suggesting that audiophiles were and always have been
wrong in their reports about audible differences between
CDPs?
Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong.
No argument there.
High end audiophiles are wrong about so many things, because their means for
judging are so chronically flawed. *High end audiophilia is almost like a
parody.
I suppose so. We saw this illustrated in a recent account of an
alleged superiority of European LPs over American LPs from the 60s.
but so what. If you like something you like something even if your
methodologies are not rigorous.
They have been found
wrong when their claims are checked out by scientific
means, whether test equipment or well-run listening
tests.
"Scientific menas?" If so then ceetainly you can cite the
peer reviewed published data.
Been there, done that only to be met by a chorus of wails about the costs of
obtaining reprints of technical papers. I think you can buy about 100 or
more of them for the price of one single mid-priced high end turntable.
Hmm no citation just more posturing in the name of science. that was
what I expected. No citations. No real science in support of your
assertions. thank you.
|