[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators
Well, I split my college years between physics and psychology, so I may
be more open to the oddities of audio than many. It is often easier to
deny a phenomena than to explain it. Hell, we have presidential
candidates running on that very platform.
De-gaussing involves a strong magnetic field, cleaning/polishing
removes production residue and optimizes the optical interface, precise
trimming at an angle insures centering and minimizes internal
reflections, which may reduce error correction. Physics, optics,
mechanics haven't been hokum for a while.
If person A can hear effects person B can't, it's hardly something to
get one's knickers in a twist over. My dog hears things I can't. Fair
enough, that's why we let her ancestors into the cave. Actually, so can
my wife. Part of our courtship involved demonstrating that a good
stereo allowed her to hear the differences between analog and digital,
between wires, components, speaker positions, etc. Once she decided I
was a just discriminating guy and not a lunatic after all, it became
much easier to justify the occasional upgrade.
It is true that virtually all magazines exist to sell advertising. And
like the man said 97% of just about everything is junk. Some people
would rather read Wine magazines than imbibe based on price and the
picture on the label.
On Jan 22, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
More importantly, Bruce, I don't want to throw a big bucket of facts
on the audiophillic fire here, but "de-gaussing, polishing, trimming,
etc" is HOOEY, JUNK "SCIENCE", P. T. BARNUMESQUE HOKUM!!! This is why
I can't take those "high end audio" magazines seriously -- they will
sell advertising and write articles about this junk!
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Hamilton"
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators
On 1/22/08 1:42 PM, "Bruce Kinch" <bckinch@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One problem with the "bits iz bits" argument is that all sorts of
tweaks (not just better players/DACS) change (often subjectively
improving) the sound of CDs - de-gaussing, polishing, trimming, etc.
One of the nice things a good DAC can do is demonstrate how a
"bit-perfect" CD-R copy can sound better than the original CD, and
is truly weird.
This is truly weird. I thought that Dr. Dunn's/Prism Sound AES paper
bit-identical CDs sounding different stated that the differences all
disappeared when using an external DAC. It's the internal (to the CD
player) DAC which he surmised gets its quartz timing futz'd by the
arm's tracking fluctuations caused by a hard-to-read (less
So a slow burn on compatible media might make a better reference disc
fast burn on compatible media (which might make for fewer errors but
worse (on a CD player that is using its built-in DACs) and is,
the better master disc!).