One story I'd love some science applied to that's related to this -- are there _really_ any
differences between BMG Music Club CDs and the original issue CDs? I've read several things over the
years stating that BMG Music Club versions of Mercury CDs sounded "inferior." But the few BMG
versions I have are bit-perfect replicas of the originals, so the bits is the bits. What else could
be "wrong"? Did anyone ever do any tests to compare baked-in jitter for both discs, assuming BMG
even used a different glass master?
I'm also mystified by recent reviewer statements that the new box set CDs sound "better" than the
originals (they sound the same to my ears), but in those cases, with all the pre-1998 catalog
numbers, they are indeed using parts made from different glass masters from the US originals. The
reason was, US production was done at Philips-DuPont in North Carolina and everything else was done
at Polygram in Hanover Germany. Today, everything is done in Hanover, using the Hanover
manufacturing parts. The other difference I've suggested to reviewers is mechanical playback. The
original US CDs had shiny/slippery cores around the spindle hole. Modern CDs are somewhat rough and
also are lighter net weight (by an ounce or more, according to my scale). So they might present
fewer mechanical problems for a player, at least that's my theory (ie they get gripped harder
because of the rough surface and spin easier because they weigh less).
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Audibility of 44/16 ?
> On 2/11/2013 7:54 AM, Don Cox wrote:
>> But jitter is only relevant when you are_converting_ digital to analog.
>> You are leaving the digital domain.
>> So long as the data remains digital (and inaudible), bits are bits.
> Correct. But getting into the digital domain, or getting out of it, turned out to be a lot harder
> than the engineers assumed in the early days of digital. And jitter was one of the big factors,
> though not the only one.