On 2/11/2013 2:00 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
> 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?
One way to sort this out might be to compare the discs using a Benchmark
DAC or another that reclocks the incoming data. If it's problem with
generating jitter in playback, then the two discs ought to sound the
same through a reclocking converter, but different through a
> 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).
Same test ought to sort this out.
> -- 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.