 |
 |
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" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> 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" <[log in to unmask]> 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 that >> is truly weird. > > > This is truly weird. I thought that Dr. Dunn's/Prism Sound AES paper on > 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 servo > arm's tracking fluctuations caused by a hard-to-read (less reflective) disc. > So a slow burn on compatible media might make a better reference disc than a > fast burn on compatible media (which might make for fewer errors but sound > worse (on a CD player that is using its built-in DACs) and is, ironically, > the better master disc!). > > _andrew >