Print

Print


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
>