 |
 |
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > ............................. > What's more, the system wouldn't respond the same way twice to a > particular disc. He asked me if I ever noticed that sometimes a disc > doesn't > sound quite the same way two times in a row. > This has been a known and written-about phenomenon among high-end audio practitioners for ten, fifteen years. Some even have found a work-around for critical listening. clark > -----Original Message----- > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:01 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Audibility of 44/16 ? > > 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 >