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.


> -----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