I think you're right, Paul. I don't hear any difference playing through the Benchmark. I'll dig out 
the oldest/cheapest disc player I have (2000 Toshiba DVD/CD player, but then again Toshiba always 
has made good stuff at reasonable prices) and see what happens.

The theory posted by someone about older/heavier discs stressing the transport power supply might 
have some validity. One thing all the high-price CD players worth anything extra feature is a 
heavier-duty transport, usually with a beefy and completely separate power supply. Cheap ones are 
using what are essentially computer drives, which are more concerned with rapid data bursts (and all 
of them cache audio playback, so as not to have to have great performance at 1x speed) than steady 
rolling a 74 minute Red Book disc.

Which is Exhibit A for rippin' all those CDs to a hard drive and getting away from shiny discs 
playing imperfectly in mechanical drives.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Audibility of 44/16 ?

> 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 conventional 
> converter.
>> 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.
> Peace,
> Paul
>> -- 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.
>>> Peace,
>>> Paul