cliveb;183913 Wrote: > Not necessarily. Accuphase CD players are exquisite pieces of > engineering, and I'm sure that the care they put into the analogue side > of things is justified (at least to a certain extent).
That's the fun stuff. Since everything manufactured does indeed represent a compromise, to me something like the Accuphase is an example for a fascinating "shy no costs" in the end as-close-as-feasible to uncomprimised given the original limitations of the overall design. Just like I have a rather irrational fascination for mechanical watches and don't own a single quartz watch, I enjoy the mechanical engineering that goes into a good CD drive. And there are far more extreme engineering manifestations of that than the Accuphase... cliveb;183913 Wrote: > But this thread is all about whether there is a flaw in the DIGITAL side > of CD replay, and in this domain it is debatable whether the lengths > that the likes of Accuphase (and other "super-fi" manufacturers) go to > is necessary. Once stuff is stored digitally of course the mechanical side of it is utterly superfluous, and I can already see the day when my CD player will go into a dustry box in the garage to join my trust, old (and at the time expensive) cassette player. We agree when it comes to that. But the discussion went beyond that - it stated (albeit possibly not you) that CD players in general were flawed due to the fact they were plagued by bit erros, since they didn't get the luxury of repeated runs. Thus I replied, tongue in cheek with irony no one seemed to get (which actually makes it my fault in delivery), that if random erros afflict "analogue" CD players as much, then the digital chain surely has its share of possible statistical anomalies in audio reproduction. That was all. cliveb;183913 Wrote: > The simple fact of the matter is that very humble low-end CD players are > quite capable of delivering bit-perfect digital data streams from even > moderately damaged CDs. I recall every high end stereo magazine included error correction tests when reviewing analogue CD players, and they didn't fare badly as all for moderately damaged CDs. So I remain sceptical that the digital realm has the huge supposed advantage there, especially given the fact that many of the ripping advocates seem to be convinced ripping is an art that requires a lot of extra tools to avoid bit errors that, from what I can tell, were never a prevalent problem in analogue CD audio delivery (unless one truly roughed up his CDs). cliveb;183913 Wrote: > It takes a heck of a lot of scratches before the C2 error correction > stage fails. Only those which have been seriously abused (and those > with uncorrectable errors pressed in at the manufacturing stage) pose > any kind of problem. Which is why I asked that question about the problems that supposedly afflict ripping, and got a very good answer in the end. I have not once, in ripping over a 1,000 CDs, seen dBpoweramp report a single bit error - but it's reported many inconsistencies in the AccurateRip database... -- pablolie ------------------------------------------------------------------------ pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32993 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
