Re: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-07-02 Thread J. Coon
mozza wrote: In a really simple circuit, say a battery across which is a lamp. The lamp will glow at a particular brightness. Now before the battery goes flat, stick a resistor across the battery - the lamp goes dimmer as current is being used by the resistor, which is therefore not

Re: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-07-02 Thread Stainless Steel Rat
* "mozza" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 01 Jul 2000 | The way I see it, the analogue stage in the MiniDisc player The power of the signal has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the audio quality of that signal when using digital interconnects. Think of it this way. Whisper "one". Shout "one".

RE: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-07-01 Thread mozza
), but I'm happy using the co-ax inputs so wont waste my money buying one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric Woudenberg Sent: 28 June 2000 21:24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read). On http://www.minidisc.org

Re: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-06-29 Thread Francisco J. Montilla
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Timothy P. Stockman wrote: Hi, I believe that the most common versions of Sony ATRAC, "4.5" and "R", produce 20-bit and 24-bit (respectively) results. So passing a 16-bit input through ATRAC encode/decode will produce a 20- or 24-bit output signal. Sometime

Re: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-06-29 Thread Stainless Steel Rat
* Eric Woudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 29 Jun 2000 | It's the "Yes, there is." part I'm having trouble with. There is no | "decompression + recompression", only decompression. Hmmm... my bad, maybe. I had assumed that since the original poster had mentioned recompression, he was doing a

Re: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-06-28 Thread Stainless Steel Rat
* Eric Woudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 28 Jun 2000 | Did you really mean to say that? There is only a single ATRAC | decompress step when reading an MD and outputting to S/PDIF, How is this different from "what comes out the digital jack is a 16-bit SPDIF signal regenerated from the

RE: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-06-27 Thread mozza
I've said this before, quite some time ago now. I think there IS a possibility of co-ax and optical sounding different, but not directly because of the cable used, but the fact that at some point within the MiniDisc player the sound is converted back to analogue - it is the analogue stage that

Re: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-06-27 Thread Stainless Steel Rat
* "mozza" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 27 Jun 2000 | I propose it is possible that due to the differing electrical requirements | of optical receivers and co-axial terminators (or whatever) audible | differences could occur in the analogue stage. Let's assume for the moment that this is not a

RE: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-06-27 Thread Richard Lang
Rat wrote: "Not in the way you are thinking. Mechanical components generate "noise". This noise sometimes can affect analog circuitry within the mechanism -- but that is due to insufficient isolation within the component, not the media." Rat, does this mean you would agree that the isolation

Re: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-06-27 Thread Stainless Steel Rat
* Richard Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 27 Jun 2000 | Rat, does this mean you would agree that the isolation and quality within | the component could affect the sound quality through the digital out (from | machine to machine)? Not really. SPDIF is effectively impervious to both external and

Re: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-06-27 Thread J. Coon
Stainless Steel Rat wrote: | My ears tell me there is a teeny tiny difference between co-ax and optical | (I prefer the former), but it is so small I would never notice without | back-to-back (even blind) listening. Has someone ever tried to trick you by playing optical + optical or

RE: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-05-30 Thread Simon Barnes
Rat wrote: ... but the true objective audiophile is a rare -- some say mythical -- creature. :) my point exactly. simon - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-05-30 Thread J. Coon
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === That is what we've been saying all along.

RE: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-05-29 Thread Simon Barnes
Guy Churchill wrote: The ONLY conclusion I can reach is that with my CD player and this recording equipment, optical and co-ax digital are exactly the same. Only the truly naive would believe a pile of dumb machinery over the acute auditory perception of an objective audiophile.

Re: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-05-29 Thread Richard Wright
At 13:49 29/05/2000 +0800, you wrote: SNIP The ONLY conclusion I can reach is that with my CD player and this recording equipment, optical and co-ax digital are exactly the same. /SNIP Damn right! Chrz, Wrighty ___ _ ___ | |

RE: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-05-29 Thread rmeeder
Date sent: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:11:56 +0100 From: Simon Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read). Guy Churchill wrote: The ONLY conclusion I can reach is that with my CD player and this recording

Re: MD: Co-ax v's Optical (must read).

2000-05-29 Thread Marc
on 5/29/00 5:11 AM, Simon Barnes at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guy Churchill wrote: The ONLY conclusion I can reach is that with my CD player and this recording equipment, optical and co-ax digital are exactly the same. Only the truly naive would believe a pile of dumb machinery over