CD burning: Consumer Reports' take
MIFrost
burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy of
a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as
high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear
the difference."
This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and burned
copies are digital and exactly the same.
Yes? No?
MIFrost
bearti...@gmail.com
They're talking about Audio CDs burned in standalone CD burners.
They're rigged as per the audio home recordings act.
J
Bob Lombard
news:46b3b231$0$9001$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
---------
Yes and no.
bl
ansermetniac
CR's electronic reviews have always been riduclous. Let them stick to
tuna fish.
When VHS came out, they said that all machines played the same and the
differences in price were for the features
I read the intro to the article you referenced. 10x and 20x burning is
no good? They have alot of nerve representing themselves as experts,
if they say this. 1x burning thre only valid speed? Total crap
Abbedd
MIFrost
news:1186182568.2...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I burn music CDs via the CD burner in my computer. Is my copy digital in
that case? Is it "the same" as the original?
MIFrost
bearti...@gmail.com
> <beartiger....@gmail.com> wrote in message
Yes. Reading the Act will clear up the issue for you.
John
Paul Ilechko
It's digital. And if you use something like EAC or Sonic RecordNow, it's
identical to the original. If you ripped to MP3 and then burned, you've
probably lost some information, and it's not identical.
Steve de Mena
Yes.
> Is it "the same" as the original?
Yes. Virtually the same. Probably not 100% bit
for bit the same, but close enough that with error
correction it's the same.
>
> MIFrost
Steve
Norman M. Schwartz
"ansermetniac" <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3e7b3tf1hv81g2bu...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 18:54:13 -0400, "MIFrost"
> <sfr...@NOSPAMnycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've
>>burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy
>>of
>>a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as
>>high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear
>>the difference."
>>
>>This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and
>>burned
>>copies are digital and exactly the same.
>>
>>Yes? No?
>>
>>MIFrost
>>
> CR's electronic reviews have always been riduclous. Let them stick to
> tuna fish.
>
Tuna fish? I wouldn't accept their word on toilet paper.
Paul Ilechko
> "ansermetniac" <anserm...@hotmail.com> ranted in message
>> CR's electronic reviews have always been riduclous. Let them stick to
>> tuna fish.
>
> Tuna fish? I wouldn't accept their word on toilet paper.
Know whoose bean riduclous?
William Sommerwerck
I've been reading CR for over 40 years. My experience has been that, when
I've owned products they've tested (either before or after), my reaction to
them is very much like CU's. I _generally_ trust their reviews, thought not
blindly.
The major exception is the Sonicare, which like every other powered
toothbrush, they have found inferior to manual brushing. This directly
contradicts my experience, and the experience of everyone I know who owns
it, including my dental hygienist. (CU's claim that, performed correctly,
manual brushing always does the best job, might be true -- if one assumes
most people don't know how to do it properly. But it overlooks the
common-sense observation that there ought to be both qualitative and
quantitative differences when using a powered brush.)
One should remember in reading CR that the testing is performed by human
beings, who sometimes make mistakes, and that the results of their testing
depend on how they choose to test. And their choices aren't always correct.
One of their classic errors (which no one seems to have caught) involved
testing car bumpers. They simply bashed the bumper with a ram moving at the
same speed a car would move, arguing that, by the principle of Special
Relativity, it didn't matter whether the car moved or the basher moved. This
overlooked the fact that a moving car has significantly more kinetic energy
than the basher, and that (in this case) there _is_ an absolute frame of
inertial reference -- the floor.
>> When VHS came out, they said that all machines played
>> the same and the differences in price were for the features.
I don't remember that observation, but I'd be inclined to agree with CU. VHS
is of such poor overall quality that there's little point in making fine
distinctions among machines. The end-of-an-era machines, which include TBC,
show a meaningful improvement in image quality, but it's still, overall,
"crapvision".
One other point...
I've noticed an increasing number of misstatements and even errors in CR's
articles. It appears that their people simply aren't keeping up with
technology in the depth they need to.
MIFrost
news:ohv8b3pdkdfr6395k...@4ax.com...
>
> CDs are digital. There is no such thing as an "analog CD".
>
That's what I thought. But what does this other poster mean by, "They're
talking about Audio CDs burned in standalone CD burners.
They're rigged as per the audio home recordings act."?
MIFrost
Bob Lombard
Also digital. "Audio" CDs, e.g. Maxell CD-Rmusic, have a 'hardwired' code
bit that stand-alone burners look for. Consumer-grade stand-alone burners
can't burn standard media, only because that code bit is missing.
bl.
ansermetniac
>ansermetniac <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>When VHS came out, they said that all machines played the same and the
>>differences in price were for the features
>
>Some people really honestly can't see differences in picture quality. They
>shouldn't be allowed to write reviews, though.
But back then there was a very big difference between 230, 240 and 250
lines. Anyone could see it.
Yet, there are many who recorded at slp and have thousands of tapes
filled with garbage.
Abbedd
John Harrington
> "Kimba W. Lion" <kimbawlion> wrote in messagenews:ohv8b3pdkdfr6395k...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > CDs are digital. There is no such thing as an "analog CD".
>
> That's what I thought. But what does this other poster mean by, "They're
> talking about Audio CDs burned in standalone CD burners.
> They're rigged as per the audio home recordings act."?
Did you read the Audio Home Recordings Act? That would answer your
question. Google and all that. There's a nice wikipedia article.
(NB, this is an American Law: CR is an American magazine).
If you aren't a perverse literalist, there is, in fact, such a thing
as an "analog CD". This is a CD onto which has been coded (digitally,
of course) an analog signal. That's all the CR people mean. In their
review, for legal reasons the reviewers are likely talking about CDRs
recorded in standalone CD burners. Such burners are set up such that
the first copy of a given CD is made with a digital signal.
Subsequent copies are made with an analog signal. NB this is /not/
true of the CD/RW drive in your computer, but applies only to
standalone burners. The burners are designed to work with only
certain CDRs (imprinted, I assume, with some code that allows them to
be used in the burners). These CDRs, which include a royalty premium
(as do the standalone burners themselves), are still sold if you look
hard and are marked "for audio" in a certain place on the label.
You'll note that, by the AHRA, making a copy of a CD for your personal
use on such a standalone burner with the approved CDR type, is legal
(or at least not actionable, as guaranteed by the Act).
Almost no one, to my knowledge, owns a standalone CD burner anymore,
though I myself still have one. Almost no one knows anything about
this act, as the ill-informed responses to your OP demonstrate.
John
Norman M. Schwartz
"MIFrost" <sfr...@NOSPAMnycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46b484cb$0$4680$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Perhaps he was writing about "audio" cd-rs as oppossed to "computer blank"
cd-rs.
> MIFrost
>
>
Don Phillipson
> I burn music CDs via the CD burner in my computer. Is my copy digital in
> that case? Is it "the same" as the original?
Look via computer at the disk directory. Commercial
CDs show each track as a file in CDA format (or
something else, depending on what music software
is installed on your PC. Digital files are in such
formats as WAV, MP3, OGG and so on.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Norman M. Schwartz
"Kimba W. Lion" <kimbawlion> wrote in message
> ansermetniac <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>When VHS came out, they said that all machines played the same and the
>>differences in price were for the features
>
> shouldn't be allowed to write reviews, though.
Some people have TVs incapable of revealing differences in picture quality.
For those VHS, looks like their ordinary day to day TV.
Allen
past few years they have gone into a tailspin IMO. I think that the
world has gotten too complicated for them to keep up with. Recently
there was a very long thread in rec.photo.digital about this very
subject. I subscribed to CR for a good many years and bought several
outstanding products based on their reviews; however.....then I got
stuck with a few lemons at a cost of too much money and I no longer
trust them. It's sad to see an old friend go downhill like that.
Allen
Walter Traprock
Ah, this brings to mind the awful TEAC LP to CD system that was posted
here like last year or so, it didn't occur to me that "all in one LP
to CD systems" would be required to abide by the Serial Copy Management
System, it was assumed this was voluntary; this still wouldn't explain
TEAC coming with a fifty hour needle, presumably bad quality.
> though I myself still have one. Almost no one knows anything about
> this act, as the ill-informed responses to your OP demonstrate.
That scumbag RIAA, I remember news articles about RIAA demanding laws
that required copy protection on cassette recorders, this is from the
early 1980s (before DAT?); there's also the law forbidding rentals of
sound recordings, so you can rent a music video DVD from a store, but
is illegal to rent an LP, audio-cassette, presumably being extended to
CDs by extension to new audio-recordings (dual disc CD/DVD? I presume
it is illegal to rent those they are considered audio-recordings),
the law forbidding playlists on radio (exceptions, whatever, it is
designed to prevent competition from developing to the mainstream
stations), etc.
tho...@antispam.ham
> MIFrost wrote:
>> According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've
>> burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy of
>> a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as
>> high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear
>> the difference."
> Another example of CU spouting garbage when they obviously know absolutely
> nothing about the subject. (Anyone remember their laughable speaker
> reviews?)
>
> CDs are digital. There is no such thing as an "analog CD".
>
> The only reason a copy won't sound the same as the original is if
> something went horribly wrong in the copying process, and then there
> wouldn't be the slightest doubt there was something wrong.
>
> Consumer Reports' articles never matched my experience. And then came the
> "filth in food sells magazines" scandal. I don't know why they're still
> around.
Judging from what the majority of the respondents have written in this
thread, they obviously don't know as much as CU, so I find it ironic
that they should criticize CU as spouting garbage.
There's something known as the Serial Copy Management System that allows
a single digital copy to be made. If you try to make a digital copy of
that copy, SCMS cuts in and prevents it from happening. The only way you
can make a copy of that copy is to go through an analog conversion
process. To be sure, that analog signal can be redigitized and written
to another CD. So yes, CDs are digital, but there is such a thing as an
"analog CD", in the sense that the source and copy may not be identical,
bit for bit, having gone through a D --> A and A --> D process.
Computer CD writers are primarily intended for data, not audio signals,
and therefore usually don't have SCMS. Meanwhile, consumer standalone
audio CD writers usually do have SCMS, though "professional" grade gear
may not. That is, in fact, the main difference between the Sony D-100
and M-1 DAT recorders. The consumer D-100 has SCMS, while the professional
M-1 allows the user to set the SCMS code to his preference and can
therefore allow an infinite number of digital copy generations.
Steve de Mena
> Kimba W. Lion writes:
>
>> MIFrost wrote:
>
>>> According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've
>>> burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy of
>>> a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as
>>> high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear
>>> the difference."
>
>> Another example of CU spouting garbage when they obviously know absolutely
>> nothing about the subject. (Anyone remember their laughable speaker
>> reviews?)
>>
>> CDs are digital. There is no such thing as an "analog CD".
>>
>> The only reason a copy won't sound the same as the original is if
>> something went horribly wrong in the copying process, and then there
>> wouldn't be the slightest doubt there was something wrong.
>>
>> Consumer Reports' articles never matched my experience. And then came the
>> "filth in food sells magazines" scandal. I don't know why they're still
>> around.
>
> Judging from what the majority of the respondents have written in this
> thread, they obviously don't know as much as CU, so I find it ironic
> that they should criticize CU as spouting garbage.
>
> There's something known as the Serial Copy Management System that allows
> a single digital copy to be made.
You can make 1000 copies directly from the master, no? Not just one.
> If you try to make a digital copy of
> that copy, SCMS cuts in and prevents it from happening. The only way you
> can make a copy of that copy is to go through an analog conversion
> process.
Or copy it on a computer.
> To be sure, that analog signal can be redigitized and written
> to another CD. So yes, CDs are digital, but there is such a thing as an
> "analog CD", in the sense that the source and copy may not be identical,
> bit for bit, having gone through a D --> A and A --> D process.
>
> Computer CD writers are primarily intended for data, not audio signals,
> and therefore usually don't have SCMS. Meanwhile, consumer standalone
> audio CD writers usually do have SCMS, though "professional" grade gear
> may not. That is, in fact, the main difference between the Sony D-100
> and M-1 DAT recorders. The consumer D-100 has SCMS, while the professional
> M-1 allows the user to set the SCMS code to his preference and can
> therefore allow an infinite number of digital copy generations.
Steve
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Kimba W. Lion wrote:
>>> MIFrost wrote:
>>>> According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've
>>>> burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy of
>>>> a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as
>>>> high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear
>>>> the difference."
>>> Another example of CU spouting garbage when they obviously know absolutely
>>> nothing about the subject. (Anyone remember their laughable speaker
>>> reviews?)
>>>
>>> CDs are digital. There is no such thing as an "analog CD".
>>>
>>> The only reason a copy won't sound the same as the original is if
>>> something went horribly wrong in the copying process, and then there
>>> wouldn't be the slightest doubt there was something wrong.
>>>
>>> Consumer Reports' articles never matched my experience. And then came the
>>> "filth in food sells magazines" scandal. I don't know why they're still
>>> around.
>> Judging from what the majority of the respondents have written in this
>> thread, they obviously don't know as much as CU, so I find it ironic
>> that they should criticize CU as spouting garbage.
>>
>> There's something known as the Serial Copy Management System that allows
>> a single digital copy to be made.
> You can make 1000 copies directly from the master, no? Not just one.
If you have access to the original. What the industry is concerned about
it not the actions of one person, the one with access to the original,
but rather the actions of the many. If one person gives digital copies
to just a few friends, and those friends give digital copies to a few of
their friends, and those friends do likewise, you have an explosion of
illegal copies, far greater in number than what the one with access to
the original could manage to do himself. Of course, nowadays, people
with access to the original can put something up for download on some
web site, but then there is a single point failure, and it can be shut
down fairly easily.
>> If you try to make a digital copy of
>> that copy, SCMS cuts in and prevents it from happening. The only way you
>> can make a copy of that copy is to go through an analog conversion
>> process.
> Or copy it on a computer.
Isn't that what I already said?
Steve de Mena
No. You said "The only way you can make a copy of that copy is to go
through an analog conversion process."
Steve
Andrew Rose
> This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and burned
> copies are digital and exactly the same.
Every CD, whether burned or pressed, commercial or CD-R, contains
errors. Every CD has built-in error-correction redundancy. Almost any
CD-R with a half-decent CD writer will make CDs which fall well within
agreed guidelines for minimum error rates. These are all errors which
are built into the system in such a way as to be 100% reliably
correctable such that a 100% bit-perfect copy of the original can be made.
In other words, the copy itself is not exactly the same, but thanks to
the redundancy built into the system, when replayed it is exactly the same.
(FWIW data CD-Rs have greater redundancy than audio CDs - i.e. more
space is taken up ensuring error correction can take place - which is
why a completely full audio CD holds more minutes of music than a full
data CD with the equivalent type WAV files.)
--
Andrew Rose - Pristine Classical
The online home of Classical Music: www.pristineclassical.com
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>> Kimba W. Lion wrote:
>>>>> MIFrost wrote:
> No.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> You said "The only way you can make a copy of that copy is to go
> through an analog conversion process."
On equipment with SCMS, Steve. I see that you removed from your
follow-up the remainder of my article where I went on to note that
computer CD writers don't usually have SCMS.
Kimba W. Lion
>So yes, CDs are digital, but there is such a thing as an
>"analog CD", in the sense that the source and copy may not be identical,
>bit for bit, having gone through a D --> A and A --> D process.
That's still not an "analog CD" and it's not an "analog copy" as was stated
originally. The "sense" you have to use to justify CU's choice of words is
more than a bit convoluted and, considering CU's audience, uncalled for.
bearti...@gmail.com
What is "CU" and why are you criticizing it?
J
Kimba W. Lion
>What is "CU" and why are you criticizing it?
What: Consumers Union, publishers of Consumer Reports.
Why: Because they present themselves as authorities on everything, when
their reports show they are well out of touch with the real world.
MIFrost
<bearti...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> What is "CU" and why are you criticizing it?
>
they wrote in my OP.
MIFrost
tho...@antispam.ham
>> So yes, CDs are digital, but there is such a thing as an
>> "analog CD", in the sense that the source and copy may not be identical,
>> bit for bit, having gone through a D --> A and A --> D process.
> That's still not an "analog CD"
Reread the portion of my sentence that starts with "in the sense".
> and it's not an "analog copy" as was stated originally.
It is an analog copy anytime a D --> A and A --> D process occurs.
> The "sense" you have to use to justify CU's choice of words is
> more than a bit convoluted
Nonsense.
> and, considering CU's audience, uncalled for.
Exactly what is CU's audience?
Steve de Mena
I'll repeat what you said again.
"The only way you can make a copy of that copy is to go through an
analog conversion process."
*PLONK*
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>> Kimba W. Lion wrote:
>>>>>>> MIFrost wrote:
>>> No.
Trying to demonstrate your reading comprehension problem again, Steve?
> "The only way you can make a copy of that copy is to go through an
> analog conversion process."
On equipment with SCMS, Steve. I see that you removed from your
follow-up the remainder of my article where I went on to note that
computer CD writers don't usually have SCMS.
> *PLONK*
Classic evasion of the facts.
Walter Traprock
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 10:19:11 -0400, ansermetniac
> <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Yet, there are many who recorded at slp and have thousands of tapes
> >filled with garbage.
>
> Like those who have downloaded your rips.
>
> However, CR is wrong on the digital/analog point. A copy of a copy of
> a copy is still digital and should be identical to the original as
> long as it remains in the digital domain and uncompressed.
I'll bet Consumer Reports never said otherwise.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> The "sense" you have to use to justify CU's choice of words is
>>> more than a bit convoluted
>> Nonsense.
> The nonsense is yours.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> By your logic,
Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Kimba? I didn't offer
any "logic". Rather, I offered a "sense" of the use of the word that
conforms to CU's use.
> ALL CDs are "analog CDs" (save the very few recorded directly
> from the output of a digital synthesizer) since all contain
> sounds that originated from analog sources.
That doesn't conform to the "sense" I provided at all, Kimba,
given that I referred to copies that are or are not bit-for-bit
identical to the original.
tho...@antispam.ham
> However, CR is wrong on the digital/analog point. A copy of a copy of
> a copy is still digital and should be identical to the original as
> long as it remains in the digital domain and uncompressed.
The key words here are "as long as". The whole point of SCMS, if the
right bit is set, is to force the copier to go outside the digital
domain.
Kimba W. Lion
>That doesn't conform to the "sense" I provided at all, Kimba,
>given that I referred to copies that are or are not bit-for-bit
>identical to the original.
Whew. Time for me to take Ron White's advice.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> That doesn't conform to the "sense" I provided at all, Kimba,
>> given that I referred to copies that are or are not bit-for-bit
>> identical to the original.
> Whew. Time for me to take Ron White's advice.
And what was that advice? Remove relevant material from your follow-up
to make it more difficult for other readers to see what was actually
written, as opposed to what you would like them to believe, Kimba?
MIFrost
news:wetraprock-4D0B4...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>
>
> I'll bet Consumer Reports never said otherwise.
This is *exactly* what Consumer Reports said: "When you burn a copy of
a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital." It's in the latest issue,
Letters to the Editor.
MIFrost
Norman M. Schwartz
If you happen to be using a "consumer" type CD-recorder (which only records
using "music" CD-Rs), then the only type of copy that can be made of a
"first" generation digital copy of any "pressed" CD *has* to be made through
a player's "analog" output _because_ it will not work to make a digital copy
of a digital copy. This is what they mean as a "analog copy", This is due to
the Serial Copy Management System, "SCMS"; read here for further details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Copy_Management_System
This is what some people have been posting over and over again, however you
don't seem to get it, or perhaps you don't want to get it.
> MIFrost
>
A. Brain
news:OqudnYM-mqF1zSnb...@comcast.com...
>> Tuna fish? I wouldn't accept their word on toilet paper.
>
> I've been reading CR for over 40 years. My experience has been that,
> when
> I've owned products they've tested (either before or after), my
> reaction to
> them is very much like CU's. I _generally_ trust their reviews,
> thought not
> blindly.
>
> The major exception is the Sonicare, which like every other powered
> toothbrush, they have found inferior to manual brushing. This directly
> contradicts my experience, and the experience of everyone I know who
> owns
> it, including my dental hygienist. (CU's claim that, performed
> correctly,
> manual brushing always does the best job, might be true -- if one
> assumes
> most people don't know how to do it properly. But it overlooks the
> common-sense observation that there ought to be both qualitative and
> quantitative differences when using a powered brush.)
>
> One should remember in reading CR that the testing is performed by
> human
> beings, who sometimes make mistakes, and that the results of their
> testing
> depend on how they choose to test. And their choices aren't always
> correct.
>
> One of their classic errors (which no one seems to have caught)
> involved
> testing car bumpers. They simply bashed the bumper with a ram moving
> at the
> same speed a car would move, arguing that, by the principle of Special
> Relativity, it didn't matter whether the car moved or the basher
> moved. This
> overlooked the fact that a moving car has significantly more kinetic
> energy
> than the basher, and that (in this case) there _is_ an absolute frame
> of
> inertial reference -- the floor.
>
>
>>> When VHS came out, they said that all machines played
>
> I don't remember that observation, but I'd be inclined to agree with
> CU. VHS
> is of such poor overall quality that there's little point in making
> fine
> distinctions among machines. The end-of-an-era machines, which include
> TBC,
> show a meaningful improvement in image quality, but it's still,
> overall,
> "crapvision".
>
> One other point...
>
> I've noticed an increasing number of misstatements and even errors in
> CR's
> articles. It appears that their people simply aren't keeping up with
> technology in the depth they need to.
I trust CR and have for years. They made sense of the nonsense
from the era of high-end "audiophile" equipment.
Lots of industry insiders disdain CU's advice because it's
so damn practical. The "insiders" resent that CU often finds
low-priced products to outperform the high priced ones.
Anyone who has ever followed their advice on buying a
car--or a vaccuum cleaner--is likely to be pleased. But
if you talk to a car salesman--or a vaccum cleaner
salesman or a "high end" audio guy--you'll get a lot
of hooey about the limits of CU's testing.
CU also periodically enters the arena of politics
when condemning legislation that protects
banks, credit card companies, insurance
companies, etc.
They used to review classical recordings and their reviewer,
Martin Bookspan, seemed pretty well on target to me.
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Walter Traprock wrote:
>> I'll bet Consumer Reports never said otherwise.
> This is *exactly* what Consumer Reports said: "When you burn a copy of
> a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital." It's in the latest issue,
> Letters to the Editor.
Unfortunately, the veracity of that sentence, in isolation, cannot be
evaluated. It requires context, which you didn't provide.
William Sommerwerck
> nonsense from the era of high-end "audiophile" equipment.
Other than damning the Bose 901s, their testing of audio equipment --
especially speakers -- has been generally dismal. Their approach depends too
much on measurement and not enough on listening. Unfortunately, genuinely
useful listening tests take too much time and cost too much. They also
require serious, experienced listeners, and there aren't many of those
around.
If you believe CR is giving you "the straight poop" about audio equipment,
you ought to do some _careful_ auditioning of your own. You will likely find
products that deliver significantly better sound quality than those CR
tests. I own Apogee Divas, generally considered one of the all-time-great
speakers, yet they would flunk CU's tests, which were (and I assume still
are) based on total-power response. If you don't believe me, listen to the
cheaper hybrid electrostatics from Martin-Logan. You might fall in love.
> Lots of industry insiders disdain CU's advice because it's
> so damn practical. The "insiders" resent that CU often finds
> low-priced products to outperform the high-priced ones.
> Anyone who has ever followed their advice on buying a car --
> or a vaccuum cleaner -- is likely to be pleased. But if you talk
> to a car salesman -- or a vaccum cleaner salesman or a
> "high end" audio guy -- you'll get a lot of hooey about the
> limits of CU's testing.
But all testing is limited. Only in rare cases is CU -- or anyone else --
able to test all (or nearly all) models of a particular type of product.
I was particularly surprised by their recent rankings of digital cameras.
For unstated reasons, they didn't test any of the Olympus E-series D-SLRs.
As Olympus is a major photo-equipment company, this omission is strange. (I
own an E-500, and it takes pictures of startlingly high quality.) Perhaps CU
felt -- without testing or explanation -- that 4/3 sensors are too small to
deliver the image quality expected from a D-SLR. Regardless, omitting the
cameras of a leading manufacturer reduces the usefulness (and to a lesser
extent, the validity) of the reviews of other cameras. It also just plain
"looks suspicious".
This situation might be reversed with expensive digital cameras. I also own
a Canon 5D, the least-expensive (but hardly cheap) D-SLR with a full-frame
sensor. It's unlikely CU will ever test this product, probably with the
argument that a bigger sensor doesn't produce any meaningful improvement in
image quality.
35 years ago, when I worked in photo/audio store (Stansbury's), I
occasionally had to handle customers who marched in with a copy of CR. CR
had just given a Best-Buy rating to a Super 8 camera from a Japanese company
whose name I forget. We carried that brand, but didn't stock that particular
model. It was obvious that these cameras differed primarily in features, not
"quality", but I could not convince the man to purchase a slightly different
model. It _had_ to be the model CR reviewed.
You can't blame CU for the misinterpretations their readers put on the
reviews. There was a time when CR simply listed the product rankings,
leaving it up to readers to make an intelligent choice. (Hint: You're not
obliged to rush out and purchase the product at the top of the list.) But
readers apparently assumed that the top-ranked products were necessarily
what they "should" buy. So about 10 years ago, CR started _explaining_ their
rankings, along with whether they thought a product, regardless of its
position in the list, was worth considering.
CR's banner used to read "The facts you need before you buy." The word
"facts" disappeared some years ago when someone at CU got wise. (The current
trademarked banner is "Expert - Independent - Nonprofit", which denies any
claim to omniscience.)
> CU also periodically enters the arena of politics when condemning
> legislation that protects banks, credit card companies, insurance
> companies, etc.
CU is basically a left-wing pro-consumer organization -- which I happen to
think is A Very Good Thing. As they themselves admit, product reviews are
basically a come-on to get people to read the magazine for information about
matters that significantly affect them.
> They used to review classical recordings and their reviewer,
> Martin Bookspan, seemed pretty well on target to me.
Martin "Bad Rug" Bookspan was the first classical reviewer I ever read --
specifically, his Basic Repertoire series in Stereo Review. With a very few
exceptions (most notably, the Barbirolli Eroica), I have found his taste
very similar to mine.
CR is an excellent source of often-useful information. But, as with any
source of information, you have to understand its approach, and take its
opinions with a bit of skepticism.
Norman M. Schwartz
<tho...@antispam.ham> wrote in message
news:46b6de2e$0$30684$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
A copy is "analog" if it's recorded through the analog inputs of a
cd-recorder. OTOH a copy will be digital if it can be, and is, recorded
through a digital input (optical or coax) of a cd-recorder. Easy enough?
tho...@antispam.ham
>> MIFrost wrote:
>>> Walter Traprock wrote:
>>>> I'll bet Consumer Reports never said otherwise.
>>> This is *exactly* what Consumer Reports said: "When you burn a copy of
>>> a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital." It's in the latest issue,
>>> Letters to the Editor.
>> Unfortunately, the veracity of that sentence, in isolation, cannot be
>> evaluated. It requires context, which you didn't provide.
> A copy is "analog" if it's recorded through the analog inputs of a
> cd-recorder. OTOH a copy will be digital if it can be, and is, recorded
> through a digital input (optical or coax) of a cd-recorder. Easy enough?
When it comes to having a bit-for-bit identical copy to the original,
even a digital copy may not satisfy that criterion. For example,
suppose the source is a 48 kHz DAT recording. CD uses a 44.1 kHz
sampling rate, so the source has to undergo sampling rate conversion,
guaranteeing that the source and copy will not be identical, even
though the process is entirely in the digital domain.
A. Brain
> Other than damning the Bose 901s, their testing of audio equipment --
> especially speakers -- has been generally dismal. Their approach
> depends too
> much on measurement and not enough on listening. Unfortunately,
> genuinely
> useful listening tests take too much time and cost too much. They also
> require serious, experienced listeners, and there aren't many of those
> around.
>
> If you believe CR is giving you "the straight poop" about audio
> equipment,
> you ought to do some _careful_ auditioning of your own. You will
> likely find
> products that deliver significantly better sound quality than those CR
> tests. I own Apogee Divas, generally considered one of the
> all-time-great
> speakers, yet they would flunk CU's tests, which were (and I assume
> still
> are) based on total-power response. If you don't believe me, listen to
> the
> cheaper hybrid electrostatics from Martin-Logan. You might fall in
> love.
Well, I have come full circle on this issue. I'm
not at all interested in audio equipment; I am
not sure I could tell the difference, but I think
the listening room is perhaps the most important
variable. Concidentally, if I am not mistaken,
Martin-Logans are made in Lawrence, Kansas,
where I mostly grew up.
If I were buying a new stereo system, I
think I'd be interested in something elegant,
kind of like what B&) used to do. Their
new stuff is too "techno".
>> Lots of industry insiders disdain CU's advice because it's
>> so damn practical. The "insiders" resent that CU often finds
>> low-priced products to outperform the high-priced ones.
>
>> Anyone who has ever followed their advice on buying a car --
>> or a vaccuum cleaner -- is likely to be pleased. But if you talk
>> to a car salesman -- or a vaccum cleaner salesman or a
>> "high end" audio guy -- you'll get a lot of hooey about the
>> limits of CU's testing.
>
> But all testing is limited. Only in rare cases is CU -- or anyone
> else --
> able to test all (or nearly all) models of a particular type of
> product.
Well, I'd like to see them concentrate on products
that are long-term purchases, not everyday stuff
like peanut butter. Their wine reports are helpful;
it's been a long time since they reported on Scotch
whiskey or other liquors. One of their top-rated
Scotches from twenty years ago,"King's Ransom",
has seemingly disappeared.
[snip]
>
> 35 years ago, when I worked in photo/audio store (Stansbury's), I
> occasionally had to handle customers who marched in with a copy of CR.
> CR
> had just given a Best-Buy rating to a Super 8 camera from a Japanese
> company
> whose name I forget. We carried that brand, but didn't stock that
> particular
> model. It was obvious that these cameras differed primarily in
> features, not
> "quality", but I could not convince the man to purchase a slightly
> different
> model. It _had_ to be the model CR reviewed.
Which brings up a complaint I have. Why do these
companies change models all the time? There was a
time in the audio world when companies made the same
product year after year. Some had "classic" looks,
like the AR amplifier and receiver. I wish I still had
one of those or that someone made equipment that
had distinctive looks. Now, as in the case of automobiles,
they all look the same.
[snip]
>> CU also periodically enters the arena of politics when condemning
>> legislation that protects banks, credit card companies, insurance
>> companies, etc.
>
> CU is basically a left-wing pro-consumer organization -- which I
> happen to
> think is A Very Good Thing. As they themselves admit, product reviews
> are
> basically a come-on to get people to read the magazine for information
> about
> matters that significantly affect them.
>
>
>> They used to review classical recordings and their reviewer,
>> Martin Bookspan, seemed pretty well on target to me.
>
> Martin "Bad Rug" Bookspan was the first classical reviewer I ever
> read --
> specifically, his Basic Repertoire series in Stereo Review. With a
> very few
> exceptions (most notably, the Barbirolli Eroica), I have found his
> taste
> very similar to mine.
Some of the recordings that he recommended in the
"Basic Repertoire" have disappeared or never appeared
on CD. I can think of one right of the top of my head:
one of Barenboim's first recordings as a conductor,
the Tchaikovsky 4, which I believe was on Columbia.
Have you ever seen a "good rug"? Or "combover"
for that matter?
William Sommerwerck
> interested in audio equipment; I am not sure I could tell
Yes, you can. Good equipment will greatly increase your listening pleasure
and involvement with the music. You don't have to spend a small fortune for
good-sounding equipment.
> ... but I think the listening room is perhaps the most
> important variable.
It's not nearly as important as the speakers. The room can only degrade the
sound of good speakers; it can't improve the sound of mediocre or
indifferent speakers.
> Which brings up a complaint I have. Why do these companies
> change models all the time?
Mostly because technology changes much more rapidly than it did 20 years
ago.
> There was a time in the audio world when companies made
> the same product year after year. Some had "classic" looks,
> like the AR amplifier and receiver. I wish I still had one of those
> or that someone made equipment that had distinctive looks.
I have an AR amp, tuner, and receiver I'll gladly sell you. The amp and
receiver commonly have blown output stages, so some service work will be
needed.
> Now, as in the case of automobiles, they all look the same.
This isn't true for two-channel equipment, and it certainly doesn't apply to
all home-theater or multi-channel equipment. I currently own Parasound A21
amps and a C2 controller, and they don't look anyone else's products.
Handsome stuff.
I agree that the "home-theater-electronics-in-a-big-box" receivers tend to
look a lot alike.
> Have you ever seen a "good rug"? Or "combover",
> for that matter?
Yes. Burt Reynolds has an excellent toupee. Bill's isn't too bad, either.
Fred Astaire's was believable.
I have very long hair, which I've always parted at the side and "combed
over", even when it wasn't thinning. And now, even though it _is_ thinning,
it doesn't look "dumb".
Bob Lombard
>
> I have very long hair, which I've always parted at the side and "combed
> over", even when it wasn't thinning. And now, even though it _is_
> thinning,
> it doesn't look "dumb".
>
>
I hope you have more than one opinion on that issue.
bl
A. Brain
>> There was a time in the audio world when companies made
>> the same product year after year. Some had "classic" looks,
>> like the AR amplifier and receiver. I wish I still had one of those
>> or that someone made equipment that had distinctive looks.
>
> I have an AR amp, tuner, and receiver I'll gladly sell you. The amp
> and
> receiver commonly have blown output stages, so some service work will
> be
> needed.
I was thinking more along the lines of buying
something new that had classic looks. I'd
like to buy a receiver that had a real wood
cabinet, analog controls, etc.
>
>> Have you ever seen a "good rug"? Or "combover",
>> for that matter?
>
> Yes. Burt Reynolds has an excellent toupee. Bill's isn't too bad,
> either.
> Fred Astaire's was believable.
Bill Richardson?
>
> I have very long hair, which I've always parted at the side and
> "combed
> over", even when it wasn't thinning. And now, even though it _is_
> thinning,
> it doesn't look "dumb".
Well, a "friend" insists that mine is thinning, but
I don't see any sign of that. I don't think it looks
"dumb" but then I am not a conductor or an academic,
in which case my "Simon Rattle" style hair would be
regarded as perfectly normal.
William Sommerwerck
> new that had classic looks. I'd like to buy a receiver that
> had a real wood cabinet, analog controls, etc.
HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH
It is to laugh.
Sorry. Nothing personal. I just couldn't resist.
The plain two-channel receiver has almost completely disappeared, because
almost everyone has a home-theater system. A wood cabinet? You'll have to
make one yourself.
You might take a look at Parasound's New Classic products, but this line
doesn't include a tuner.
Paul Ilechko
>> I was thinking more along the lines of buying something
>> new that had classic looks. I'd like to buy a receiver that
>> had a real wood cabinet, analog controls, etc.
>
> HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH
>
> It is to laugh.
>
> Sorry. Nothing personal. I just couldn't resist.
>
> The plain two-channel receiver has almost completely disappeared, because
> almost everyone has a home-theater system. A wood cabinet? You'll have to
> make one yourself.
I have a Harman Kardon stereo receiver, I have no interest in "home
theater". No wood, though.
Norman M. Schwartz
>> I was thinking more along the lines of buying something
>> new that had classic looks. I'd like to buy a receiver that
>> had a real wood cabinet, analog controls, etc.
>
> HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH
>
> It is to laugh.
>
> Sorry. Nothing personal. I just couldn't resist.
>
> The plain two-channel receiver has almost completely disappeared, because
> almost everyone has a home-theater system. A wood cabinet? You'll have to
> make one yourself.
>
J&R Music has 17- 2 channel receivers for sale (none "classic" or wood
cabinet designs):
http://www.jr.com/JRSectionView.process?N=10946+206028&Ne=100779#Channels
Edward A. Cowan
(a large den with a hardwood floor and a vaulted ceiling) turn great
speakers (Paradigm) in real boomers. (Perhaps an
"Eargesplittenlautenboomer"? <g>) I have found it possible to adjust
the settings on my audio system (McIntosh MC6900) to make the sound in
this room acceptable and balanced. The following settings that I now
use, with slight modifications, will indicate the nature of the change
which the room wrought upon my music listening before making these
adjustments:
L 9:00
LM 11:00
M 11:00
UM 11:00
H 12:00
So the room is a very important factor in your listening. The speakers
are also important, but you must "tune the room" as well as the
speakers. --E.A.C.
On Aug 7, 8:14 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Norman M. Schwartz
"Edward A. Cowan" <eac...@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:1186581972.1...@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>I have had the experience of having an otherwise good listening room
> (a large den with a hardwood floor and a vaulted ceiling) turn great
> speakers (Paradigm) in real boomers. (Perhaps an
> "Eargesplittenlautenboomer"? <g>) I have found it possible to adjust
> the settings on my audio system (McIntosh MC6900) to make the sound in
> this room acceptable and balanced. The following settings that I now
> use, with slight modifications, will indicate the nature of the change
> which the room wrought upon my music listening before making these
> adjustments:
>
> L 9:00
> LM 11:00
> M 11:00
> UM 11:00
> H 12:00
>
> So the room is a very important factor in your listening. The speakers
> are also important, but you must "tune the room" as well as the
> speakers. --E.A.C.
>
"Otherwise" a good room? I thought a "good" room is one which doesn't
require any knob twiddling or tweaking.
William Sommerwerck
sound. And adjusting the tonal balance electronically will not completely
resolve the issue. You need to make acoustic changes to get the room into
reasonable balance, before applying EQ.
"Edward A. Cowan" <eac...@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:1186581972.1...@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
William Sommerwerck
> cabinet designs):
> http://www.jr.com/JRSectionView.process?N=10946+206028&Ne=100779#Channels
If the OP is reading this, I'd recommend (alphabetically) Denon,
harman/kardon, and Onkyo.
Bob Lombard
news:Nzkui.954$EN3...@newsfe12.lga...
----------
Perhaps it is "otherwise a good listening room" because it's a good room to
be in; while listening or otherwise occupied.
I agree with William that the hardwood floor needs to be 'tweaked'. That
vaulted ceiling is intriguing; E.A.C. is fortunate that I'm not there to
move furniture around under it - endangering that hardwood floor in the
process.
bl
Walter Traprock
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 22:25:32 -0500, "Norman M. Schwartz"
> <nm...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >If you happen to be using a "consumer" type CD-recorder (which only records
> >using "music" CD-Rs), then the only type of copy that can be made of a
> >"first" generation digital copy of any "pressed" CD *has* to be made through
> >a player's "analog" output _because_ it will not work to make a digital copy
> >of a digital copy. This is what they mean as a "analog copy", This is due to
> >the Serial Copy Management System, "SCMS"; read here for further details:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Copy_Management_System
>
> But that isn't what they said. Read the letters in the latest issue.
> They didn't qualify their response.
Well, I don't believe you or the tholen guy who keeps saying that CR says
what tholen and you keep saying what CR says.
Frank Berger
I read the letter. CU responds to the letter with a simple, unequivocal
reply that copies of CDs are analog. They may have meant that to apply only
to copies made under certain circumstances, but that's what they said.
rkhalona
> On Aug 3, 3:54 pm, "MIFrost" <sfro...@NOSPAMnycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > According to a recent issue of "Consumer Reports" magazine, "Once you've
> > burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." "When you burn a copy of
> > a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And copies might not be as
> > high quality as originals, although the average ear won't be able to hear
> > the difference."
>
> > This is the first I've ever heard of this. I thought all original and burned
> > copies are digital and exactly the same.
>
> > Yes? No?
>
> > MIFrost
>
> They're talking about Audio CDs burned in standalone CD burners.
> They're rigged as per the audio home recordings act.
>
> J
If they are talking about standalone CD burners, they are incorrect.
With my TEAC CD burner I can choose the mode in which to burn a CD.
In analog mode, the burner takes its input from the output of the
stereo amplifier (an analog signal). In digital mode, the burner
takes its input from the digital output of a digital source via its
digital coaxial input.
RK
Norman M. Schwartz
"rkhalona" <rkha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186604111.4...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps.
I own a working early 'consumer' stand-alone CD-recorder (Philips CD-R 870,
manufactured Feb 1998), and out of curiosity I can attempt using it to burn
a "digital" copy of a "digital" copy of a pressed CD.. Would you like me to
try doing it?, would the result provide an answer? I've got nothing to lose
other than the time involved, and nothing to gain other than satisfying my
curiosity.
> RK
>
>
Edward A. Cowan
that the knobs of one's audio equipment are there to tune either the
speakers or the room. In my case, there is no problem with the
speakers, but the room is what needs "tweaking," so I do that.
Examples from this afternoon: I listened to that early 1950's
Beethoven Pf. con. no.2 (Serkin/Phila./Ormandy) on a mono Columbia LP,
mentioned in another thread. It's a fine performance, but the sound is
tubby and dead (prime suspect: the Academy of Music). Using the knobs
on my MC6900 did little good, so I used an external graphic equalizer,
eventually achieving good results from cutting the bass, slightly
"sweetening" the mid-range -- don't do this much or often, otherwise
it will give the music a "canned" sound -- and then gently sloping the
curve downwards near the treble end. This situation was caused by
several things: The nature of the recording itself, the nature of the
listening room, and my idea of how an orchestra should sound,
especially that orchestra, which I heard through three seasons in the
Academy of Music back in the late 1960's.
I began with another Ormandy/Phila. mono LP that includes "The Moldau"
from Smetana's "Ma Vlast". This plays splendidly without any change to
my indicated settings. Still another item was a late stereo LP, again
Ormandy/Phila., with Roussel's "Bacchus and Ariane" Suite no.2. This
also did not require any extra "tweaking".
FWIW, my listening room is ca. 18 ft. wide and ca. 25 or so ft. long,
with an extension into my breakfast and kitchen area. My speakers are
ca. 15 feet apart, and I sit about 20 ft. away from them. In stereo
recordings there is a very good stereophonic image. I usually set up a
three-part screen at a door into the hallway just next to one of the
speakers, this to focus the sound somewhat into the listening room. I
close another door toward the back. I do indeed achieve a satisfactory
balance with most recordings using the settings listed in my previous
message. It's really something to hear! --E.A.C.
On Aug 8, 10:22 am, "Bob Lombard" <thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net>
wrote:
> "Norman M. Schwartz" <n...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:Nzkui.954$EN3...@newsfe12.lga...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Edward A. Cowan" <eaco...@hughes.net> wrote in message
tho...@antispam.ham
> Sipow...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
>>> If you happen to be using a "consumer" type CD-recorder (which only records
>>> using "music" CD-Rs), then the only type of copy that can be made of a
>>> "first" generation digital copy of any "pressed" CD *has* to be made through
>>> a player's "analog" output _because_ it will not work to make a digital copy
>>> of a digital copy. This is what they mean as a "analog copy", This is due to
>>> the Serial Copy Management System, "SCMS"; read here for further details:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Copy_Management_System
>> But that isn't what they said. Read the letters in the latest issue.
>> They didn't qualify their response.
> Well, I don't believe you or the tholen guy who keeps saying that CR says
> what tholen and you keep saying what CR says.
I haven't said anything about what CR says. Indeed, nobody has said
anything about what CR said in its entirety, thus we are debating in
a vacuum. All we have is what some people interpreted CR as saying,
with one quotation extracted from an unknown context. I simply noted
that SCMS can prevent a digital copy (bit-for-bit identical to the
original) from being made using equipment that is so equipped, thus
forcing the audio waveform into the analog domain to perform a copy
operation. The way around that is to use equipment that doesn't have
SCMS.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Walter Traprock wrote:
>> Sipow...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
>>>> If you happen to be using a "consumer" type CD-recorder (which only
>>>> records
>>>> using "music" CD-Rs), then the only type of copy that can be made of a
>>>> "first" generation digital copy of any "pressed" CD *has* to be made
>>>> through
>>>> a player's "analog" output _because_ it will not work to make a digital
>>>> copy
>>>> of a digital copy. This is what they mean as a "analog copy", This is
>>>> due to
>>>> the Serial Copy Management System, "SCMS"; read here for further
>>>> details:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Copy_Management_System
>>> But that isn't what they said. Read the letters in the latest issue.
>>> They didn't qualify their response.
>> Well, I don't believe you or the tholen guy who keeps saying that CR says
>> what tholen and you keep saying what CR says.
> I read the letter. CU responds to the letter with a simple, unequivocal
> reply that copies of CDs are analog. They may have meant that to apply only
> to copies made under certain circumstances, but that's what they said.
In response to a letter, thus the letter is the context, but it hasn't
been quoted here.
tho...@antispam.ham
> I own a working early 'consumer' stand-alone CD-recorder (Philips CD-R 870,
> manufactured Feb 1998), and out of curiosity I can attempt using it to burn
> a "digital" copy of a "digital" copy of a pressed CD.. Would you like me to
> try doing it?,
Not me, as I have the same recorder.
> would the result provide an answer?
Depends on whether you know the SCMS code of the original. It can be
set to allow an infinite number of digital copy generations to be made,
so discovering that you could make more than one wouldn't provide an
answer to the question of whether copies must be forced into the analog
domain.
Frank Berger
<tho...@antispam.ham> wrote in message
news:46ba31e1$0$30643$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
The statement that CD copies are analogue was the CU's *entire* response to
the letter. Yes, the letter itself might provide context to suggest that
CU's response assumed certain hardware, but even so, CU's response should
have been clearer. Knowing the many mistakes CU has made of the years, it
wouldn't be shocking if this were another one.
Norman M. Schwartz
<tho...@antispam.ham> wrote in message
news:46ba330e$0$30643$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
I don't know any codes; my Philips CD-R 870 recorder is as at came out of
the box the day I got, and as Philips intended it for me to use it..
>
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> Walter Traprock wrote:
>>>> Sipow...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
Which is why that context is so important to know.
> but even so, CU's response should
> have been clearer.
It might already be clear enough.
> Knowing the many mistakes CU has made of the years, it
> wouldn't be shocking if this were another one.
It also wouldn't be shocking if they got it right.
tho...@antispam.ham
The way it's intended to work is to prohibit a digital copy if the SCMS
code of the source says to prohibit it. I know; I've tried it.
Frank Berger
<tho...@antispam.ham> wrote in message
news:46ba37ac$0$29634$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
I don't think you're listening. Do you work for CU?
William Sommerwerck
As a highly live room can never sound like a concert hall -- and as a
performance venue the size of your room would not normally be so live -- it
follows that what you're hearing, however seemingly pleasant, is just plain
wrong. It's somewhat akin to a person jacking the saturation on a color TV
way up because they like vivid colors.
It would make more sense to treat the room so that the major reflections are
suppressed, and the overall acoustic is a bit on the dead side, then use a
hall synthesizer (such as the JVC or Yamaha, no longer made, but available),
playing through four additional speakers, to create an ambience similar to
that of the recording.
This is not only aesthetically justifiable and valid, but it allows you to
get the maximum sound quality from your equipment, without having it abused
by the room acoustics. You can have your cake and eat it -- you can have
control over the sound without converting it into a sonic and musical
atrocity.
> Examples from this afternoon: I listened to that early 1950's
> Beethoven Pf. con. no.2 (Serkin/Phila./Ormandy) on a mono Columbia LP,
> mentioned in another thread. It's a fine performance, but the sound is
> tubby and dead (prime suspect: the Academy of Music). Using the knobs
> on my MC6900 did little good, so I used an external graphic equalizer,
> eventually achieving good results from cutting the bass, slightly
> "sweetening" the mid-range -- don't do this much or often, otherwise
> it will give the music a "canned" sound -- and then gently sloping the
> curve downwards near the treble end. This situation was caused by
> several things: The nature of the recording itself, the nature of the
> listening room, and my idea of how an orchestra should sound,
> especially that orchestra, which I heard through three seasons in the
> Academy of Music back in the late 1960's.
The addition of hall synthesis enhances mono recordings in ways that you
have to hear to believe.
> FWIW, my listening room is ca. 18 ft. wide and ca. 25 or so ft. long,
> with an extension into my breakfast and kitchen area. My speakers are
> ca. 15 feet apart, and I sit about 20 ft. away from them. In stereo
> recordings there is a very good stereophonic image. I usually set up a
> three-part screen at a door into the hallway just next to one of the
> speakers, this to focus the sound somewhat into the listening room. I
> close another door toward the back. I do indeed achieve a satisfactory
> balance with most recordings using the settings listed in my previous
> message. It's really something to hear! --E.A.C.
I wish _I_ had a room like that. What you _appear_ to be doing is an
acoustic and aesthetic crime. It's like ramming a spear into your foot, then
sticking a Band-Aid on it.
What you are doing is _objectively_ incorrect, and works against faithful
reproduction -- and by implication, the ability to truly appreciate music
and its performance.
Norman M. Schwartz
<tho...@antispam.ham> wrote in message
news:46ba330e$0$30643$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
I tried making a digital copy of a digital copy. As most everyone expects
and seems to know, I couldn't. "Copy Prohibit" flashes in the display.
William Sommerwerck
delivered a stinging attack on his "taste" in listening. So I will respond
to his reaction _before_ he reacts.
Mr. Cowan, it's "people like you" who are ultimately responsible for the
miserable quality of commercial recordings. If classical listeners demanded
lifelike, realistic sound, recordings would be of much higher overall
quality. But they probably aren't aware of what accurate reproduction is, or
if they are, they simply don't care.
On Monday, an ex-boss of mine, whom I hadn't seen in 25 years, stopped by
with his wife. Dr. Clay Barclay, a neurosurgeon, has been an avid recordist
all his life, and is currently negotiating to record the Louisville
Orchestra. He wanted to hear my system, which currently comprises a Sony
multi-ch SACD connected to a Parasound C2 controller, which feeds an Apogee
electronic crossover and two Parasound A21 amplifiers driving Apogee Divas.
(The Divas are generally considered among the all-time great speakers.)
I chose two recordings to demo the system. One was the classic Rachmaninov
"Symphonic Dances" conducted by Donald Johanos. The other was a recent DSD
recording of the Mahler 5th, conducted by Yuri Temirkinov. Both were
minimally miked, with little or no signal processing. They are intended to
sound like a real orchestra, not some multi-tracked monstrosity. They do.
Dr. Barclary was favorably impressed, and agreed that the sound "somewhat
resembled" live sound, especially the Mahler. The overwhelming majority of
recordings don't come even that close.
ansermetniac
You cannot say that here.
BTW , I havve never read a review in Stereophile that said the sound
was not intended to sound like a real orchestra. I wonder why
.
Abbedd
Bob Lombard
news:7hjkb3tpoqan9mllq...@4ax.com...
----------
Ah jeez. You had a good thing going there, William; wrong-headed but good.
bl
Steve de Mena
I think by "standalone CD burner" what is really meant is a
"standalone CD duplicator that can copy a CD internally and that
*requires" one to use 'Music' blank CD-Rs".
Steve
Norman M. Schwartz
"Steve de Mena" <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote in message
news:46ba5d96$0$16555$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Manufacturer with model # should have been the first thing written
(otherwise this turns out be some type of guessing game).
> Steve
rkhalona
Which is why when I bought my TASCAM/TEAC burner I made sure it could
disable SCMS. BTW, you should still be able to make an analog copy of
said disc
by using another CD player as a source, if necessary.
RK
rkhalona
>
> - Show quoted text -
My two criteria in puchasing a standalone CD recorder were:
a) It should be able to disable SCMS
b) It should be able to use standard data CDRs, not just "music" CDRs.
There have been several such burners on the market that satisfy these
criteria.
RK
Norman M. Schwartz
Long ago I replaced that 870, with "Professional" models; a Marantz and HHb
BurnIT stand-alones. No SCMS (unless you ask it to do it), and of course no
need for "music" CD-R banks.
> RK
>
Walter Traprock
Oh, it wasn't you but whoever you were responding to.
To the CR-Naysayers: any clues providable on where to find this alleged
letter? Is it the web site, or the magazine, and what is the "current
issue", (July / August/ September/ October/ November/ ?) and what
page number is it on?
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>> Walter Traprock wrote:
>>>>>> Sipow...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
What you think is irrelevant, Berger.
> Do you work for CU?
Not even close.
tho...@antispam.ham
The way I've been reading it, most everyone isn't aware of the SCMS
limitations, considering how many don't know about an "analog" CD.
tho...@antispam.ham
You clearly said that you don't believe "the tholen guy".
William Sommerwerck
GOING DIGITAL
The June article "Going Digital" was right on target except for one
statement: "Once you've burned a CD, you can't make digital copies of it." I
did this more than a year ago on my Sony RCD-W500C. James Chastain Los
Angeles
When you burn a copy of a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital. And
copies might not be as high quality as origianls, although the average ear
won't be able to hear the difference.
CR's response is, at best, incomplete. It's correct only to the extent that,
under SCMS, you can make digital copies of an "original" CD, but not of the
copies. If your equipment doesn't enforce SCMS, you can copy anything
without leaving the digital domain.
It's meaningful to talk about "analog copies" or "digital copies" of CDs.
But there's no such thing as a digital CD, anymore than there are analog
LPs. That's like saying "wet water" or "hard granite".
I agree that, over the past decade, CR has become increasingly inaccurate
and miselading in its technical explanations and advice. I've seen worse
errors than this one.
I'm thinking about contacting CU on this. But, like most businesses, they
generally don't want to hear criticism.
---MIKE---
>>To the CR-Naysayers: any clues
>> providable on where to find this alleged
>> letter? Is it the web site, or the
>> magazine, and what is the "current
>> issue", (July / August/ September/
>> October/ November/ ?) and what page
>> number is it on?
It is the Sept 07 issue - page 10 "Going Digital".
"When you burn a copy of a digital CD, the copy is analog, not digital".
---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')
Bob Harper
(snip)
> I agree that, over the past decade, CR has become increasingly inaccurate
> and miselading in its technical explanations and advice. I've seen worse
> errors than this one.
>
> I'm thinking about contacting CU on this. But, like most businesses, they
> generally don't want to hear criticism.
>
>
Only over the past decade? I remember CU's speaker ratings from decades
ago which listed percentages of 'accuracy', whatever that was. Struck me
as somewhat less valuable that Robert Parker's 100-point scale for wine.
Bob Harper
Norman M. Schwartz
>
> It's meaningful to talk about "analog copies" or "digital copies" of CDs.
> But there's no such thing as a digital CD, anymore than there are analog
> LPs. That's like saying "wet water" or "hard granite".
>
It's obvious to me, at least, that whoever it was that wrote "digital CD"
implied it was "DDD" in nature rather than "ADD". As for LPs, some are made
from an original digital source and are referred to as digital LPs as
opposed to those derived from an analog sources, being "analog LPs".
Frank Berger
<tho...@antispam.ham> wrote in message
news:46bac4f6$0$31228$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
You are entitled to your opinion. Be aware that you don't speak for
everyone.
>
>> Do you work for CU?
>
> Not even close.
>
I couldn't think of another reason why you would demonstrate so much
hostility. I think I understand now.
William Sommerwerck
>> inaccurate and miselading in its technical explanations and advice.
>> I've seen worse errors than this one.
> Only over the past decade? I remember CU's speaker ratings from
> decades ago which listed percentages of "accuracy", whatever that
> was. Struck me as somewhat less valuable that Robert Parker's
> 100-point scale for wine.
I said "increasingly" inaccurate.
I've already criticized their speaker ratings (I believe). Their "percent
accuracy" rating was based on a weighted average of the omnidirectional
power-response's deviation from flat response. This value has _some_
connection with perceived accuracy, but it's easy to find speakers that
measure poorly on such a test that are subjectively of very high quality.
I'm not an oenophile, but I don't see how a simple number can tell you
something useful about a product as complex as wine.
Norman M. Schwartz
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> I'm not an oenophile, but I don't see how a simple number can tell you
> something useful about a product as complex as wine.
>
I wouldn't suspect it would be very different from rating loudspeakers on a
similar scale
>
tho...@antispam.ham
> It's not clear whether the full exchange has been published. Here it is...
Seems to me that "the full exchange" would need to include the June article.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>> Walter Traprock wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sipow...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
My opinion is irrelevant; the facts are rrlevants.
> Be aware that you don't speak for everyone.
Irrelevant, given that you didn't accuse everyone of not listening,
Berger.
>>> Do you work for CU?
>> Not even close.
> I couldn't think of another reason why you would demonstrate so much
> hostility.
Classic erroneous presupposition of any hostility, Berger. I said that
it wouldn't be shoking if CU got it right. How is that being hostile to
CU, Berger? Ironically, "I don't think you're listening."
> I think I understand now.
Obviously not, Berger.