Sony CDP101 repair

[Phil Allison]

Hi,

I bought one of the above immediately they appeared on sale in Sydney - in fact I pre-ordered it. For the first week, I had no CDs to put in it !!

With a few minor repairs, it has been working perfectly for 34 years and nowadays getting only occasional use.

Yesterday, I popped a CD in the drawer and it spat it back - so I tried a couple more with the same result.

Fearing the worst, I opened the machine and found some cockroach droppings in the drawer and near the laser assembly. Not much, just a bit.

While doubting this could stop a CDP101 completely, I nevertheless decided to give it a thorough clean up. Took about 15 minutes with a damp cloth, brush & WD40 and finally a dry cloth.

Popped the same CDs back in and it plays them perfectly.

I reckon there must have been a bit of dead cocky on the lens.



.... Phil

[thekma...@gmail.com]

Phil Allison:

What a time capsule! Enjoy and
take care of that.

[Phil Allison]

thekma...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Phil Allison:
>
> What a time capsule!
>

** OK - why do you call that ?

> Enjoy and take care of that.

** I have no intention of doing otherwise.

In terms of tech specs, sound quality, features and ease of use - it is still one of the best CD players ever made.

http://vintage-audio-laser.com/sony/cdp101/sony_cdp-101_5.png



.... Phil

[thekma...@gmail.com]

Phil:

It's appearance, and being
the first cosnumer CD player.

It represents that era!

[tabb...@gmail.com]

My first cd player had the disc upright and played at 1x. I like old electronics generally but saw no merit in that one once better came along.


NT

[Trevor Wilson]

On 30/05/2017 9:13 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

>
> In terms of tech specs, sound quality, features and ease of use - it
> is still one of the best CD players ever made.
>

**Sound quality? Nope. The CDP701 (released close to the same time as
the 101) was far better. I recall listening to both at a Sony demo,
through their ES series Sony electronics and those very good flat
diaphragm Sony speakers. The 701 completely outclassed the 101. One of
my clients had both machines and we listened extensively to them
(compared them with 2nd generation master tapes of Hot August Night on
his Studer) and the 701 was a far better sounding machine. Even the Sony
demo guy, who claimed that there would be no sonic difference, was
surprised. That said, a decent multibit machine (like the early Sony and
Philips machines) will sound better than those horrible single bit ones
released in the late 1980s.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[thekma...@gmail.com]

Was the CDP101 vs 701 test
done with the same exact source
(CD) in the same listening environment,
connected to the same system?


Otherwise such tests are invalid.

[Trevor Wilson]

Was the CDP101 vs 701 test
done with the same exact source
(CD) in the same listening environment,
connected to the same system?


Otherwise such tests are invalid.

**Did you bother reading what I wrote? Go back and read it CAREFULLY.

In truth, the only invalid part of the MANY tests I did, comparing the
two machines, was the fact that none were done blind. An oversight I
regret.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Phil Allison]

thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> "On 30/05/2017 9:13 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>
> >
> > In terms of tech specs, sound quality, features and ease of use - it
> > is still one of the best CD players ever made.
> >
>
> **Sound quality? Nope. The CDP701 (released close to the same time as
> the 101) was far better. I recall listening to both at a Sony demo,
> through their ES series Sony electronics and those very good flat
> diaphragm Sony speakers. The 701 completely outclassed the 101. One of
> my clients had both machines and we listened extensively to them
> (compared them with 2nd generation master tapes of Hot August Night on
> his Studer) and the 701 was a far better sounding machine. Even the Sony
> demo guy, who claimed that there would be no sonic difference, was
> surprised. That said, a decent multibit machine (like the early Sony and
> Philips machines) will sound better than those horrible single bit ones
> released in the late 1980s.
>
>

> Was the CDP101 vs 701 test
> done with the same exact source
> (CD) in the same listening environment,
> connected to the same system?
>
> Otherwise such tests are invalid.
>
>

** TWs listening tests are totally invalid - cos he used the audiophool method.

Machine A plays, stop, muck about, have a chat then machine B plays.

Absolute bollocks.

As a matter of fact, I carried out a blind testing session between my CDP101 and a borrowed CDP701 for a customer. He had a well damped room with Quad ESL63s at the time driven by an expensive Sony amp. It was all nicely set up for best imaging etc.

Both CD players were out in the hallway, so he could not see them or me. All I had to do was swap RCA leads and CDs between machines.

Try as he might, using his favourite classical tracks, he could not tell the machines apart.

Happy that there was no audible difference, he opted to buy the more expensive model.

He merely wanted to be *certain* the cheaper model was not actually better.



..... Phil

[thekma...@gmail.com]

Phil Allison wrote: "Try as he might, using his favourite classical tracks, he could not tell the machines apart.

Happy that there was no audible difference, he opted to buy the more expensive model.

He merely wanted to be *certain* the cheaper model was not actually better.

..... Phil "

I rest my case: the SOURCE(what's on
the medium) matters most!

[jurb...@gmail.com]

Does the 101 have the delay to match the phase of the channels ?

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"** TWs listening tests are totally invalid - cos he used the audiophool method.

Machine A plays, stop, muck about, have a chat then machine B plays.

Absolute bollocks. "

Actually with stamped CDs it would be valid to just use two copies of the same album. If there is ay doubt switch them but we know that sound quality had very little to do with the audio quality. It is just a matter of how many errors does it have to cover up.

They are stamped, you get two of them right next to each other from the shelf and they are likely to be the same batch and have the same errors. And the only errors that will have any real effect on sound quality will be those pertaining to the deemphasis.

Two disks and a toggle switch would do just fine. then switch the disks ad see if the more favorable rating follows it ort stays with the player.

Kida like splitting a bag of weed when your scalee is broken. "You split I'll pick" or vice versa. Whoever is splittlg is going to get them as close as humanly possible because he knows he gets the smaller one. Or whichever one is perceived as smaller by the picker.

Ever hear of scraping ? They use like a gouge to scrape metal plates to within millionths of an inch. There is no reference because these ARE the reference. they are the standard to which the ways of machines must adhere for flatness and straightness.

they use three plates, why ? Well, you blue it up and then separate the plates and observe the bluing. This really is an art. You can get two plates pretty flat, but there is ONE way they can be off and you can't tel. That is if one is slightly convex and the other concave. That is the reason for the third plate. It makes that type of error detectable because to match perfectly the third plate would have to be concave or convex and thus would math one of the two other plates but not the other.

In other words, all this fiddling switching disks every few minutes is a waste of time. Just switch them and rerun the comparison.

Actually I doubt very mny people can hear ant difference between cD players, butin the US would always prefer the one that has a slightly higher output level because it is louder.

You want an audio A/B comparison ? Golden Earring - Moontan, on vinyl. Compare the US version to the European version. BIG difference.

[Phil Allison]

jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

------------------------

>
> Actually I doubt very mny people can hear ant difference between
> cD players, butin the US would always prefer the one that has a
> slightly higher output level because it is louder.
>
>

** CD players are built under license to a standard ( Red Book) which requires the audio output is 2.0V rms for max sine wave level.

Makes comparing them pretty easy if you use the same RCA leads and disk.


.... Phil

[Trevor Wilson]

On 31/05/2017 6:57 PM, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Does the 101 have the delay to match the phase of the channels ?
>

**Yes. In the feedback of the OP amp after the buffer stage, one OP amp
has a 15k resistor in parallel with a 75pF, whilst the other channel has
16k in parallel with a 75pF cap. A bit of a kludge. As I recall, the
CDP701 employed two, separate DACs. I could be wrong, so I'll see if I
can locate the manual tomorrow.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[thekma...@gmail.com]

Interesting anecdote: I had an Aiwa bookshelf
system set up in the store and playing a Stevie
Wonder CD. A guy came over and started playing
with it, listening to different tracks etc. He said it
sounded great, and he bought it.


Next day, he came in, saying he had the "same
disc" at home, but that the system did not sound
nearly as good as when he played with it in the
store. Since he said he had the disc, I asked him
to bring his in next time he visited.


The next week he came in with the CD, and I
compared it to the copy in my inventory: His was
a REMASTER....

[thekma...@gmail.com]

Trevor, jurb: R.E. "phase of the channels"


Is there something I don't know
about CD players, or how they
function? Does the audio arrive
out of phase/polarity at some
point in the chain inside the
player?

[None]

<t hekma @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4021516-0195-49a3...@googlegroups.com...

> Is there something I don't know about CD players, or how they
> function?

Yes. Pretty much everything about audio is something you don't know.
KHF,

[Dave Platt]

In article <a4021516-0195-49a3...@googlegroups.com>,

<thekma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Is there something I don't know
>about CD players, or how they
>function? Does the audio arrive
>out of phase/polarity at some
>point in the chain inside the
>player?

As I recall: in some CD players (mostly very old ones?), there's only
a single DAC, which is shared between the two channels. The "left"
and "right" samples are converted back to analog at slightly different
times, in alternating sequence. The analog voltage coming out from
the DAC is then fed to a pair of sample-and-hold circuits, one per
channel, and these then feed the (low-pass) analog reconstruction filters.

As a result of this, there's a slight phase delay (equal to the actual
DAC conversion time, or half of the nominal sample rate for the stereo
signal) introduced between the two channels. This would tend to
"pull" the perceived stereo image slightly to one side, since our
ear/brain systems are sensitive to a signal's inter-aural arrival
times as well as to inter-aural amplitude differences.

[I used this trick years ago as a way of enabling a videogame system
to convert a monaural sound sample to one which appeared to move left
and right, quite smoothly - a simple DSP algorithm did both sample
interpolation and filtering, to create timing and amplitude and
frequency-response differences between two copies of the sampled
sound. It could even introduce the equivalent of Doppler shift, to
mimic a sound source moving towards or away from the listener. My
first patent ever!]

It sounds as of the CDP101 used a "tweaked" reconstruction filter, to
introduce a bit of phase difference between the analog signals that
would partially cancel out the phase difference introduced by the use
of the single DAC.

I don't think I've seen the "one DAC, two sample-and-hold" technique
used in a CD or similar media player in a lot of years. Stereo (or
even 5-channel) DACs are jellybean parts these days.

[Dave Platt]

In article <67e9586e-848b-4a98...@googlegroups.com>,

And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering
engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with".

[Trevor Wilson]

**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**Indeed. That little trick was used by Mobile Fidelity back in the
early 1980s. I found some of their limited edition, heavy duty, virgin
vinyl, very expensive LPs, unlistenable. I recall the damage MF did to
my favourite female artist - Crystal Gayle, on her seminal LP, Don't It
Make My Brown Eyes Blue. The bog-standard LP was a glorious thing. The
MF was something else entirely and a good deal more expensive too. I
never purchased another MF product. Well, except my UHQR Pink Floyd -
Dark Side Of The Moon. It is still unopened and the last figure I saw
was about US$1,500.00. A nice return on my 25 Bucks.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[bitrex]

It would look great with my Onkyo TX-2500 mk II receiver in my "retro
stereo corner."

Give ya one fiddy for it.

[amdx]

I still have a Magnavox (NAP) FD 1040 that I bought in 1984, not quite
as old as yours.
I used it for years and then it quit working, I couldn't locate the
problem. I worked for an NAP authorized service center at the time and
even calling tech support didn't lead to a repair.
So I sent it to the NAP factory service center for repair. They had it
for well over a month and returned it saying they could not fix the problem.
I mentioned the situation to one of our other techs, he said, "let
me take a look at it" he put a wire through all the
vias and resoldered them.
He gave me back a working CD Player!

Mikek

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Is there something I don't know
about CD players"

As been pointed out, the channels are read sequentially.

There are a few things most people don't know about CDs. First of all that they could be quadrophonic. It was never involved, no quad CDs were made and no quad CD players were made.

Also the digital compression scheme used was necessary to make the CD small enough to facilitate in dash CD players in cars of the time, which generally had a predetermined space for the stereo. (that is also why they are not 48 KHz)This facilitated aftermarket stereos and has been changed in more recent cars. The strive to make it non standard so that they have a captive market on the stereos.

And the LASER beam is not a beam at all, it is conical shape. this means that on the bottom surface of the CD where all the scratches and dirt are, the pickup of the signal does not depend on a teeny tiny area.

On a stamped CD, the pits are not darkened at all. They cancel the light out by being ¼ wavelength of light deeper. There is no mask nor pigment involved, unlike burned CDs.

In the beginning of stamping CDs in the US, Teelarc could not produce a defect free disk. They had to get engineers from overseas to figure out what they were doing wrong. So much for "America number one ?".

All obsolete. Now DVDs are obsolete. Now bluray is obsolete. They got a holographic disk now that holds so much more data that nobody can use it. Thatis the only reason it is not on shelves. Also, do you really want your entire library of movies and whatever on one disk ? Scratch that.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Scratch that. Looks like my DSOTM UHQR LP is now worth a little North
of 2 Grand. Gotta be happy with that. Factory sealed, still has the
guarantee label stuck to it.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[thekma...@gmail.com]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au "

Thanks, Trevor W, for that cogent
explanation, and for not cowing to
the sudden dip in S/N ratio in this
thread.

[thekma...@gmail.com]

jurb wrote: "As been pointed out, the channels are read sequentially. "

On early machines such as the
CDP101. Trevor did mention
that subsequent models began
incorporating DACs for each
channel.


Something I am aware of that you didn't
bring up: Pre-emp/De-emp. Some
CDs were mastered with a rising high-
end frequency response, and a
corresponding attenuation in the player.
Sort of a "Dolby NR" for CDs I guess?

Nothing I ripped even in EAC flags
the pre-emp, even though the vast
majority of my CD collection are from
the era when pre-emphasis was most
likely to be used. I would have to load
the WAVs ripped from every CD in my
collection into a DAW and run a spectro
on it to see if it looked unusually top-
heavy, suggesting emphasis. Can't
always tell by ear.

[et...@whidbey.com]

Years ago when Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon came out on CD I
bought a copy and was amazed at how much better it sounded than the
vinyl. Then Happy Trails by Quicksilver Messenger Service came out on
CD and I was anticipating a much better sounding copy. Nope. It
sounded just as bad as my vinyl and reel to reel copies. I guess the
master tapes done by Pink Floyd were much better than the ones that
held Quicksilver's music.
Eric

[thekma...@gmail.com]

Dave Platt wrote: "And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering

engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with". "

As was the case with this customer's version
of the Wonder CD I was playing in the store.
Needless to say, I convinced him to buy the
unremastered orignal!

[Michael Black]

But Happy Trails was recorded live, though probably some later
"tampering", so one might assume the recording equipment wasn't as great
as in the studio.

ON the other hand, I gather early CDs weren't mastered quite write for the
new medium. I don't know whether it applies here, I have the record, but
don't have it on CD.

Michael

[Phil Allison]

Dave Platt wrote:

-----------------

>
>
> As I recall: in some CD players (mostly very old ones?), there's only
> a single DAC, which is shared between the two channels. The "left"
> and "right" samples are converted back to analog at slightly different
> times, in alternating sequence. The analog voltage coming out from
> the DAC is then fed to a pair of sample-and-hold circuits, one per
> channel, and these then feed the (low-pass) analog reconstruction filters.
>
> As a result of this, there's a slight phase delay (equal to the actual
> DAC conversion time, or half of the nominal sample rate for the stereo
> signal) introduced between the two channels. This would tend to
> "pull" the perceived stereo image slightly to one side, since our
> ear/brain systems are sensitive to a signal's inter-aural arrival
> times as well as to inter-aural amplitude differences.
>

** You need to apply some common sense before making such conclusions.

What does such a tiny delay amount to in distance ?

Answer:

your head being offset by 1.7mm from exact centre of a pair of speakers.


You are employing the worst of audiophool non-think which holds that IF it exists it MUST be audible.

Bollocks.


.... Phil

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

--------------------

>
> **It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
> between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
> (one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
> just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
> each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
> feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
> contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
> (including me).

** More TW audiophool nonsense.

There is no audible difference and the 15k resistor business is an obvious red herring.

Just do a tiny bit of math on those numbers.



..... Phil

[Phil Allison]

amdx wrote:

-------------

>
> I still have a Magnavox (NAP) FD 1040 that I bought in 1984, not quite
> as old as yours.
> I used it for years and then it quit working, I couldn't locate the
> problem. I worked for an NAP authorized service center at the time and
> even calling tech support didn't lead to a repair.
> So I sent it to the NAP factory service center for repair. They had it
> for well over a month and returned it saying they could not fix the problem.
> I mentioned the situation to one of our other techs, he said, "let
> me take a look at it" he put a wire through all the
> vias and resoldered them.
> He gave me back a working CD Player!
>
>

** That is a nasty and pretty rare fault.

I've had to do the same only twice ever.

Few techs would even think of it.


.... Phil

[Phil Allison]

thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

--------------------------

** ROTFL !!

TW is spewing his usual audiophool nonsense while a know nothing idiot is lapping it up.




..... Phil

[Clifford Heath]

Maybe. Interesting related story: I built a stereo sonar,
using a 40KHz transmitter with two receivers 5cm each side.
The aim was to resolve the angle of the response echo.
Because the receiver circuits detected a response passing
a threshold, and because the receivers would be still
resonating from the transmit pulse, the echo could arrive
either in or out of phase, so the threshold was passed a
cycle earlier or later. 40KHz acoustic wavelength is 7mm,
so there was a 10 degree sawtooth uncertainty in the angle
of the received signal. A time delay of one cycle is 25us.

The only way around this is to not use thresholding, but
to digitize each receiver's waveform and compute the
departure from normal ring-down caused by a reflected
signal.

Since our ears use relative phase to locate signals, I'd
think that a high frequency phase shift (at say 4KHz)
would very likely affect the stereo imaging.

Clifford Heath.

[Trevor Wilson]

**If there is no audible difference, why did Sony use different value
resistors in the 101 and the same values in the 701? I presume you are
suggesting that there is a measurable difference, but that difference is
inaudible?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**Not really. The Magnavox was identical the early Philips/Marantz units
and was built in Belgium. Those whacky Belgians could have learned a
great deal from Sony about how to make decent PCBs. The lasers were
great, but the PCBs were poorly assembled.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[et...@whidbey.com]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 20:28:14 -0400, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca>

All my recordings of Happy trails were obviously made from the same
master tapes. I can hear the exact same noise in the same places on
them all. In fact, the CD almost sounds like it was recorded from the
LP I have. I saw Quicksilver live in San Jose way back when. It was a
great venue and a great concert. And I was listening to Who Do You
Love just a couple days ago which made me think of the difference in
the quality of the recordings.
Eric

[thekma...@gmail.com]

Phil Allison: "

** ROTFL !!

TW is spewing his usual audiophool nonsense while a know nothing idiot is lapping it up.


..... Phil "

Then why don't you explain what
was done?

[Phil Allison]

** FFS TW, do the math on those values.

Find the -3dB frequencies and see how far above the audio band they are and that there is almost no difference in using 15k or 16k - the caps are only 5% types !!

PLUS the fact that it is having NO effect on the 11uS offset.

I reckon it's a bloody typo in the parts list.




..... Phil

[Phil Allison]

thekma...@gmail.com wrote:


----------------------------

** I do not have to explain audiophool bullshit to anyone.

If you believe in " IF it exists it MUST be audible " - you can go to hell.

There is a miniscule 11us time offset between L & R channels - Sony could easily have engineered it out but did not bother cos they KNEW it was NOT audible.



.... Phil

[Trevor Wilson]

**You are correct. 5% mica types. The resistors are 1% tolerance.

>
> PLUS the fact that it is having NO effect on the 11uS offset.

**Funnily enough, the difference between those two values is pretty
close to 11uS. Those 5% caps are a bit of a problem though.

>
> I reckon it's a bloody typo in the parts list.
>

**It might instructive when you next pull your machine apart to check
out the values. I just checked the schematic and the supplement. Both
cite identical values for these components.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

----------------------

> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> **It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and
> >>>> shared between left and right channels. All (?) other players
> >>>> used two DACs (one for each channel) and the delay was not
> >>>> required. For the record, I just checked the schematic of the
> >>>> 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for each channel. It does not
> >>>> use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp feedback resistors are
> >>>> 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely contributes to the
> >>>> difference in sound quality noted by many listeners (including
> >>>> me).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ** More TW audiophool nonsense.
> >>>
> >>> There is no audible difference and the 15k resistor business is
> >>> an obvious red herring.
> >>>
> >>> Just do a tiny bit of math on those numbers.
> >>>
> >>
> >> **If there is no audible difference, why did Sony use different
> >> value resistors in the 101 and the same values in the 701? I
> >> presume you are suggesting that there is a measurable difference,
> >> but that difference is inaudible?
> >>
> >
> > ** FFS TW, do the math on those values.
> >
> > Find the -3dB frequencies and see how far above the audio band they
> > are and that there is almost no difference in using 15k or 16k - the
> > caps are only 5% types !!
>
> **You are correct. 5% mica types. The resistors are 1% tolerance.
>

** For a total of 6%.

> >
> > PLUS the fact that it is having NO effect on the 11uS offset.
>
> **Funnily enough,

** TW only sees what he WANTS to see, and heasr what he WANTs to hear.

> the difference between those two values is pretty
> close to 11uS.

** 15k & 75pF = 1.12 uS

16k & 75pF = 1.20 uS.

> Those 5% caps are a bit of a problem though.
>
>

** FFS, TW has no case at all since the 11uS offset ( exactly half a sampling period ) is NOT affected.


BTW:

For my interest, was it YOU who came up with this mad interpretation or did you find it floating free on the great world wide sewer ?



..... Phil

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. "

Using two DACs does not negate the need for a delay. However it is probably easier to implement in the digital domain, something you can't do with a single DAC.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Something I am aware of that you didn't
bring up: Pre-emp/De-emp."

I did bring it up but only in the context of the playback quality - that is if there is an error in decoding.

The pre-enph and de-emph is not quite like Dolby. First of all it is either o or off, and it is designed to turn on and off transient free during playback. It is a command on the CD itself, there is no detection of level or spectral content like in Dolby or other noise reduction systems.

And actually it is not really for noise reduction. When the source has low HF content it is not using enough bits and people complained it sounded grainy or whatever, some such adjective. This was before CDs actually, it is built into all CD players, unless there are some that are cheaper than even I can imagine.

Then, when it came to totally digital sources they actually had to add noise, called dither, to make the low level HF sound right. They may use the pre-emph on that at low levels at all. But there was never any need for noise reduction because there is no noise. In fact, when they did the old AAD disks which were from the master tapes from back in the 1950s ad such, the tape hiss provided the dither and I think the quantization process actually removed some of that hiss without having any effect on the frequency reponse.

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Answer:

your head being offset by 1.7mm from exact centre of a pair of speakers. "

Might hear it on headphones. Might.

[Phil Allison]

jurb...@gmail.com wrote:


---------------------

>
>
> The pre-enph and de-emph is not quite like Dolby. First of all it is either o or off, and it is designed to turn on and off transient free during playback. It is a command on the CD itself, there is no detection of level or spectral content like in Dolby or other noise reduction systems.
>
> And actually it is not really for noise reduction.
>

** Fraid it is really.

> When the source has low HF content it is not using enough bits
> and people complained it sounded grainy or whatever, some such adjective.
> This was before CDs actually, it is built into all CD players, unless
> there are some that are cheaper than even I can imagine.
>

** Very few CDs in the past or now use pre-emphasis and some players do not accommodate it.

When I got my Sony, I figured it lacked one feature - it did not reveal if de-emphasis was in use. One could hear tiny click from a relay inside so I added a red LED in parallel with the relay coil and fitted it in the display window.

Can't recall when I last saw it come on.



.... Phil

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"** Very few CDs in the past or now use pre-emphasis and some players do not accommodate it. "

Well that seems to jibe with the Madman Muntz philosophy of design now.

Keep taking parts out until it doesn't work and put the last one back in.

A relay huh ? Can't say Ive ever seen that, or if I did I assumed it was just for muting.

[Pat]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 21:04:03 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<palli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>** Very few CDs in the past or now use pre-emphasis and some players do not accommodate it.
>
>When I got my Sony, I figured it lacked one feature - it did not reveal if de-emphasis was in use. One could hear tiny click from a relay inside so I added a red LED in parallel with the relay coil and fitted it in the display window.
>
>Can't recall when I last saw it come on.
>
>
>
>.... Phil

Interesting subject. When I got my first CD player back in the day,
it had a de-emphasis indicator. I occassionally saw it on, but I
can't remember which CDs were being played at the time. That player
is now long gone and nothing I have owned since then has an indicator.
While I have a nice older stereo set up in the basement, most of my
listening these days is in the bedroom at night while falling asleep.
The bedroom player is a Sony Blu-ray player (BDP-S370). Is it likely
that it properly handles de-emphasis while playing old CDs?

Pat

[thekma...@gmail.com]

jurb wrote: "And actually it is not really for noise reduction. When the source has low HF content it is not using enough bits and people

complained it sounded grainy or whatever, some such adjective. This was before CDs actually, it is built into all CD players, unless there
are some that are cheaper than even I can imagine. "

_______
So CD really DID emphasize compactness
over fidelity in the design stage! So much
that the sampling rate and bit depth were
'just adequate', especially at higher frequency
content where more waves fit between the
samples and represented by same available
bits.

So by boosting above, say, 10 or 12khz
those highs would take more advantage
of available bits, and then the de-emph on
the player is supposed to check TOC for
a pre-Emph flag and apply de-Emph, like
turning down a treble control with a
standardized curve, like RIAA on vinyl
records.

Some of my older CDs are kind of trebley,
not at all grainy, but top heavy. When I
turn my treble knob a little left of center,
it smooths out the whole sound. These
are same CDs that Exact Audio Copy
does not detect pre-emphasis on. So the
engineer probably didn't know how to flag
it in the TOC, or forgot, or flagged it
improperly. ???

[None]

< thekma @ dumbfuck.shortbus.edu > drooled in message
news:50d9d08e-dceb-47bc...@googlegroups.com...

> So CD really DID emphasize compactness
> over fidelity in the design stage!

So you're an idiot.

> So much
> that the sampling rate and bit depth were
> 'just adequate', especially at higher frequency
> content where more waves fit between the
> samples and represented by same available
> bits.

You love to gibber about things you don’t understand, li'l buddy,

> So by boosting above, say, 10 or 12khz
> those highs would take more advantage
> of available bits, and then the de-emph on
> the player is supposed to check TOC for
> a pre-Emph flag and apply de-Emph, like
> turning down a treble control with a
> standardized curve, like RIAA on vinyl
> records.
>
> Some of my older CDs are kind of trebley,
> not at all grainy, but top heavy. When I
> turn my treble knob a little left of center,
> it smooths out the whole sound. These
> are same CDs that Exact Audio Copy
> does not detect pre-emphasis on. So the
> engineer probably didn't know how to flag
> it in the TOC, or forgot, or flagged it
> improperly. ???

Or maybe your just flatulating about something you'll never
comprehend. DJKSH. FCKWAFA, KHD!

[ohg...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 7:37:00 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
> < thekma @ dumbfuck.shortbus.edu > drooled in message
> news:50d9d08e-dceb-47bc...@googlegroups.com...
> > So CD really DID emphasize compactness
> > over fidelity in the design stage!
>
> So you're an idiot.
>

If you think audio fidelity was high on the Compact Disc design team's agenda you're quite delusional. The CD format offered a few obvious improvements over vinyl: zero wow and flutter, no surface noise or rumble and better dynamic range. Since most people at the time the CD hit the mass market had a crappy turntable, crappy cartridge/needle, and vinyl discs that weren't particularly well cared for, the improvements the CD offered really stood out.

[Phil Allison]

ohg...@gmail.com wrote:

----------------------

>
> > So you're an idiot.
> >
>
> If you think audio fidelity was high on the Compact Disc design team's
> agenda you're quite delusional. The CD format offered a few obvious
> improvements over vinyl: zero wow and flutter, no surface noise or rumble
> and better dynamic range. Since most people at the time the CD hit the
> mass market had a crappy turntable, crappy cartridge/needle, and vinyl
> discs that weren't particularly well cared for, the improvements the
> CD offered really stood out.
>
>

** Can't let that pile of idiotic bull shite go by.

FACT is :

Philips and Sony had FIDELITY at the top of their list - so the proposed new system would have no possible sound quality shortcomings.

PLUS the usual benefit of PCM in being *infinitely* copyable without the slightest loss - a massive benefit the to recording industry.

PLUS being immune from wear and tear deterioration in normal use for decades.

PLUS being convenient to use and low cost to produce as stampings.


BTW:

Obviously YOU are a complete, know nothing fuckwit.

One of millions of on the internet




..... Phil

[thekma...@gmail.com]

Phil Allison wrote: "Obviously YOU are a complete, know nothing fuckwit.

One of millions of on the internet

..... Phil "

Phil: Are you and 'None' related??
Sure seems that way!

Most of your points were valid, until
that last part I quoted.

[thekma...@gmail.com]

_______
I think the best thing to do is to divide
the sampling rate of CDDA by the
lowest and highest frequencies it was
intended to cover:


44,100 samples / 20Hz = 2,205 samples
per cycle.

44,100/1kHz = 44.1 samples per cycle.

44,100/20kHz = *ONLY* 2.205 samples
per wave cycle at that frequency. So
even I could see where things might
get a little dicey, sonically, up above
15kHz or so. That, combined with 16bit
depth and potential for lower amplitude
events in that part of the spectrum.

[Phil Allison]

thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

----------------------------

** Wow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jurassic park has no creatures as pre-historic as you.

Wot a six toed fucking idiot.

Wonder if he plays a five string banjo and fancies pig's arses.

And I do not mean for dinner.





.... Phil

[jurb...@gmail.com]

>"Philips and Sony had FIDELITY at the top of their list"

Yup. As long as it fit in the standard car stereo opening in the dashboard of cars at the time.

I will agree they did the best they could. But if it was REAL good PCM at 48 KHz the disk would be too big.

[N_Cook]

On 31/05/2017 22:50, amdx wrote:
> On 5/30/2017 1:54 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I bought one of the above immediately they appeared on sale in Sydney
>> - in fact I pre-ordered it. For the first week, I had no CDs to put in
>> it !!
>>
>> With a few minor repairs, it has been working perfectly for 34 years
>> and nowadays getting only occasional use.
>>
>> Yesterday, I popped a CD in the drawer and it spat it back - so I
>> tried a couple more with the same result.
>>
>> Fearing the worst, I opened the machine and found some cockroach
>> droppings in the drawer and near the laser assembly. Not much, just a
>> bit.
>>
>> While doubting this could stop a CDP101 completely, I nevertheless
>> decided to give it a thorough clean up. Took about 15 minutes with a
>> damp cloth, brush & WD40 and finally a dry cloth.
>>
>> Popped the same CDs back in and it plays them perfectly.
>>
>> I reckon there must have been a bit of dead cocky on the lens.
>>
>>
>>
>> .... Phil

>>
>
> I still have a Magnavox (NAP) FD 1040 that I bought in 1984, not quite
> as old as yours.
> I used it for years and then it quit working, I couldn't locate the
> problem. I worked for an NAP authorized service center at the time and
> even calling tech support didn't lead to a repair.
> So I sent it to the NAP factory service center for repair. They had it
> for well over a month and returned it saying they could not fix the
> problem.
> I mentioned the situation to one of our other techs, he said, "let
> me take a look at it" he put a wire through all the
> vias and resoldered them.
> He gave me back a working CD Player!
>

> Mikek

twice over the years I've seen insect silk blocking the optics of a CD
player , once was a complete cocoon, no insect found in either case,
just the evidence of thgem having taken up residence

[ohg...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 9:42:14 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
> ohg...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ----------------------
>
> >
> > > So you're an idiot.
> > >
> >
> > If you think audio fidelity was high on the Compact Disc design team's
> > agenda you're quite delusional. The CD format offered a few obvious
> > improvements over vinyl: zero wow and flutter, no surface noise or rumble
> > and better dynamic range. Since most people at the time the CD hit the
> > mass market had a crappy turntable, crappy cartridge/needle, and vinyl
> > discs that weren't particularly well cared for, the improvements the
> > CD offered really stood out.
> >
> >
>
> ** Can't let that pile of idiotic bull shite go by.
>
> FACT is :
>
> Philips and Sony had FIDELITY at the top of their list - so the proposed new system would have no possible sound quality shortcomings.

Bullshit. If they really wanted true fidelity they would have had a much better sampling rate. This was clearly a mass market solution with a lot of advantages, except one. Folks with tin ears find CDs without flaws.

> PLUS the usual benefit of PCM in being *infinitely* copyable without the slightest loss - a massive benefit the to recording industry.

CDs could have a sampling rate in the hundreds and they'd still be infinitely copyable. The fact is Phil that any digital format is infinitely copyable. Nothing unique about that.

> PLUS being immune from wear and tear deterioration in normal use for decades.

Any digital format would do that, and that has nothing to do with fidelity, which was my point.

> PLUS being convenient to use and low cost to produce as stampings.

Yada yada yada.. has nothing to do with fidelity.

> Obviously YOU are a complete, know nothing fuckwit.
>
> One of millions of on the internet

I guess you don't own a mirror Phil. To be honest I thought the Wiki entry of "know-nothing fuckwit" would have a picture of you as an example.

And since you're off your meds again and throwing shit around as if this were your own kitchen, let me just say that in regards to your first post (which, as a gentleman -most of the time- I ignored), let me say that most decent people wouldn't live in a house infested with roaches. Around these parts, you can't even get a mortgage on property so infested. Try emptying your sink of bean cans and Spam containers once a week or so and have your trailer fumigated.

Remind me not to have dinner at your house...

[None]

< brain-damaged-fuck-head @ retards.org > puked up
news:519fd8b9-e567-477f...@googlegroups.com...

> Phil: Are you and 'None' related??
> Sure seems that way!

You really are obsessed with your dumb fuck hallucination. Anyone who
calls you out for being the brain-damaged retard that you prove
yourself to be online, you have to pretend that that person is me.
You've done it dozens of times over the years, and every time, you end
up with shit all over you. And then you alternate if with telling
everyone that I'm a "bot" (obviously you have no idea what a bot is).

> Most of your points were valid, until
> that last part I quoted.

You alone are the equivalent of a million or so retarded passengers on
the short-bus. And you seem to be obsessed with your quest to prove
that every day. KDFHS . FCKWAFA. AKDFHUIN. SBR!

[Phil Allison]

ohg...@gmail.com wrote:

-------------------------

>
> > ** Can't let that pile of idiotic bull shite go by.
> >
> > FACT is :
> >
> > Philips and Sony had FIDELITY at the top of their list -
> > so the proposed new system would have no possible sound
> > quality shortcomings.
>
>
> Bullshit.
>

** It is absolute fact, pal.

FFS lean something about sampling theory.

Cos right now you are a total ignoramus.
---------------------------------------

> > PLUS the usual benefit of PCM in being *infinitely* copyable without
> > the slightest loss - a massive benefit the to recording industry.
>
> CDs could have a sampling rate in the hundreds and they'd still be
> infinitely copyable.

** SO what?

> The fact is Phil that any digital format is infinitely copyable.

** Some are not - Sony mini-disk for example.

> > PLUS being immune from wear and tear deterioration in normal use
> > for decades.
>
> Any digital format would do that,
>

** Tape based ones do not.

> > Obviously YOU are a complete, know nothing fuckwit.
> >
> > One of millions of on the internet
>
> I guess you don't own a mirror Phil.

** The debate about sampling rates and bit depth was all over about 30 years ago. Linear PCM of CD standard has no audible flaws.

Kindly go and fuck yourslef.

You're first class, raving lunatic.




.... Phil

[ohg...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 1:08:30 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

>
> ** The debate about sampling rates and bit depth was all over about 30 years ago. Linear PCM of CD standard has no audible flaws.

That's your opinion Phil. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a "know-nothing fuckwit". CD player manufacturers have done a good job implementing necessary filtering schemes to mask the inherent problem of rounding off too few bits to mimic a good analogue waveform.

At this point in my life, I've gotten used to listening to MP3 files - so along with the diminished response of my hearing over the years, I still use and enjoy my CD player. If Philips/Sony had not sacrificed playing time for fidelity back then, it wouldn't matter to me now. But musical fidelity of the CD standard was not paramount to them; compactness and playing time were numbers one and two.

> Kindly go and fuck yourslef.

Not possible, but thank you for asking kindly.

> You're first class, raving lunatic.
>

Raving? Note to myself to turn off my webcam....

[Phil Allison]

ohg...@gmail.com wrote:

--------------------------

>
> > ** The debate about sampling rates and bit depth was all over about
> > 30 years ago. Linear PCM of CD standard has no audible flaws.
>
> That's your opinion Phil.
>

** And everyone else too.

You are a lone, mad dog.

> Not everyone who disagrees with you is a "know-nothing fuckwit".

** But an ignoramus like you absolutely qualifies for that the title.

>
> > Kindly go and fuck yourslef.
>
>
> Not possible,
>

** Yes it is.

Put a gun to your head and pull the trigger.

That will fuck you.




.... Phil

[Chris Jones]

On 02/06/2017 04:33, ohg...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 9:42:14 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
>> ohg...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>>>
>>>> So you're an idiot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you think audio fidelity was high on the Compact Disc design team's
>>> agenda you're quite delusional. The CD format offered a few obvious
>>> improvements over vinyl: zero wow and flutter, no surface noise or rumble
>>> and better dynamic range. Since most people at the time the CD hit the
>>> mass market had a crappy turntable, crappy cartridge/needle, and vinyl
>>> discs that weren't particularly well cared for, the improvements the
>>> CD offered really stood out.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ** Can't let that pile of idiotic bull shite go by.
>>
>> FACT is :
>>
>> Philips and Sony had FIDELITY at the top of their list - so the proposed new system would have no possible sound quality shortcomings.
>
>
> Bullshit. If they really wanted true fidelity they would have had a much better sampling rate. This was clearly a mass market solution with a lot of advantages, except one. Folks with tin ears find CDs without flaws.

This page has a pretty good discussion of it:

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[ohg...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 8:05:49 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

> Put a gun to your head and pull the trigger.
>
> That will fuck you.
>

Ah, thanks for that clarification Mr. Charm.

BTW, there is one *sure* way of improving the quality of CD sound: give it a light spray of WD40....

[Daniel Mandic]

ohg...@gmail.com wrote:

> BTW, there is one sure way of improving the quality of CD sound: give

> it a light spray of WD40....

The CDP-101 fullfills Phil Allison's reception of music-reproduction...
What's so hard to understand with this?

I would have to hear that CDP-101, to say something critical about
it.... don't you.
Have you heard it? Maybe it sounds better than many multibit etc.
variations by many brands which came out later?!
Though, I don't think it can cope with later (selected.... though)
players from Sony.


--
Daniel Mandic

[ohg...@gmail.com]

Don't overthink this Daniel. Phil has a long history of polluting newsgroups all over the web with his pigheaded single minded thought process (like his love of WD40). He's a hateful, vile, cowardly, foul mouthed internet bully. If you don't agree with him, he will wish a painful cancer death on you. When I first ran across his posts, they were so outrageous I thought he was being comically ironic (and perhaps he is and getting a big laugh out of this). If someone should ask a dumb question, he will berate their intelligence and suggest they kill themselves to relieve their burden of ignorance.

Phil thinks CDs have no flaws, and I happen to disagree with him. Any other person who disagrees would simply say so and state their case. But Phil is a true nut job, and since he won't meet anyone face to face and repeat those same words that he does on the web (coward), it's sort of fun to just rile him up and disagree with him now and again.

Getting back to the subject, when I was younger, I knew CDs offered several big advantages (that I pointed out in my first post), but instead of taking a leap forward beyond a mechanical system of grooved vinyl and various mechanical needle/cartridge schemes, they took a small step backwards in fidelity. That a digital format cannot quite equal an archaic electro-mechanical analogue system is telling. Phil can't or refuses to hear this, and that's fine. The fact is is that my hearing has diminished to the point where I'm happy even with MP3s nowadays.

I'm sure his CDP-101 sounds just as good as my Pioneer CD player and maybe even better, but my point was about the CD format in general, not the CDP-101 in particular.

[Phil Allison]

ohg...@gmail.com is a vile TROLL:

------------------------------



> > Daniel Mandic


** BEWARE: Daniel is a drive by, trolling fuckwit.

> Don't overthink this Daniel.

**Daniel is incapable of actual thought.

> Phil has a long history of polluting newsgroups all over the web

** You are just begging for it - pal.

> He's a hateful, vile, cowardly, foul mouthed internet bully.

** When it comes to lying, fuckwit TROLLS like you - that is correct.

No tactic to shut them up or eliminate them is too harsh.

> If you don't agree with him, he will wish a painful cancer death on you.

** Wrong.

It when you post deliberate LIES in contradiction to well known or already posted truth.

This NG is not to be reduced to a chat room for mental retards like YOU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Phil thinks CDs have no flaws, and I happen to disagree with him.

** Which alone brands you a grade A lunatic and posturing trouble maker.

> Any other person who disagrees would simply say so and state their case.

** WRONG: this NG is not a "chat room" for retards.

Those who post their ignorant opinions as FACT have to JUSTIFY them.

None ever can.

> Getting back to the subject,

** You have no idea what the subject is.

Get off this NG - you ridiculous, geriatric narcissist.




..... Phil

[thekma...@gmail.com]

ohg...@gmail.com:


Redbook CD just adequately covers the human
range of hearing. The point is that its 'safety
margin' beyond the audible spectrum is rather
thin, especially above 15kHz. Another contributor
to the 'graininess' some people heard, on early
CDs, is early ADCs and DACs. Quantization
noise was much higher than, from both finished
CD and from the players themselves.


Yet another factor was in production: Before
the late '80s, most of recording, mixing, and
mastering was done at 16/44.1. As explained
in Xyph and other papers, that source of
grain or noise was mitigated by moving to 24/
92 or higher in production, then dithering
down to deliverable - 16/44.1.


With better conversion since the 1990s, and
higher production resolution, a huge source
of graininess has been eliminated, and CD
now lives up to its full potential, if only certain
loudness production practices would cease(!)

[None]

< thekma @ shortbus.dumbuck.edu > puked in message
news:671c9d83-d855-4ab5...@googlegroups.com...
>
> ... its 'safety margin' beyond the audible spectrum is rather thin,
> especially above 15kHz.

It's always good for a laugh when Theckma the brain-damaged village
retard pretends that he know what he's talking about.

[Phil Allison]

thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

-----------------------

>
>
> Redbook CD just adequately covers the human
> range of hearing.

** It way more than adequately covers it.


You know nothing, bullshitting fuckwit.


This NG is not a "chat room "

> The point is that its 'safety
> margin' beyond the audible spectrum is rather
> thin, especially above 15kHz.
>

** Hardly likely to be below - fuckwit.

> Another contributor to the 'graininess' some people heard,

** Was the poor source material in NON digital CDs.

> Yet another factor was in production: Before
> the late '80s, most of recording, mixing, and
> mastering was done at 16/44.1.
>

** Nope - most of it was at higher sampling and bit rates.

BUT sweet fuck all was pure digital, it was mostly fucking tape based SHIT.

FYI:


Checked you far arse lately ???

Got any idea where that foul SMOKE is coming from ??





...... Phil

[thekma...@gmail.com]

" BUT sweet fuck all was pure digital, it was mostly fucking tape based SHIT. "

Phil: I've heard analog tape-based CDs
that blow the doors off many "DDD" spars
code discs because those earlier anolog
sources were mastered without all being
squashed down to a crest factor of less
than 1dB. MASTERING matters a *lot*
more than recording or playback format,
analog or digital.

[Phil Allison]

thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

----------------------------

> Phil: I've heard analog tape-based CDs
> that blow the doors off many "DDD" spars
> code discs because those earlier anolog
> sources were mastered without all being
> squashed down to a crest factor of less
> than 1dB. MASTERING matters a *lot*
> more than recording or playback format,
> analog or digital.

** Question:

Have you heard even one CD that sounded really good ?

If the answer is no, then keep looking.

If the answer is yes, then there is nothing wrong with the 44.1/16 bit format.

Think it through.


.... Phil

[ohg...@gmail.com]

Yes, but with a qualification. The CDs that I have that sound good to me tend to be live productions and they are universally rock oriented. That is, they use instruments that are already heavily processed and are inherently dynamic in nature.

While I enjoy string quartets (I Salonisti is one of my favorites), symphonies on CD tend to be less successful in my opinion. Even good vinyl doesn't provide the illusion of a true live performance when it comes to symphonies, and this is an area where I'd hoped CDs would blow by vinyl. I would have thought that if it was recording technique, that would have been addressed decades ago.

[Phil Allison]

ohg...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Yes, but with a qualification.
>

** My question was not addressed to you.

So why don't you go drop dead.



.... Phil

[thekma...@gmail.com]

ohg...@gmail.com wrote: " is, they use instruments that are already heavily processed and are inherently dynamic
in nature. "


"Heavily processed" and "inherently dynamic"

Contradiction in terms?

[ohg...@gmail.com]

Not at all. I'd expound further but I don't want to upset Phil. He's battling roaches in his trailer and they've opened up another front. He hasn't been his normal charming self for a while.

[thekma...@gmail.com]

ohg...@gmail.com wrote: "Not at all. I'd expound further but I don't want to upset Phil. "

We need to ignore the bulldogs
on the thread and continue to
promote intelligent discourse.
Seriously!


My GUT tells me that a source
(an entire song, individual tracks,
stems, etc) retains *more* of its
inherent dynamics when *less*
processing(compression, limiting,
etc) is applied to it. Please
correct me anywhere you think
my instincts are misleading me.

[None]

< thekma @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a13e9969-8dc6-473a...@googlegroups.com...

> ohg...@gmail.com wrote: "Not at all. I'd expound further but I
> don't want to upset Phil. "
>
> We need to ignore the bulldogs
> on the thread and continue to
> promote intelligent discourse.

Sorry, I'il buddy, you're too retarded for intelligent discourse.

[ohg...@gmail.com]

I think we're talking about two different things. The processing I'm referring to isn't part of the recording process, but in the performance itself. In general, rock music is performed on instruments that already are heavily processed, guitars in particular. Guitars are filtered through all kinds of distortion, phasing, chorusing, etc. effects. Keyboards (other than the occasional acoustic piano) are also electrically processed and a lot of drums are synthesized anyway. These instruments are uniquely suited to digital recording. The dynamics I'm referring to is the range between the softest and loudest passages. Other than the occasional ballad, rock is very dynamic (even power ballads).

Symphonies OTOH feature many dozens of acoustic instruments, each making an unprocessed sound. And while many symphony pieces can be quite dynamic and demanding of a sound system, there is a lot of it that is soft.

[thekma...@gmail.com]

ohg...@gmail.com wrote: "Symphonies OTOH feature many dozens of acoustic instruments, each making an unprocessed sound.

And while many symphony pieces can be quite dynamic and demanding of a sound system, there is a lot of it that is soft. "

I see what you mean. Still, your
typical rock, rap, or pop song
will have have a much higher
average level overall, compared
to jazz or classical.


As for orchestral dynamics, those
depend largely on three things:
the composition itself, the conductor,
and his musicians. And the
difference between loud and soft
can be much greater in a symphony
than on a top-40 or rock tune.


And I can usually tell if the sound
of a classical CD has been dynamically
compressed in post: Foobar 2000 Dynamic
range analysis returns a DR value of 12 -
comparable to a typical 1980s pop song.
With most of the natural dynamics left in,
that classical CD should register
between DR18-30! Something digital
audio was designed for.

[Daniel Mandic]

ohg...@gmail.com wrote:

> Don't overthink this Daniel. Phil has a long history of polluting
> newsgroups all over the web with his pigheaded single minded thought
> process (like his love of WD40). He's a hateful, vile, cowardly,
> foul mouthed internet bully. If you don't agree with him, he will
> wish a painful cancer death on you. When I first ran across his
> posts, they were so outrageous I thought he was being comically
> ironic (and perhaps he is and getting a big laugh out of this). If
> someone should ask a dumb question, he will berate their intelligence
> and suggest they kill themselves to relieve their burden of ignorance.

Off course, I have seen it, I saw it and I see it... :)

> Phil thinks CDs have no flaws, and I happen to disagree with him.

Theoretically, exactly within the scope (5-20000Hz).

> Any other person who disagrees would simply say so and state their
> case. But Phil is a true nut job, and since he won't meet anyone
> face to face and repeat those same words that he does on the web
> (coward), it's sort of fun to just rile him up and disagree with him
> now and again.

don't take electronics too religious.... me thinks is the best.

> Getting back to the subject, when I was younger, I knew CDs offered
> several big advantages (that I pointed out in my first post), but
> instead of taking a leap forward beyond a mechanical system of
> grooved vinyl and various mechanical needle/cartridge schemes, they
> took a small step backwards in fidelity.

Indeed. Taking the costs (Turntable, Tonearm, Pickup and pre-pre -MC
off course- ;-)) for ultimate Vinyl Quality into account... it is by
faaar better in fidelity than any CD-Audio Player. Better than the best
CD-Player by Naim or Linn and Sony and Philips.
CD-Player, even the best, are sounding hollow and narrowed compared
to a fine turntable.

> That a digital format
> cannot quite equal an archaic electro-mechanical analogue system is
> telling. Phil can't or refuses to hear this, and that's fine. The
> fact is is that my hearing has diminished to the point where I'm
> happy even with MP3s nowadays.

I became moderate, too. My perception range (~18kHz) is biologically
still the same... with more and more knowledge to harmonics and
seperating multiple tracks/instruments in the brain than 20 years
before.

> I'm sure his CDP-101 sounds just as good as my Pioneer CD player and
> maybe even better, but my point was about the CD format in general,
> not the CDP-101 in particular.

The CDP-101 lacks sound (newer technologies...). Many people might
think, that's that (no further playback-technologies) what is
memorized on CD...?
cd-drive, D/A stage, filtering!, op-amps!! etc. `?

On the other hand, why do we need MC-pickups beyond 40kHz? ;-) (there
is max. 16-22kHz writeable/available on a record.... beyond 16kHz with
more distortion than linearity ;-))
Superior harmonics....!
You can revive them, even when recorded with recording-equipment which
can not do more than 20kHz. But to take the effect, you need the other
part(s) of the harmonic(s) -beyond 20kHz- which were effectively
present in the air while recording. So it's obvious you need someting
(at home) which can fill the air vitually the same.

P.S.: I have been very satisfied with the (my) Sony CDP X779ES (w/o
filter mod). One of the best machines for CD-Audio....


--
Daniel Mandic

[Daniel Mandic]

Phil Allison wrote:

> **Daniel is incapable of actual thought.

Your point of view is dizzy and radical-techno-religous.

> ** You have no idea what the subject is.
>
> Get off this NG - you ridiculous, geriatric narcissist.

I think electronics does not suit you....
It's not a fundamental religion, genetic-ill Phil ;-) (you are a living
example of that 'known' genetic disposition)


--
Daniel Mandic

[Phil Allison]

Daniel Mandic wrote:

---------------------------

> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> > **Daniel is incapable of actual thought.
>
> Your point of view is dizzy and radical-techno-religous.
>

** Dear readers,

Daniel has a serious mental disability.

Likely a combination of autism, narcissism and a low IQ.

Feel sorry for him if you like, but folk like him become trouble making assholes if allowed.

Don't.


..... Phil

[Daniel Mandic]

I wouldn't spend too much time to Phil's mental disorder. He's nothing
more here in ser than any other subscriber.... his head (brainstem and
small brain) performs the illusion that he might stand above and beyond
all other ;-)

--
Daniel Mandic

[Phil Allison]

Daniel Mandic wrote:

-------------------------

[Daniel Mandic]

Phil Allison wrote:

> ** Dear readers,

:-)

> Daniel has a serious mental disability.

You are reflecting all the time. Casting all your disorders to other
ppl (typical for narziss-ill ppl).

> Likely a combination of autism, narcissism and a low IQ.

Autism? You know something about? Tell us, Ing. Dr. Phys. Phil Allison!
Narziss... yeah, that's exactly yours.
You think your IQ is too low? When I read the technical details to your
posts (sample theory etc.), it might be true. You sound like an evil
preacher more than an electronics engineer :)

Now get back into your small frame of seeing and describing things.

> Feel sorry for him if you like, but folk like him become trouble
> making assholes if allowed.

yes...yes. (folk... we... trouble.... allowing)
a typical narcist you are.


--
Daniel Mandic

[Phil Allison]

Daniel Mandic wrote:

-------------------


** Dear readers,

Update:

Daniel is a raving nut case.

Autistic and highly schizoid.

Don't let the nutter cause trouble here.

Best use your kill filter.


..... Phil

[Daniel Mandic]

Phil Allison wrote:

> Daniel is a raving nut case.

maybe 1 or 2 of 8.... you have at least 6 of 8.

> Autistic and highly schizoid.

Haven't experienced any authistic skills, yet.
Shizoid? Who isn't it at all??

> Don't let the nutter cause trouble here.

Causing trouble?
Your mutated small- and stembrain is spinning that paranoid stories to
you....

> Best use your kill filter.

Be quiet manikin.


--
Daniel Mandic

[thekma...@gmail.com]

Daniel, Phil!

Will you two get a room and take it
off this newsgroup please?!?

Ave Maria....!

[Phil Allison]

thekma...@gmail.com wrote:


----------------------------------

** Very uncool to blaspheme like that.

If anyone attacks me on a NG -

THAT is business for the NG.

And TROLLS like you can go fuck yourself.





..... Phil

[Daniel Mandic]

Phil Allison wrote:

> If anyone attacks me on a NG -

You started it (as always...).

> THAT is business for the NG.

You are not good in that business, wishing someone a gun on the head
with shooting....

> And TROLLS like you can go fuck yourself.

You are one of the biggest troll in electronics I know. 95% of your
posts are full with hatred.... the other 5% are containing self-defined
terms which nobody (should...) dare to comment ;-)


P.S.: ....stored sunlight (in your nutcase? then let it out the light
for a couple of time !! ;-))


--
Daniel Mandic

[Phil Allison]

Daniel Mandic Raving Psycho wrote:

-----------------------------------

>
> > If anyone attacks me on a NG -
>
> You started it (as always...).
>

** Never, not even once.

> > THAT is business for the NG.
>
> You are not good in that business, wishing someone a gun on the head
> with shooting....
>

** That troll asked me to explain how to "fuck" himself.

So I obliged him.

> > And TROLLS like you can go fuck yourself.
>
> You are one of the biggest troll in electronics I know.
>

** I am the direct opposite of a troll.

Cos I go right after the vile, NG destroying pricks.

> 95% of your
> posts are full with hatred...

** The actual ratio is more like 5%.

I post on 7 or 8 NGs.


>
> P.S.: ....stored sunlight


** Yes, a beautiful scientific fact.

Like you are a schizoid, autistic public menace is a fact.

FOAD.


.... Phil

[ohg...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:37:41 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

>
>
> > 95% of your
> > posts are full with hatred...
>
>
> ** The actual ratio is more like 5%.
>
> I post on 7 or 8 NGs.


>

> .... Phil




You do, but interestingly enough (but not surprisingly), every one of those newsgroups have the same problem with you as this one does. Here, enjoy:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.audio.tubes/2006-01/msg00867.html

http://www.electrondepot.com/australian/message-to-phil-allison-17603-.htm

http://www.edaboard.co.uk/message-to-phil-allison-t355897.html


All one needs to do is Google "Phil Allison" and "troll" and boy do the returns just pile up. Every news group you pollute has the same problem with you.

Arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon: you just strut around shitting on the board and claiming you won, and this group is no exception. The fact Phil is that every board would be better off without you. God knows how how many people you've driven off these boards collectively.

None of this likely to have any impression on you but if there's any part of your brain that's floating beneath the surface of truth, know that if *every* NG you post in has issues with you, it just *might* be you.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 8 June 2017 12:22:29 UTC+1, ohg...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 3:37:41 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

> > > 95% of your
> > > posts are full with hatred...
> >
> > ** The actual ratio is more like 5%.
> >
> > I post on 7 or 8 NGs.
>

> You do, but interestingly enough (but not surprisingly), every one of those newsgroups have the same problem with you as this one does. Here, enjoy:
>
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html
>
> http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.audio.tubes/2006-01/msg00867.html
>
> http://www.electrondepot.com/australian/message-to-phil-allison-17603-.htm
>
> http://www.edaboard.co.uk/message-to-phil-allison-t355897.html
>
>
> All one needs to do is Google "Phil Allison" and "troll" and boy do the returns just pile up. Every news group you pollute has the same problem with you.
>
> Arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon: you just strut around shitting on the board and claiming you won, and this group is no exception. The fact Phil is that every board would be better off without you. God knows how how many people you've driven off these boards collectively.
>
> None of this likely to have any impression on you but if there's any part of your brain that's floating beneath the surface of truth, know that if *every* NG you post in has issues with you, it just *might* be you.

Phil is always right. No exceptions. The rumour that he often gets things electronic right but sometimes wrong, like most of us, is a myth.
In Phil's words, the rest of us just have
> a serious mental disability.

> Likely a combination of autism, narcissism and a low IQ.

> Obviously YOU are a complete, know nothing fuckwit.
> One of millions of on the internet
> Jurassic park has no creatures as pre-historic as you.
> Wot a six toed fucking idiot.
> Wonder if he plays a five string banjo and fancies pig's arses.
> And I do not mean for dinner.
> Cos right now you are a total ignoramus.
> You're first class, raving lunatic.
> Put a gun to your head and pull the trigger.

> Get off this NG - you ridiculous, geriatric narcissist.

> Checked you far arse lately ???
> Got any idea where that foul SMOKE is coming from ??

> Autistic and highly schizoid.

> Don't let the nutter cause trouble here.

> Best use your kill filter.

> Cos I go right after the vile, NG destroying pricks.

> Like you are a schizoid, autistic public menace is a fact.
> FOAD.

So now you know.

[Phil Allison]

ohg...@gmail.com wrote:

------------------------

> > ** The actual ratio is more like 5%.
> >
> > I post on 7 or 8 NGs.
>
>
>

> You do, but interestingly enough (but not surprisingly), every one of those newsgroups have the same problem with you as this one does.

** This NG has no problem with me.

It does have has a massive one with anonymous, lying criminal pigs like you.



>
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html
>

** I shut "us.hi-fi" down 6 or 7 years ago.

By doing nothing more than stopping posting.

Go figure why.



> http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.audio.tubes/2006-01/msg00867.html


** Pat Turner ( a former brick layer) was a poster on aus.hi-fi.

He used the NG purely to promote his home audio business.

And preach the most insane crap and defame other folks products.

But a pig like you wouldn't give a shit about small facts like that.




> http://www.electrondepot.com/australian/message-to-phil-allison-17603-.htm
>

** I go after trolls, without fear.

The vile shits then squeal like stuck pigs.

Hardly surprising.

>
> All one needs to do is Google "Phil Allison" and "troll"
<

** You know what - in 15+ years of NG posting, I have almost NEVER been called a troll by any poster.

Cos they all know I am their worst enemy.

Nobody here knows who your are.

But everyone here knows what are.



..... Phil

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 8 June 2017 12:56:37 UTC+1, Phil Allison wrote:

> ** You know what - in 15+ years of NG posting, I have almost NEVER been called a troll by any poster.

lol

[Foxs Mercantile]

On 6/8/2017 6:56 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
> in 15+ years of NG posting, I have almost NEVER been called
> a troll by any poster.

Actually, Phil's correct about that.
He's been called a lot of things, but troll isn't usually one
of them.



--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:46:41 -0700 (PDT), tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

>Phil is always right. No exceptions.

Well, in my experience on Usenet for more years than I care to admit,
Phil is far more often correct than mistaken. I vaguely recall one
minor item where I caught a mistake, but most other times, he either
had the correct answer, or the correct approach to producing an
answer. I could only dream that my batting average is as good as his.

I'm on Usenet to learn. If learning requires tolerating some abuse,
I'm fully prepared to accept (and deliver) some. It's much like
learning any skill that requires dedication and practice (martial
arts, musical instruments, auto repair, etc). The good mentors and
instructors are generally quite abusive to the typical student telling
them they are worthless fumbling fools, incapable of mastering even
the basics, and so on. To many, that's sufficient for them to run
screaming in horror, or complaining bitterly to others in hope of
gathering support. To the few that actually want to learn, such abuse
is an incentive to try harder, learn better, practice more, and
demonstrate to the mentor or instructor that they are worthy.

Pick your own path to enlightenment and try not to bite the hand that
feeds you knowledge.

Drivel: I once bought a Sony CDP101 at a local thrift shop. It
didn't work, so I recycled it, not realizing what it was.

Drivel 2.0: The original CD "Red Book"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Books#Red_Book_.281980.29>
was probably written nearby while I was designing marine radios at
Intech Inc during the late 1970's. The data converter division was
hosting a group of rather secretive Sony engineers, who were probably
working on the A/D and D/A converters for the original CDROM. The red
books were actually custom printed red ring binders that the company
used for catalogs. They were everywhere and no doubt were used by the
Sony engineers for their documentation.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/red-book.jpg>


--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 8 June 2017 17:54:58 UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 04:46:41 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:
>
> >Phil is always right. No exceptions.
>
> Well, in my experience on Usenet for more years than I care to admit,
> Phil is far more often correct than mistaken. I vaguely recall one
> minor item where I caught a mistake, but most other times, he either
> had the correct answer, or the correct approach to producing an
> answer. I could only dream that my batting average is as good as his.
>
> I'm on Usenet to learn. If learning requires tolerating some abuse,
> I'm fully prepared to accept (and deliver) some. It's much like
> learning any skill that requires dedication and practice (martial
> arts, musical instruments, auto repair, etc). The good mentors and
> instructors are generally quite abusive to the typical student telling
> them they are worthless fumbling fools, incapable of mastering even
> the basics, and so on. To many, that's sufficient for them to run
> screaming in horror, or complaining bitterly to others in hope of
> gathering support. To the few that actually want to learn, such abuse
> is an incentive to try harder, learn better, practice more, and
> demonstrate to the mentor or instructor that they are worthy.
>
> Pick your own path to enlightenment and try not to bite the hand that
> feeds you knowledge.

Yes he gets things right. He also gets them wrong and makes a real spectacle of himself. The madness comes out. Regularly. I try to learn from everyone, but I wouldn't want to work with him.


NT