Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ulysses.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!gatech!ulysses!smb From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Take the CD challenge! Message-ID: <1045@ulysses.UUCP> Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 17:28:31 EDT Article-I.D.: ulysses.1045 Posted: Tue Aug 13 17:28:31 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 07:41:49 EDT References: <3339@decwrl.UUCP> <436@petrus.UUCP> <1295@houxm.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 19 > One must remember there are some very significant differences between > CD players other than features, and the debate on sound (which I'm > staying the XXIV away from). If you beat-up or torture a disc (In the > name of science, of course!) you will find some very large differences > in the ability to correct for non-ideal (read real world) disc problems. > Also, actual laser tracking can be an issue as well as error-correcting > capability. These are items where there is very little room for debate! > If a disc plays flawlessly on one unit, and refuses to play at all on another > I submit that these differences are indeed audible. CLearly, this is a valid point, though that's not what's normally meant by "audible differences". It's also worth pointing out that there's no intrinisic reason to believe that CD players should sound identical -- there are, after all, a fair number of electronic widgets in the analog circuitry, including the DACs and the filters. There's plenty of room for substandard design, mismatches between the two channels, etc. (That, of course, raises an interesting point about why one might *want* a single- DAC machine....) I confess, my own guess is that such differences are for the most part not audible, but it can't be ruled out a priori.