Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site drune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!drune!mohler
From: mohler@drune.UUCP (MohlerDS)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Take the CD challenge!
Message-ID: <13@drune.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 16:53:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: drune.13
Posted: Tue Aug 13 16:53:25 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 21:06:33 EDT
References: <3339@decwrl.UUCP> <436@petrus.UUCP> <1295@houxm.UUCP> <1029@ulysses.UUCP> <2362@amdcad.UUCP> <1287@Re: Take the CD challenge!
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 17

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. As far as a perfect
disc on two properly functioning machines in comparison, I 
submit that the mobile
fidelity sound labs comparison (where some differences were heard) was the
best conducted and best documented comparison I have heard of.

			David S. Mohler
			AT&T - ISL @ Denver
			drune!mohler or druxu!mohler