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