Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
wrote:
---------------------------- 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? ** I do not have to explain audiophool bull**** 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 |
#42
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
On 1/06/2017 11:21 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
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. 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 |
#43
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
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 |
#44
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
"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. |
#45
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
"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.. |
#46
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
"Answer:
your head being offset by 1.7mm from exact centre of a pair of speakers. " Might hear it on headphones. Might. |
#47
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
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 |
#48
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
"** 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. |
#49
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
On Wed, 31 May 2017 21:04:03 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
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 |
#50
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
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. ??? |
#51
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
thekma @ dumb****.shortbus.edu drooled in message
... 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 dont 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! |
#52
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 7:37:00 AM UTC-4, None wrote:
thekma @ dumb****.shortbus.edu drooled in message ... 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. |
#53
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
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 ****e 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 ****wit. One of millions of on the internet ...... Phil |
#54
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
Phil Allison wrote: "Obviously YOU are a complete, know nothing ****wit.
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. |
#55
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
_______ 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. |
#56
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
wrote:
---------------------------- 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. ** Wow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jurassic park has no creatures as pre-historic as you. Wot a six toed ****ing idiot. Wonder if he plays a five string banjo and fancies pig's arses. And I do not mean for dinner. ..... Phil |
#57
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
"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. |
#58
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
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 |
#59
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 9:42:14 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
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 ****e 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. Bull****. 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 ****wit. 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 ****wit" would have a picture of you as an example. And since you're off your meds again and throwing **** 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... |
#60
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
brain-damaged-****-head @ retards.org puked up
... Phil: Are you and 'None' related?? Sure seems that way! You really are obsessed with your dumb **** 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 **** 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! |
#61
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
wrote:
------------------------- ** Can't let that pile of idiotic bull ****e 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. Bull****. ** 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 ****wit. 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 **** yourslef. You're first class, raving lunatic. ..... Phil |
#62
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
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 ****wit". 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 **** yourslef. Not possible, but thank you for asking kindly. You're first class, raving lunatic. Raving? Note to myself to turn off my webcam.... |
#63
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
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 ****wit". ** But an ignoramus like you absolutely qualifies for that the title. Kindly go and **** yourslef. Not possible, ** Yes it is. Put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. That will **** you. ..... Phil |
#65
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
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 **** 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.... |
#66
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
|
#67
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 6:15:56 PM UTC-4, Daniel Mandic wrote:
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 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. |
#68
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
is a vile TROLL:
------------------------------ Daniel Mandic ** BEWA Daniel is a drive by, trolling ****wit. 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, ****wit 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 |
#69
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
: 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(!) |
#70
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
thekma @ shortbus.dumbuck.edu puked in message
... ... 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. |
#71
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
wrote:
----------------------- Redbook CD just adequately covers the human range of hearing. ** It way more than adequately covers it. You know nothing, bull****ting ****wit. 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 - ****wit. 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 **** all was pure digital, it was mostly ****ing tape based ****. FYI: Checked you far arse lately ??? Got any idea where that foul SMOKE is coming from ?? ....... Phil |
#72
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
" BUT sweet **** all was pure digital, it was mostly ****ing tape based ****. "
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. |
#73
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
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 |
#74
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 6:13:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
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 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. |
#75
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
wrote:
Yes, but with a qualification. ** My question was not addressed to you. So why don't you go drop dead. ..... Phil |
#76
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
wrote: " is, they use instruments that are already heavily processed and are inherently dynamic
in nature. " "Heavily processed" and "inherently dynamic" Contradiction in terms? |
#77
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 8:25:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
wrote: " is, they use instruments that are already heavily processed and are inherently dynamic in nature. " "Heavily processed" and "inherently dynamic" Contradiction in terms? 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. |
#78
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
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. |
#79
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
thekma @gmail.com wrote in message
... 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. |
#80
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Sony CDP101 repair
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:38:44 AM UTC-4, wrote:
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. 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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Sony gurus?......Sony 65xbr10w circa 2000/1 & 720p'support'........... | Electronics Repair | |||
sony ericsson GOLD EDITION..An exclusive for sony lovers | Electronics Repair | |||
AG 7350 and Sony Editor ? Qustion for Sony god's or Panasonic god's. | Electronics Repair | |||
SONY DVD player No power. Seems common across many Sony DVD's | Electronics Repair | |||
Sony G410R Monitor problem (and bad Sony support) | Electronics Repair |