kats wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 16:44 |
I do wonder how the Elcaset compared sonically to vinyl? |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 09:29 | ||
Ampex 456 was introduced the year before, so I would say quite well (aside from sticky shed) The main quality bottleneck would be the necessity of high-speed duplication. Just imagine, a consumer format that doesn't wear out or become unplayable (aside from the occasional eaten tape), replaces the DAT and the Portastudio, and helps keep analog tape manufacturers solvent. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Tue, 25 January 2011 11:29 | ||
Ampex 456 was introduced the year before, so I would say quite well (aside from sticky shed) The main quality bottleneck would be the necessity of high-speed duplication. Just imagine, a consumer format that doesn't wear out or become unplayable (aside from the occasional eaten tape), replaces the DAT and the Portastudio, and helps keep analog tape manufacturers solvent. |
Dominick wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 08:51 |
Fidelity is again a compromise but as you said that's never been the main marketing benefit. |
Dominick wrote on Wed, 26 January 2011 18:51 |
Sorry analogophiles, a properly done 44.1 kHz 16 bit CD is a beautiful thing that surpasses the best LP's in all specifications |
ssltech wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 12:57 |
...and here they demonstrated how much more 'skip resistant' DCC was than in-car Compact Disc. |
Dominick wrote on Thu, 27 January 2011 13:36 |
I'm sure the DeParavicini is a stellar piece of gear. A fair comparison to vinyl playback on it would perhaps be some exotic $10,000 CD transport playing through a Pacific Microsonics HDCD D to A converter. Anybody won the lottery here? |
Nova Physics Group state on their website: |
http://www.novaphysicsgroup.com/TheMemoryPlayer.html The Memory Player Digital Drive enjoys the complete rereading and memory purification capabilities as the full CD Playback System does, which actively erases and replaces any detected dropped bits and jittered areas. |
zmix wrote on Fri, 28 January 2011 08:29 |
.... "Memory Purification"? (Nam Myoho Rhenge Kyo... etc) ... |
mgod wrote on Fri, 28 January 2011 12:09 |
..... stop trying to discuss what he hasn't heard. BTW, I met the builder of the Immedia stuff on that same 89 Hassell tour on which I met you. He came to the NYC shows that Brian mixed. |
Tim DeParavicini wrote on Wed, 02 February 2011 09:25 |
As for long life storage of music, If I cut a laquer and have it plated and without removing the nickel but putting the plated disc into a plastic bag and burying it for a thousand years it will still be in good condition. |
mgod wrote on Wed, 02 February 2011 13:28 | ||
Allegedly the Church of Scientology not only agrees with you but is counting on it.(Something about making sure the future race of Cockroach Overlords is clear.) |
Dr. Barry Blesser writes in his paper "CDs Prove Secondary Features Matter" about the CD: |
As one of the fathers of digital audio in the 1970’s, my opinion was often sought on how this fledgling technology would evolve. Around 1980, I predicted that the CD would never be a commercial success. And my family reminds me of this prediction whenever they think that I need a dose of humility. However, the story is actually subtler and more complex than this simple quotation. To place my flawed prediction into its historic context, let us rewind the clock to the early 1960’s when the dominant means for distributing recorded music was the long-playing 33-rpm vinyl record. At that time, these records were produced in warehouse-like pressing plants, with technology designed in the 1930’s. A compressed air line at the periphery fed some 50 asynchronous stamping machines. Periodically during the day, all the machines would trigger at the same time, and the compressed air supply was grossly inadequate, being designed only for an average pressing load. Some 50 bad disks resulted. Moreover, record manufacturers were continually downgrading the quality of their vinyl stock in order to save money. There was no quality control on recordings produced. The technical manager at RCA in charge of pressings, well aware of the simplicity of improving quality, made a proposal to a senior VP to upgrade the pressing facilities with a corresponding increase in manufacturing cost of about $0.25 per disk. At that time, RCA had a policy of replacing any defective disk that was returned, no questions asked, and with that replacement came three free additional disks. The VP responded to the technical manager with a challenge: collect the statistics on returned disks as evidence that customers cared about quality recordings. To make a long story short, there were no returned disks. And RCA did not upgrade their pressing plants. |
zmix wrote on Fri, 28 January 2011 06:29 | ||
I am a huge lover of perfectionism in audio and certainly there are some intensely driven individuals attempting to raise the bar, however, these claims for the Memory player are exceptionally vivid:
"Memory Purification"? (Nam Myoho Rhenge Kyo... etc) "Jittered Areas"? (Hey! look! you can actually see that this CD has 'em!!!) Seriously? iTunes performs multi pass error correction functions as a matter of routine when reading a disc...and performs playback from (you guessed it!) memory... |
mgod wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 00:33 |
Oh OK, then - I'm just using a pc running iTunes. Good to know. Curiosity satisfied. |
zmix wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 06:56 | ||
Dan, how different than a computer reclocking data from memory is the memory player? |
mgod wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 16:45 |
Jesus, Jon - do you spend all your time reading and believing webpages? |
Quote: |
My guess is you spend none at all. |
Quote: |
I am neither an insider nor an outsider on this one, but trust me or don't, on this one you are very much an outsider. |
Quote: |
I don't care how many millienia you have on the topic. First, use your ears. If they tell you this thing is exactly the same as some off-the-shelf computer running iTunes, then we have nothing to discuss. |
Quote: |
One of us is living off-planet. If they tell you that you are experiencing something you haven't before, which so far everyone on this forum who has heard it has experienced, then you might have an obligation to yourself, not to me or to the people selling this thing, to try to understand what is afoot. |
Quote: |
I don't look at the site that has you guys so freaked out any more than I look at ads in magazines, but I'm pretty sure it exists for one reason - to get the people who are the audience for it, people willing to spend serious cash to have a great time listening to music at home, interested enough to seek it out. I.E. not you. |
Quote: |
But notice that every time I mention the thing Chuck jumps in here with some critique of the advertising, yet even though he lives in the biggest city in the world where he could almost certainly find one to hear, he has made no effort to do it. So what should I conclude - we have a small group of people who simply know better, even though the world keeps changing. It must feel great. |
Quote: |
Jon, you imply a position that all that can be known is known (and by you), therefor there is nothing new. Fine, you are an insider. |
Quote: |
You do understand this is not my loss, right? I have the thing and am enjoying it every day. |
Quote: |
I don't sweat hi-res downloads like all the audiophiles do. I get that experience now from standard red-book. The world of digital has changed, I listen to it every day, I'm reporting it to you for your benefit, and you and Chuck and now Andy insist that it can't be true. Dan Farris, Ross, and David have heard it, said it, but no, you guys say it can't be. You haven't heard it and say it simply can't be anything other than iTunes. OK. For you, the thing doesn't exist. You know better. |
Quote: |
I give up. I'm going to listen to some music on my non-existent magic box on my magic speakers. I'm listening to some of Ryan Moore's Twilight Circus mp3s right now - but if you guys tell me this is what iTunes sounds like on a computer, I guess you must be right. (I do have iTunes on it, btw). I'll re-iterate: anyone on this forum - with one exception - is welcome here to prove to themselves how run-of-the-mill this thing is. I will say, I've always been surprised how little professionals care about this sort of thing. Its all of a piece to me. I love playing music, recording music and listening to music, and want every part of that to be as deep an experience as I can make it. If I can listen to McCartney or Casady with a similar sense of proximity that I get with my own work, or by sitting next to my own amp, I'm happy. Its been my best teacher. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 09:19 |
Perhaps to you the only question that matters is whether or not it sounds good to you. For me an equally important question is "Why does it sound so good?", and much worse than no answer is a wrong or dishonest one, because that moves understanding backwards. |
mgod wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 17:46 |
"But wouldn't the whole world of audio be better served if we knew WHY it sounds so good," Yes, it certainly would. Maybe some day they'll talk about it, but certainly not til the patent thing is done. If it holds up it has implications for far more than audio. In the meantime, no matter how much you may regard yourself as an insider, you're not. And the thing is vastly different from iTunes, which to my mind was a spectacularly silly question, but at least Chuck asked it with a certain naive honesty. You answered it - wrongly, inaccurately untruthfully - with an outsider's lack of knowledge. You said "It isn't". But it is. Its very possible the world has moved on past what you know - it has to happen to everyone eventually - and their advertising isn't going to tell you what's in the unicorn sandwich. |
Quote: |
Its also possible that its all hooey, and they've simply figured out how to do all the conventional stuff right before anyone else did. That in itself distinguishes it from iTunes and would merit your attention. |
Quote: |
There's no point arguing over whether you believe me or not. I trust that you do. But you're attempting to authoritatively discuss something beyond your experience and your frame of reference is possibly antiquated. |
mgod wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 17:46 |
"But wouldn't the whole world of audio be better served if we knew WHY it sounds so good," Yes, it certainly would. Maybe some day they'll talk about it, but certainly not til the patent thing is done. If it holds up it has implications for far more than audio. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 10:15 | ||
When did they submit the patents? |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 10:05 | ||
Dan, the stuff I'm talking about is not beyond my experience, this is what you don't grasp. |
mgod wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 18:21 | ||||
No idea, its not my business. My suspicion is, assuming they get their patents, they still won't do much about discussing this stuff, because who wants to spend all your money defending them? |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 10:05 |
You seem to be taking my response out of context... I was not saying it sounded the same as any other computer running iTunes. I responded to Chuck's question "how different than a computer reclocking data from memory is the memory player" in the context of his previous comments, which is specifically referring to the claims about reclocking. Now, if you're in a position to judge my knowledge on this matter, and thus accuse me of answering innaccuratetly and more insultingly, "untruthfully", then please elaborate. We both know you're not. |
mgod wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 18:32 | ||
Lets try it this way - strictly in the limits of how you interpret Chuck's question (which btw is not how I read the question). Is there only one possible way of reclocking? Is it an absolute necessity that if the MP is reclocking data from memory that it has to be identical to iTunes? I read Chuck's question more broadly. Only he could tell us what he meant. But even if we limit the interpretation to how you read it, to be truthful your answer has to mean that the the MP is doing exactly what iTunes does. Since you've never been inside it, that has to mean that there is only one way to do it. Have I got this right so far? |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Wed, 16 February 2011 06:58 |
Aaaaaaaaaaaand my thread has been hijacked by people debating miniscule sonic differences between converters. I have an admission to make. When it comes to the delivery medium, I can't tell the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. I can't even tell the difference between a 192 kbps MP3 and linear 24/96 most of the time. I can tell the difference between digital and tape, but digital is pretty much ALWAYS vaguely unsatisfactory. |
Fenris Wulf wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 22:58 |
Aaaaaaaaaaaand my thread has been hijacked by people debating miniscule sonic differences between converters. I have an admission to make. When it comes to the delivery medium, I can't tell the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. I can't even tell the difference between a 192 kbps MP3 and linear 24/96 most of the time. I can tell the difference between digital and tape, but digital is pretty much ALWAYS vaguely unsatisfactory. |
mgod wrote on Tue, 15 February 2011 11:32 | ||
Lets try it this way - strictly in the limits of how you interpret Chuck's question (which btw is not how I read the question). Is there only one possible way of reclocking? Is it an absolute necessity that if the MP is reclocking data from memory that it has to be identical to iTunes? |
mgod wrote on Fri, 18 February 2011 16:01 |
Up is down. Jitter was a solved problem, because it didn't exist. And certainly didn't affect the internet. Then it did, and explained why things could sound better, and knowing that, was addressed. But it was solved before it was found. But, what the hell: down is up. All known knowns are known. |
mgod wrote on Fri, 18 February 2011 13:47 |
I just posted a long response and am deleting it. At this point I can't talk any more about this. |
Andy Peters wrote on Fri, 18 February 2011 17:06 |
Dan, taking your marbles and going home isn't going to help you understand what Jon and I are trying to explain. -a |