Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!michaelk From: michaelk@tekmdp.UUCP (Michael Kersenbrock) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Right.On,Greg! Message-ID: <2152@tekmdp.UUCP> Date: Fri, 19-Aug-83 15:52:04 EDT Article-I.D.: tekmdp.2152 Posted: Fri Aug 19 15:52:04 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Aug-83 08:57:22 EDT References: whuxk.254 Lines: 28 In reference to the CD vs Linn (analogue) test that Linn did. . . Some of you may have noticed the Linn ad in Audio magazine that quotes some of those golden-eared folk that tested the CD vs. their turntable. One of them said something like "the CD sounded better that I thought it would but ...". I think this is extraordinary of Linn to publish that quote in their ad, because it points out very dramatically and graphically that the deck was stacked, and the results preordained. The results could be valid even if the "test" wasn't because, some CD *discs* ARE rather poor. What the ad tells me is that Linn is aware that they are in big trouble. They are acting in what appears to be in desparation awful early in the "battle". Also note that the ringing seen in both in the 1Khz square wave CD reviews and even more so in MC cartridge reviews is not 1Khz ringing, but more like 20 Khz ringing in response to the step function presented by the 1 Khz *square wave* test signal. I agree that we need numerical means to tell CD players apart -- in as much -- we are now starting to have some of the same problems of telling apart amplifiers that have THD's of 0.001% and 0.0008%. By the way, when these (listening) tests are done, are they using new LP disks being played for the first time or are these that have been played & handled for 5 years (and perhaps cleaned of dust a time or few over the years, etc) when compared with a CD? (where 5 years of *continuous* playing wouldn't touch the disk although the player may get a bit tired). Mike (an obvious CD owner) Kersenbrock Tektronix Microcomputer Development Products Aloha, Oregon