Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!mwm
From: mwm@ucbvax.ARPA (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: zen and the art...stardate 850530.10
Message-ID: <7730@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 16:10:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.7730
Posted: Mon Jun  3 16:10:20 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 03:38:28 EDT
References: <1257@houxm.UUCP> <361@petrus.UUCP>
Reply-To: mwm@ucbvax.UUCP (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 24

In article <361@petrus.UUCP> karn@petrus.UUCP writes:
>I stick by my original assertions:
>
>1. Any audible differences between CD players (assuming proper functioning
>of each, i.e., a good stream of bits being presented to each D/A converter)
>remain to be proven.

Correct: remains to be proven. Not "doesn't exist". One of these days,
I'm going to decide for myself

>2. The worst CD player (assuming no outright malfunction) is far better, in
>every possible way, at the specific job of reproducing the exact signal at
>the output of the studio console mixer than even the best LP player.  You
>may not like how the studio mixer output sounds, but that's not the CD
>player's fault.

Ah, but if you apply your previous criteria (audible differences), then
a good LP/tonearm combo is *as good*, if not better, than a CD player.
Yes, the CD specs to 22KHz are much better, but the distortion in a good
analog system is inaudible anyway (excluding the record surface, of
course). Likewise, the audio system specs are *much* better above 22KHz,
which may or may not be audible.

	<mike