Source units affect sound?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<<Ah, but that's what most people who buy those magazines want to read.
Atkinson and Pearson would starve if they tried to satisfy the likes of
you!>>

Well then I guess the biggest difference between me and most people is
that I don't need a magazine reviewer to do my ear's job for me. I can
tell what sounds like what all on my own.

 

[ban]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

hasenpfeffer wrote:
> I have never quite understood the philosophy behind $5K players. They
> usually are very heavy, shock absorption everywhere, heavy heavy
> transport, solid mechanisms, exotic materials and what have you. A
> lot of money is being spent on a superior design with, as far as I
> can tell, the goal to read the CD without any bit errors. And that's
> fine. But, wouldn't it be cheaper and better to take a 48x CD rom
> drive, read the material a few times as soon as the CD is inserted,
> compare the digital data, error check and what have you, store the
> data in memory which is not prone to errors due to vibrations and
> play it back from a memory buffer? Especially when taking a fast CD
> Rom, the data can be read many times and compared and checked and
> errors can be eliminated while the CD is playing. No need to have a
> real time stream that can have errors directly from the optical
> pick-up element in the CD player to the output of the DAC. The player
> could even let you know exactly when there is a read-out error on the
> CD that can't be corrected. I would say a design like that is
> superior to an on-the-fly processing type CD player, and can achieve
> lower bit error rates, most likely completely eliminating errors
> while under $1K, even with enough RAM to store the entire CD content.
>

This is what ExactAudioCopy does, a free downloadable PC-program. To find
the right settings I experimented with read speeds and error correction by
multiple reading. My results with a cheap AOpen52x burner (27 Euro) were
very promising. Even at maximum speed single read, on almost all CDs that i
tried, there was not a single bit different from 4x read at 4times speed, so
there doesn't seem the need for multiple reads. One home-burnt CDRom of bad
quality media would make a difference, in the fast read mode there were
several "jumps" and muted passages, 3 titles were drpped etc., which still
came out on the paranoid setting.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:csef5601tem@news1.newsguy.com...
>> normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
>> >>>> On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good"
> as
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> $500 one, then it would be good to just say so.
>> >
>> > There's been much talk here about the differences between $5k and $500
> CD
>> > players. I'd be interested in hearing from those who think there isn't
> much
>> > audible difference. How low can one go with the low priced unit before
>> > you're not willing to make the same statement?
>> >
>> > I own CD players that cost me $9, $10, $25, $30 & $150. The $10 player
> (a
>> > portable) had many grave design defects; I consider it a failure. But
> the
>> > other ones sound identical--identical to each other, and identical to a
> Rega
>> > Planet to which they were compared. Not just to me, but also to other
>> > people with excellent hearing who were strongly motivated to detect a
>> > difference.
>> >
>> > Norm
>> >
>>
>> I have a Pioneer universal player that costs about $130, and I can't
>> tell that apart from another much more expensive player *after* I made
>> sure that the output levels are matched. It is very easy to tell
>> differences if they don't have the same levels, and I suspect that is
>> what happens when you listen to them in the showroom.
>>
>> Mr. Lavo raved about a Panasonic player that sold for less than $100, so
>> that's another data point.
>
> I raved about it, but that doesn't mean I can't tell it from other players.
> I commented on both its transparency and its concommitant "leaness". These
> are distinquishing characteristics that set it apart from many other
> players. I was most impressed with the transparency, as this is much more
> rare in inexpensive players than in more expensive gear. For example, the
> Arcam DV-79 @ $1500 has this same level of transparency but without much of
> the leaness. And therefore sounds even better.

Sorry, I forgot that every CD player sounds different to you .

On the other hand, the fact that you raved about a $100 player means
that it is possible to implement a good power supply in an inexpensive
player, no? So you really can't say that the difference between
"high-end" and "mid-fi" is in the power supply which shows up in "upper
bass or lower midrange", since obviously you find the $100 Panasonic as
good or better than some much more expensive players.

>
>> I also read the Stereophile review on the Apple iPod, and it measured
>> very well against stand-alone CD players, playing uncompressed files. I
>> suspect that there may be some detectible degradations in the cheap
>> portables, though.
>

 

[Michael]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

MINe 109 wrote:

> I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
> ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
> wrong?


Who knows? What design differences could be relevant to the sound
differences you claim to hear?


If one unit has gross FR variations or audible and unpleasant distortion
artifacts due to its design then I guess you could be correct in your
thinking. I have heard tell of designs where the idea was to roll off
high frequencies, but I'm guessing that very few CD players exhibit this
kind of gross anomaly. In any case, anyone paying extra for missing
highs is being cheated; they'd be better off with something cheaper and,
instead, using tone controls if they have them.


On the other hand, I once read a review in one of the 'high-end' mags:
an amplifier where the 'designer' claimed that changing a bit of
internal wiring on the capacitors (from a few inches of Monster Cable to
a few inches of something else) made a 'big' difference in the amp's
'sound'. If that is an example of the kind of design difference you
mean then I'd say you are probably wrong in your thinking.


michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:

<snip>

> Because there is a tendency here to assume that anybody who hears
> differences is kidding themselves, and that most likely there is no
> difference unless we are talking about phono cartridges or
loudspeakers.
> That "standard" is applied to turntables, tonearms, tuners, CD
players,
> amplifiers almost without discrimination.

Not at all true. Turntables and tuners can often be distinguished. Amps
and CDPs generally not, but that doesn't mean that people who claim to
hear differences between them are kidding themselves. It takes careful
level-matching to make two such units sound identical, and I'll bet
most audiophiles don't whip out a voltmeter every time they try out a
new component. So the differences they hear are real; they just aren't
reflective of the sound quality of the two components.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article <cse46c015eq@news3.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
> > MINe 109 wrote:
> >
> > > I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b,
although I
> > > ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money."
Am I
> > > wrong?
> >
> > You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is
subpar,
> > and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be audible?
>
> I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of analysis.

In that case, you're on shaky ground ascribing the difference to
"design," aren't you?

>The
> Arcam has a more advanced DAC and a heftier power supply, plus it's
in a
> silver box instead of a brown one.

It's the silver that does it, you know!
>
> > And while we're at it, how do you know you aren't just imaging a
> > difference between them? Happens all the time.
>
> Frequency response is likely different. Hearing "Elephant Talk" on
the
> AMC was akin to hearing a completely different mix.
>
In that case, you should definitely junk it. There's no excuse for FR
problems in a CD player.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<<Another possibility is that he is hearing a real difference--the
result
of differences in output levels between the two units. If one is even
imperceptibly louder than the other, this could easily affect his
preference for one over the other.>>

Although I can't deny this as a possibility, I've heard enough units to
believe that there isn't any difference as far as levels are concerned
between any 2 players for there to be an overtly audible difference
between the two.

<<I can't prove this, but I've often suspected that audiophiles
subconsciously tweak the volume control to favor the unit they "want"
to sound better.>>

Well, if someone is "tweaking" equipment somehwere along the line than
it invalidates the test, that's as good as cheating.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<<And isn't this exactly the problem with all sighted evaluations? Any
visual difference, or any known difference between the units under
test, establishes a reason to believe [audible] differences would
exist.>>

This is what I found. Regardless of which connections we were using
(analof or optical), when we switched between players without the
listeners knowing which players we were using, they couldn't identify
ANY sonic differences. During a 2nd phase, we told the people which
player we were using, and they suddenly developed the ability to detect
differences because they knew when we were using a more expensive
player. During a third phase, we kept the listeners blind, and would
start with the least expensive player...we would then tell the people
that we were switching to a considerablly more expensive player, but
would in fact simply re-start the SAME unit, and they a few of them
claimed to hear differences! That was the breaker for me, it became
plain and obvious that people were "hearing" differences when they
knew, or at least *thought* that we had switched players.

<<And isn't this exactly the problem with all sighted evaluations? Any
visual difference, or any known difference between the units under
test, establishes a reason to believe [audible] differences would
exist.>>

And if you're the type of person who's mental status always makes it
seem as though the more expensive unit is really producing better
sound, then you'll always want the more expensive unit. I'm personally
willing to except the limitations of the human ear.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <cshrrl02tii@news4.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article <cse46c015eq@news3.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> > > MINe 109 wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b,
> although I
> > > > ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money."
> Am I
> > > > wrong?
> > >
> > > You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is
> subpar,
> > > and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be audible?
> >
> > I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of analysis.
>
> In that case, you're on shaky ground ascribing the difference to
> "design," aren't you?

I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to
build one.

> >The
> > Arcam has a more advanced DAC and a heftier power supply, plus it's
> in a
> > silver box instead of a brown one.
>
> It's the silver that does it, you know!

But of course.

> > > And while we're at it, how do you know you aren't just imaging a
> > > difference between them? Happens all the time.
> >
> > Frequency response is likely different. Hearing "Elephant Talk" on
> > the AMC was akin to hearing a completely different mix.
> >
> In that case, you should definitely junk it. There's no excuse for FR
> problems in a CD player.

I've been using it as a transport in another system instead.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 18 Jan 2005 02:22:07 GMT, "OneActor1@aol.com" <OneActor1@aol.com>
wrote:

><<Another possibility is that he is hearing a real difference--the result
>of differences in output levels between the two units. If one is even
>imperceptibly louder than the other, this could easily affect his
>preference for one over the other.>>
>
>Although I can't deny this as a possibility, I've heard enough units to
>believe that there isn't any difference as far as levels are concerned
>between any 2 players for there to be an overtly audible difference
>between the two.

Your belief is without substance. It is well known that, while 2V rms
is the 'standard' output for CD players, real values from player to
player vary by up to 6dB. It is generally acknowledged that a 0.5dB
difference will be heard by most listeners - but as a difference in
*quality*, not loudness.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:cshqbu02o72@news3.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> > news:csef5601tem@news1.newsguy.com...
> >> normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> >> >>>> On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as
good"
> > as
> >> >>>>> a
> >> >>>>> $500 one, then it would be good to just say so.
> >> >
> >> > There's been much talk here about the differences between $5k and
$500
> > CD
> >> > players. I'd be interested in hearing from those who think there
isn't
> > much
> >> > audible difference. How low can one go with the low priced unit
before
> >> > you're not willing to make the same statement?
> >> >
> >> > I own CD players that cost me $9, $10, $25, $30 & $150. The $10
player
> > (a
> >> > portable) had many grave design defects; I consider it a failure.
But
> > the
> >> > other ones sound identical--identical to each other, and identical to
a
> > Rega
> >> > Planet to which they were compared. Not just to me, but also to
other
> >> > people with excellent hearing who were strongly motivated to detect a
> >> > difference.
> >> >
> >> > Norm
> >> >
> >>
> >> I have a Pioneer universal player that costs about $130, and I can't
> >> tell that apart from another much more expensive player *after* I made
> >> sure that the output levels are matched. It is very easy to tell
> >> differences if they don't have the same levels, and I suspect that is
> >> what happens when you listen to them in the showroom.
> >>
> >> Mr. Lavo raved about a Panasonic player that sold for less than $100,
so
> >> that's another data point.
> >
> > I raved about it, but that doesn't mean I can't tell it from other
players.
> > I commented on both its transparency and its concommitant "leaness".
These
> > are distinquishing characteristics that set it apart from many other
> > players. I was most impressed with the transparency, as this is much
more
> > rare in inexpensive players than in more expensive gear. For example,
the
> > Arcam DV-79 @ $1500 has this same level of transparency but without much
of
> > the leaness. And therefore sounds even better.
>
> Sorry, I forgot that every CD player sounds different to you .

Not all, but many do.

>
> On the other hand, the fact that you raved about a $100 player means
> that it is possible to implement a good power supply in an inexpensive
> player, no? So you really can't say that the difference between
> "high-end" and "mid-fi" is in the power supply which shows up in "upper
> bass or lower midrange", since obviously you find the $100 Panasonic as
> good or better than some much more expensive players.
>
> >

Actually what I said was I suspected that the unit was fueled by powerDAC's.
The leaness in the bass may very well be related to power supply.

>snip<

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article <cshrrl02tii@news4.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
> > MINe 109 wrote:
> > > In article <cse46c015eq@news3.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > MINe 109 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b,
> > although I
> > > > > ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more
money."
> > Am I
> > > > > wrong?
> > > >
> > > > You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is
> > subpar,
> > > > and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be
audible?
> > >
> > > I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of
analysis.
> >
> > In that case, you're on shaky ground ascribing the difference to
> > "design," aren't you?
>
> I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to

> build one.

Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
differences between CD players tend not to have audible consequences. I
would trust their judgment over yours or mine.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <cskbse027d1@news2.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article <cshrrl02tii@news4.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> > > MINe 109 wrote:
> > > > In article <cse46c015eq@news3.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > MINe 109 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b,
> > > although I
> > > > > > ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more
> money."
> > > Am I
> > > > > > wrong?
> > > > >
> > > > > You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is
> > > subpar,
> > > > > and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be
> audible?
> > > >
> > > > I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of
> analysis.
> > >
> > > In that case, you're on shaky ground ascribing the difference to
> > > "design," aren't you?
> >
> > I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to
>
> > build one.
>
> Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
> participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
> differences between CD players tend not to have audible consequences. I
> would trust their judgment over yours or mine.

I'd hate to be stuck with unsatisfactory gear because some engineer
somewhere doesn't think audible consequences possible. I find it more
reassuring when an engineer with a respectable audio track record points
out things that can go wrong, like the pro-audio guy who found that
cheap dvd players had clipped outputs due to poorly implemented DACs.

One selling point of the Arcam is the RingDAC, which was sourced from
dCS, who may be presumed to know something about design.

Stephen

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

MINe 109 wrote:
>
>>
>> Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
>> participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
>> differences between CD players tend not to have audible consequences. I
>> would trust their judgment over yours or mine.
>
> I'd hate to be stuck with unsatisfactory gear because some engineer
> somewhere doesn't think audible consequences possible. I find it more
> reassuring when an engineer with a respectable audio track record points
> out things that can go wrong, like the pro-audio guy who found that
> cheap dvd players had clipped outputs due to poorly implemented DACs.

That would show up clearly as THD (total harmonic distortion) in
measurements. If you were to look at measurements of CD players, you
will have a hard time finding any player with significant distortion,
say above 0.05%. The DVD player you mentioned, if indeed your pro-audio
guy was correct, is a very rare exception.

>
> One selling point of the Arcam is the RingDAC, which was sourced from
> dCS, who may be presumed to know something about design.

Question, of course, is why would the other CD player(AMC) be noticeably
worse in a listening test. Looking at the specs, there is nothing that
indicates it would not be sonically accurate. Certainly the Burr-Brown
96/24 DAC's are very good performers.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article <cskbse027d1@news2.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com
wrote:
> > Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
> > participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
> > differences between CD players tend not to have audible
consequences. I
> > would trust their judgment over yours or mine.
>
> I'd hate to be stuck with unsatisfactory gear because some engineer
> somewhere doesn't think audible consequences possible.

I wouldn't take the word of one engineer either--unless the alternative
was to take the word of a non-engineer! But every effect has a cause,
and if you can't find any expert anywhere who can explain the cause,
it's time to consider the possibility that you're misreading the
effect.

> I find it more
> reassuring when an engineer with a respectable audio track record
points
> out things that can go wrong, like the pro-audio guy who found that
> cheap dvd players had clipped outputs due to poorly implemented DACs.

Missed that. Can you provide a reference?

> One selling point of the Arcam is the RingDAC, which was sourced from

> dCS, who may be presumed to know something about design.

There are presumably many ways to design DACs. What's debatable is
whether one way is enough better than another way to have audible
consequences.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>> I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to
>> build one.

You picked an unfortunate example. Grand pianos reached the zenith of their
design 100 years ago. Since that time, there have been almost no changes
that could be fairly described as important. Indeed, a minor change in the
way the strings are coupled to the bridge was the basis for an entirely new
piano company in Australia. One could swap the entire work force of 2
different piano companies, and manufacturing would resume with scarcely a
missed beat.

Norm Strong

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<<It is well known that, while 2V rms
is the 'standard' output for CD players, real values from player to
player vary by up to 6dB. It is generally acknowledged that a 0.5dB
difference will be heard by most listeners - but as a difference in
*quality*, not loudness.>>

I've heard 40 or 50 different CD players and couldn't - in blind
testing conditions - identify one from the other. Therefore my belief
has some substance to it. If there are players with boosted output
levels, I have not heard them. The Eclipse deck I use in my car, which
is also my CD transport, has 8 volt pre-amp outputs and is mated to a
high end Zapco amp. The 8 volt pre-amp outputs are said to be cleaner
than the 4 volt units used on MOST decks, although in all honesty, I
don't think they make any audible difference. Turning up the gain on my
amp makes an audible difference, but it has nothing to do with SOUND
QUALITY it's just like volume boosting. If CD manufacturers are using
some sort of gain to make their players louder, then it's a cheat, and
although in those instances it will make a player sound DIFFERENT
(maybe) it's not making the player sound BETTER. Furthur proof that
there is NO audible difference between players unless something is
WILLFULLY tampered with.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <csmv92026cj@news4.newsguy.com>, <normanstrong@comcast.net>
wrote:

> >> I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to
> >> build one.
>
> You picked an unfortunate example. Grand pianos reached the zenith of their
> design 100 years ago. Since that time, there have been almost no changes
> that could be fairly described as important. Indeed, a minor change in the
> way the strings are coupled to the bridge was the basis for an entirely new
> piano company in Australia. One could swap the entire work force of 2
> different piano companies, and manufacturing would resume with scarcely a
> missed beat.

100 years ago one could buy an American Steinway (the "zenith" to which
you refer), or a piano with a Viennese action, or a straight-strung
Erard with under-dampers.

Perhaps you are unaware of the piano-copying cottage industry. With
enough money and enough lead time, one can purchase a copy or a
restoration of a piano built in the 19th or 18th centuries.

Unfortunate, indeed.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <csmv6a02gq1@news2.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article <cskbse027d1@news2.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com
> wrote:
> > > Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
> > > participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
> > > differences between CD players tend not to have audible
> consequences. I
> > > would trust their judgment over yours or mine.
> >
> > I'd hate to be stuck with unsatisfactory gear because some engineer
> > somewhere doesn't think audible consequences possible.
>
> I wouldn't take the word of one engineer either--unless the alternative
> was to take the word of a non-engineer! But every effect has a cause,
> and if you can't find any expert anywhere who can explain the cause,
> it's time to consider the possibility that you're misreading the
> effect.

"Trust me: I'm an EE," that kind of thing? Sounds like arguing from
authority, especially if I'm told I'm not qualified to have an opinion.

> > I find it more
> > reassuring when an engineer with a respectable audio track record
> points
> > out things that can go wrong, like the pro-audio guy who found that
> > cheap dvd players had clipped outputs due to poorly implemented DACs.
>
> Missed that. Can you provide a reference?

It was Ken Kantor on rec.audio.pro, about two years ago.

> > One selling point of the Arcam is the RingDAC, which was sourced from
>
> > dCS, who may be presumed to know something about design.
>
> There are presumably many ways to design DACs. What's debatable is
> whether one way is enough better than another way to have audible
> consequences.

I doubt I could tell an Elgar from my CD23.

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <csmv3e02gn4@news2.newsguy.com>, Chung <chunglau@covad.net>
wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
> >> participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
> >> differences between CD players tend not to have audible consequences. I
> >> would trust their judgment over yours or mine.
> >
> > I'd hate to be stuck with unsatisfactory gear because some engineer
> > somewhere doesn't think audible consequences possible. I find it more
> > reassuring when an engineer with a respectable audio track record points
> > out things that can go wrong, like the pro-audio guy who found that
> > cheap dvd players had clipped outputs due to poorly implemented DACs.
>
> That would show up clearly as THD (total harmonic distortion) in
> measurements. If you were to look at measurements of CD players, you
> will have a hard time finding any player with significant distortion,
> say above 0.05%. The DVD player you mentioned, if indeed your pro-audio
> guy was correct, is a very rare exception.

Apparently it did. However, even Consumer Reports implied some cheap dvd
players sounded different, the "fix" being a twist of the treble knob.

> > One selling point of the Arcam is the RingDAC, which was sourced from
> > dCS, who may be presumed to know something about design.
>
> Question, of course, is why would the other CD player(AMC) be noticeably
> worse in a listening test. Looking at the specs, there is nothing that
> indicates it would not be sonically accurate. Certainly the Burr-Brown
> 96/24 DAC's are very good performers.

That was my thought when I bought it by mail. I imagine the problem may
be related to poor construction/assembly, but I would expect gross
problems rather than subtle ones from that.

Stephen