Sony CDP101 repair

[Phil Allison]

ohg...@gmail.com wrote:

-------------------------

** Can't let that pile of idiotic bull shite 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.


Bullshit.

** 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 fuckwit.

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 fuck yourslef.

You're first class, raving lunatic.




..... Phil

 

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 fuckwit". 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 fuck yourslef.

Not possible, but thank you for asking kindly.

You're first class, raving lunatic.

Raving? Note to myself to turn off my webcam....

 

[Phil Allison]

ohg...@gmail.com 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 fuckwit".

** But an ignoramus like you absolutely qualifies for that the title.

Kindly go and fuck yourslef.


Not possible,

** Yes it is.

Put a gun to your head and pull the trigger.

That will fuck you.




..... Phil

 

[Chris Jones]

On 02/06/2017 04:33, ohger1s@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 9:42:14 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
ohg...@gmail.com 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 shite 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.


Bullshit. 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.

This page has a pretty good discussion of it:

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

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 fuck 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....

 

[Daniel Mandic]

ohger1s@gmail.com 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

 

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 6:15:56 PM UTC-4, Daniel Mandic wrote:

ohger1s@gmail.com 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.

 

[Phil Allison]

ohg...@gmail.com is a vile TROLL:

------------------------------

Daniel Mandic

** BEWARE: Daniel is a drive by, trolling fuckwit.


> 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, fuckwit 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

 

ohg...@gmail.com:


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(!)

 

[None]

< thekma @ shortbus.dumbuck.edu > puked in message
news:671c9d83-d855-4ab5-a8e6-a52c55967df7@googlegroups.com...

... 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.

 

[Phil Allison]

thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

-----------------------

Redbook CD just adequately covers the human
range of hearing.

** It way more than adequately covers it.


You know nothing, bullshitting fuckwit.


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 - fuckwit.

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 fuck all was pure digital, it was mostly fucking tape based SHIT.

FYI:


Checked you far arse lately ???

Got any idea where that foul SMOKE is coming from ??





....... Phil

 

" BUT sweet fuck all was pure digital, it was mostly fucking tape based SHIT. "


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.

 

[Phil Allison]

thekma...@gmail.com 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

 

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 6:13:39 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

thekma...@gmail.com 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.

 

[Phil Allison]

ohg...@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, but with a qualification.

** My question was not addressed to you.

So why don't you go drop dead.



..... Phil

 

ohg...@gmail.com wrote: " is, they use instruments that are already heavily processed and are inherently dynamic
in nature. "


"Heavily processed" and "inherently dynamic"

Contradiction in terms?

 

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 8:25:58 PM UTC-4, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

ohg...@gmail.com 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.

 

ohg...@gmail.com 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.

 

[None]

< thekma @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a13e9969-8dc6-473a-8b37-c6bf6f2457be@googlegroups.com...

ohg...@gmail.com 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.

 

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 7:38:44 AM UTC-4, thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

ohg...@gmail.com 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.